[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1541-1544]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00210]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73991; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-108]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price List
To Eliminate Transaction Fees for Midpoint Passive Liquidity Orders
That Remove Liquidity From the Exchange and That are Designated With a
``Retail'' Modifier as Defined in Rule 13--Equities

January 6, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 22, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 its Price List to eliminate
transaction fees for Midpoint Passive Liquidity (``MPL'') Orders that
remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated with a
``retail'' modifier as defined in Rule 13--Equities. The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee change effective January 2, 2015. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to eliminate
transaction fees for MPL Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange
and that are designated with a ``retail'' modifier as defined in Rule
13--Equities (``Rule 13''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee
change effective January 2, 2015.
    For securities priced $1.00 or greater, the Exchange currently
charges a fee of $0.0028 per share for all MPL Orders \4\ that remove
liquidity from the NYSE MKT. For non-ETP securities traded pursuant to
unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'') priced at $1.00 or greater, the
Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0030 for all MPL Orders that
remove liquidity from the Exchange. For ETPs traded pursuant to UTP,
the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0029 for all MPL Orders that
remove liquidity from the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to eliminate
the fee for MPL Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange that are
designated with a ``retail'' modifier as defined in Rule 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ MPL Order is defined in Rule 13 as an undisplayed limit
order that automatically executes at the mid-point of the protected
best bid or offer (``PBBO'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be eligible for the proposed pricing for MPL Orders, an MPL
Order would need to meet the requirements to be designated as
``retail'' pursuant to Rule 13. An order designated as ``retail'' under
Rule 13 is an agency or riskless principal order that meets the
criteria of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. Rule 5320.03
and that (1) originates from a natural person and (2) is submitted to
the Exchange by a member organization, provided that no change is made
to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and
the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An order designated as ``retail'' under Rule 13 is separate
and distinct from a ``Retail Order'' within the Retail Liquidity
Program under Rule 107C. The proposed rule change solely concerns
orders designated as ``retail'' pursuant to Rule 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To submit an order with a ``retail'' modifier, a member or member
organization must submit an attestation, in a form prescribed by the
Exchange, that substantially all orders submitted as ``retail'' will
qualify as such. Further, Rule 13 requires a member organization to
have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to assure that
it will only designate orders as ``retail'' if all requirements are
met.\6\ In addition, a member organization would be required to
designate such MPL Order as ``retail'' pursuant to Rule 13.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Such written policies and procedures require the member
organization to (1) exercise due diligence before entering a
``retail'' order to assure that entry as a ``retail'' order is in
compliance with the applicable requirements, and (2) monitor whether
orders entered as ``retail'' orders meet the applicable
requirements. If a member organization represents ``retail'' orders
from another broker-dealer customer, the member organization's
supervisory procedures must be reasonably designed to assure that
the orders it receives from such broker-dealer customer that it
designates as ``retail'' orders meet the definition of a ``retail''
order. The member organization must (i) obtain an annual written
representation, in a form acceptable to the Exchange, from each
broker-dealer customer that sends it orders to be designated as
``retail'' orders that entry of such orders as ``retail'' orders
will be in compliance with the applicable requirements; and (ii)
monitor whether its broker-dealer customer's ``retail'' order flow
meets the applicable requirements.
    \7\ Currently, a member organization may designate an order as
``retail'' either by means of a specific tag in the order entry
message, as with other order modifiers, or by designating a
particular member or member organization mnemonic used at the
Exchange as a ``retail mnemonic.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to retain the fee for MPL Orders that remove
liquidity from the Exchange but that are not designated with a
``retail'' modifier at the current rates. The proposed amended Price
List would distinguish MPL Orders that remove liquidity and that are
designated as ``retail'' under Rule 13, which would not be charged a
fee, from MPL Orders that remove liquidity and that are not designated
as ``retail'' under Rule 13, and which would continue to be charged the
existing fee for MPL Orders that take liquidity. The Exchange proposes
to make comparable amendments to the Price List relating to pricing
applicable to Floor broker executions of MPL Orders.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that members and
member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that removing a fee for MPL Orders that
remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated as
``retail'' is reasonable because it will encourage the submission of
orders that meet the requirements to be designated as ``retail'' to the
Exchange, thus enhancing order execution opportunities for all
participants, but specifically retail investors. The ``retail''
modifier under Rule 13 along with its pricing is designed to
incentivize the submission of additional retail order flow to a public
market like the Exchange.\10\ Moreover, the Exchange believes that
markets and price discovery optimally function through the interactions
of diverse flow types, and also believes that growth in internalization
has required differentiation of retail order flow from other order flow
types. As the Exchange has previously noted, a significant percentage
of the orders of individual investors are executed over-the-
counter.\11\ The Exchange accordingly further believes that the
proposed change is reasonable because it would contribute to
maintaining or increasing the proportion of retail flow in Exchange-
listed securities that are executed on a registered national securities
exchange, rather than executing in off-exchange venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72252 (May 27, 2014),
79 FR 31368 (June 2, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-46) (introduction of
``retail'' modifier under Rule 13).
    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 71878 (April 4, 2014),
79 FR 19936 (April 10, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-25); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-73702 (Nov. 28, 2014), 79 FR
72049, 72051 (Dec. 4, 2014) (order approving NASDAQ OMX BX Retail
Price Improvement Program and noting that most marketable retail
order flow is executed in the over-the-counter markets, pursuant to
bilateral agreements, without ever reaching a public exchange) (``BX
Retail Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that while the proposed price change
would treat retail order flow differently from order flow submitted by
other market participants, such segmentation would not be inconsistent
with Section 6(b)(5)

of the Act,\12\ which requires that the rules of an exchange are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination. The Commission has previously
recognized that the markets generally distinguish between retail
investors, whose orders are considered desirable by liquidity providers
because such retail investors are presumed on average to be less
informed about short-term price movements, and professional traders,
whose orders are presumed on average to be more informed.\13\ The
Commission has further recognized that, because of this distinction,
liquidity providers are generally inclined to offer price improvement
to less informed retail orders than to more informed professional
orders.\14\ The Exchange believes that the differentiation proposed
herein is not designed to permit unfair discrimination, but instead is
reasonably designed to attract retail flow to the Exchange, while
helping to ensure that retail investors benefit from the better price
that liquidity providers are willing to give their orders. The Exchange
believes that the proposed increase of retail order flow to the
Exchange might also create a desirable opportunity for institutional
investors to interact with retail order flow that they are not able to
reach currently. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed
change would further promote a competitive process around retail
executions such that retail investors would receive better prices than
they currently do through bilateral internalization arrangements. The
Exchange believes that the transparency and competitiveness of the
proposed rule change on an exchange market would result in better
prices for retail investors.\15\ The proposed change is also equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it would contribute to
investors' confidence in the fairness of their transactions and because
it would benefit all investors by increasing the liquidity pool and
potential for price-improving executions at the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ See BX Retail Approval Order at 72051.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July
3, 2012), 77 FR 40673, 40680 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-84)
(order approving adoption of Retail Liquidity Program on a pilot
basis). The Exchange notes that other markets offer separate non-
tier and tiered pricing for retail orders, see NASDAQ Price List,
available at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2, and EDGX Exchange Fee Schedule,
available at http://www.directedge.com/trading/EDGXFeeSchedule.aspx,
as well as retail price improvement pricing for ``Retail Orders''
that remove displayed liquidity or mid-point peg liquidity. See BATS
BYX Exchange Fee Schedule, available at http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf
[sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the ability to designate MPL Orders as
``retail'' is available equally to all similarly situated members and
member organizations that submit qualifying orders and satisfy the
other related, existing requirements.
    The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive
forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would increase competition among execution venues and encourage
additional execution opportunities on the Exchange. For the same
reasons, the proposed change also would not impose any burden on
competition among market participants. The Exchange believes that while
it is the first to offer orders with a ``retail'' modifier the ability
to take at the mid-point for free through MPL Orders, providing
significant price improvement, the proposed change also permits the
Exchange to compete with other markets, including NASDAQ, which does
not charge but provides a credit for designated Retail Orders that take
liquidity in Retail Liquidity Provider programs,\17\ as well as over-
the-counter trading that offers mid-point executions at low fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70860 (November
13, 2013), 78 FR 69512 (November 19, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-138).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and
with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \18\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \19\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \20\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

NYSEMKT-2014-108 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-108. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and
on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEMKT-2014-108 and should be submitted
on or before February 2, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00210 Filed 1-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77648]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24951]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-317, OMB Control No. 3235-0360]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Form N-
17f-2

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Form N-17f-2 (17 CFR 274.220) under the Investment Company Act is
entitled ``Certificate of Accounting of Securities and Similar
Investments in the Custody of Management Investment Companies.'' Form
N-17f-2 is the cover sheet for the accountant examination certificates
filed under rule 17f-2 (17 CFR 270.17f-2) by registered management
investment companies (``funds'') maintaining custody of securities or
other investments. Form N-17f-2 facilitates the filing of the
accountant's examination certificates prepared under rule 17f-2. The
use of the form allows the certificates to be filed electronically, and
increases the accessibility of the examination certificates to both the
Commission's examination staff and interested investors by ensuring
that the certificates are filed under the proper Commission file number
and the correct name of a fund.
    Commission staff estimates that it takes: (i) on average 1.25 hours
of fund accounting personnel at a total cost of $315 to prepare each
Form N-17f-2; \1\ and (ii) .75 hours of administrative assistant time
at a total cost of $70.50 to file the Form N-17f-2 with the
Commission.\2\ Approximately 165 funds currently file Form N-17f-2 with
the Commission. Commission staff estimates that on average each fund
files Form N-17f-2 three times annually for a total annual hourly
burden per fund of approximately 6 hours at a total cost of $1,156.50.
The total annual hour burden for Form N-17f-2 is therefore estimated to
be approximately 990 hours with a total cost of approximately
$190,822.50.\3\ Form N-17f-2 does not impose any paperwork-related cost
burden other than this internal hour cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 1.25 x
$252 (fund senior accountant's hourly rate) = $315.
    \2\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: .75 x
$94 (administrative assistant hourly rate) = $70.50.
    \3\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 165
funds x $1,156.50 (total annual cost per fund) = $190,822.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Complying with the collections of
information required by Form N-17f-2 is mandatory for those funds that
maintain custody of their own assets. Responses will not be kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by December 13, 2023 to (i) [email protected]
and (ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities
and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: November 7, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24951 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 78285]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0071]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

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 is being forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments 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: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Timothy M. Pickrell, NHTSA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., W55-320, NVS-421,Washington, DC 20590. Mr.
Pickrell's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please identify the
relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control
Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before a Federal agency can collect certain
information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). In compliance with these requirements,
this notice announces that the following information collection request
has been forwarded to OMB. A Federal Register Notice soliciting
comments on the following information collection was published on July
30, 2015 (Volume 80, Number 146; Pages 45585-86). The agency received
no comments on the 60 day notice.
    Title: The National Survey on the Use of Booster Seats.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0644.
    Affected Public: Motorists in passenger vehicles at gas stations,
fast food restaurants, and other types of sites frequented by children
during the time in which the survey is conducted.
    Form Number: NHTSA Form 1010.
    Abstract: The National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats is being
conducted to respond to the Section 14(i) of the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 2000. The
act directs the Department of Transportation to reduce the deaths and
injuries among children in the 4 to 8 year old age group that are
caused by failure to use a booster seat by 25%. Conducting the National
Survey of the Use of Booster Seats provides the Department with
invaluable information on who is and is not using booster seats,
helping the Department better direct its outreach programs to ensure
that children are protected to the greatest degree possible when they
ride in motor vehicles. The OMB approval for this survey is scheduled
to expire on 1/31/16. NHTSA seeks an extension to this approval in
order to obtain this important survey data, save more children and help
to comply with the TREAD Act requirement.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 320 hours.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: Approximately 4,800 adult
motorists in passenger vehicles at gas stations, fast food restaurants,
and other types of sites frequented by children during the time in
which the survey is conducted.
    Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and 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.

Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator, National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2015-31633 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: March 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 53)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13059-13061]
[DOCID:fr20mr07-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0963; FRL-8289-4]

Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit Program Revision; New
Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the New Jersey title V Operating Permit Program
submitted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) on October 4, 2006. The New Jersey Operating Permit Program is
implemented through its Operating Permits Rule, codified at Subchapter
22 of Chapter 27 of Title 7 of the New Jersey Administrative Code. The
October 4, 2006 revision changes the title V fee program that funds the
New Jersey Operating Permit Program, and various sections of the
Operating Permits Rule relating to definitions, general provisions,
general application procedures, operating permit application contents
and completeness review. These changes resulted in both substantial and
nonsubstantial revisions to New Jersey's Operating Permit Program. EPA
is proposing to approve these revisions. The intended affect of this
action is to improve the State's Operating Permit Program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 19, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-
OAR-2006-0963, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2006-0963. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suilin Chan, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information
by addressing the following questions:

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (the Act) Amendments of 1990 required all states
to develop Operating Permit Programs pursuant to title V of the Act, 42
U.S.C. 7661-7661f, and the regulations promulgated under title V, which
are found at 40 CFR part 70. EPA granted interim approval (effective
June 17, 1996) of the Operating Permit Program submitted by New Jersey
in response to this directive. 61 FR 24715 (May 16, 1996); 40 CFR part
70, Appendix A. Effective November 30, 2001, EPA granted full approval
to New Jersey's title V Operating Permit Program. 66 FR 63168 (December
5, 2001).
    The current revision to the Operating Permits Rule adjusts the
title V fee schedules to conform with the Omnibus Legislation adopted
by the New Jersey state legislature in 2002, and ensures that requisite
funding needs of the New Jersey Operating Permit Program are met. The
revised Operating Permits Rule also includes changes that improve New
Jersey's Operating Permit Program. New Jersey submitted its program
revision request to the EPA on October 4, 2006. The revision request
describes the specific changes made to New Jersey's Operating Permits
Rule.

II. What Is Being Addressed in This Action?

    In today's action, EPA is proposing to approve revisions to
N.J.A.C. 7:27-22, as identified below, which NJDEP adopted

on June 9, 2006, and submitted to EPA for approval on October 4, 2006.

A. Definitions

    NJDEP revised N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1 to delete definitions that have
become unnecessary because of the changes made to the Operating Permits
Rule. The terms ``Category I'' and ``Category II'' are deleted because
they are no longer used by NJDEP in determining title V fees for
significant permit modifications under the new fee schedules.
Significant modifications used to be classified as ``Category I'' (for
which lesser fees were charged), or ``Category II'' (for which higher
fees were charged). The differences in fees were based on the
assumption that Category I source types are either not required to
meet, or have already met, ``state of the art'' emission control
requirements thereby obviating the need for review in this regard.
However, the revised rule eliminates this presumption. All applications
for significant permit modifications will be screened first to
determine what level of review is needed, which in turn determines the
amount of fees required pursuant to the revised fee schedules found at
N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(r) and (s).
    A definition for ``probe'' has been added to the definitions
section to aid in assessing the appropriate fees for stack test
protocol reviews. The amount of fees charged is based on the number of
probes used in the stack test.
    Definitions for ``registration,'' ``registration form,'' and
``registrant,'' are also added to the definitions section because these
terms are used in the new application procedures established under
N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.14. Facilities may apply for a general operating
permit by submitting the appropriate registration form.
    DEP also added to the definitions section the terms ``on-
specification used oil,'' ``space heater,'' and ``used oil'' as they
were defined in N.J.A.C. 7:27-20.1 (Used Oil Combustion Rule). These
terms were not previously defined in N.J.A.C. 7:27-22 and are now added
to maintain consistency between N.J.A.C. 7:27-20 and N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.

B. General Provisions

    DEP amended N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.3(rr) to clarify the application
procedures pertaining to environmental improvement pilot tests.
Previously, the rule stated that environmental improvement pilot test
approvals may be renewed by application but did not provide more
details on the renewal process. The revised rule clarifies that a new
application for preconstruction approval must be submitted if an
environmental improvement pilot test needs to be extended for up to an
additional 90 days after the expiration of the initially approved 90-
day period.

C. General Application Procedures

    NJDEP revised N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.4 to establish milestones for
phasing out paper application submissions, and phasing in electronic
submission of all applications, except for renewals. Electronic
submission includes a non-Internet-based electronic system known as
RADIUS, or an internet-based system known as e-NJEMS. The revisions in
this section of the rule provide incentives, such as lower fees, to
encourage electronic filing.

D. Operating Permit Application Contents

    NJDEP amended N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.6(a) to eliminate the requirement
that application fees be submitted with an application in order for it
to be deemed administratively complete. Fees are no longer required to
accompany an application. Instead, NJDEP will determine the appropriate
fees upon receipt of an application in accordance with the new fee
schedules found at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(r) and (s). The fee information
is forwarded to the Department of Treasury for billing and collection.

E. Completeness Review

    NJDEP amended N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.10(f) by replacing the word ``the''
before ``fee requirement'' with the word ``any.'' Under the revised
rule, certain applications require no fees. The word ``any'' is
intended to indicate that there may or may not be a fee required for an
application.

F. Title V Fees

    NJDEP revised N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g),
(h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (p), (r), (s), (t) and (u) to establish
or revise the Base and Supplementary Fee Schedules for various title V
permitting activities in order to conform with the Omnibus Fee
Legislation of 2002, and to assure adequate funding for New Jersey's
title V Operating Permit Program. NJDEP deleted all provisions that
applied to past fiscal years and added new provisions in accordance
with the new fee schedules. A summary of the changes made to N.J.A.C.
7:27-22.31 follows.
    Previously, NJDEP charged fees for processing minor and significant
permit modifications based on the number of significant source
operations being modified for fiscal years prior to 1998. The revised
rule requires no fee for minor modifications but increases fees for
significant modifications and applications for environmental
improvement pilot tests. Also, new fees are added for operating permit
renewal applications and registration under a general operating permit
for used-oil space heaters.
    NJDEP also revised the rule to clarify that the emissions-based
fees must be submitted by subject facilities every year. The annual
emissions-based fee rate was increased from $25 to $60 per ton of
regulated pollutant in 1989 dollars, adjusted by the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) as required by the 2002 Omnibus Legislation. Provisions
have been included in the revised rule to keep the existing annual
emission fee rate unchanged should the CPI drop to a negative value in
any given year. The minimum annual emissions-based fees have been
increased from $1,000 to $3,000 per facility. The annual emissions fee
exemption for carbon monoxide (CO) was deleted in the revised rule
because it was valid from 1998 through 2002 only. CO emissions are no
longer exempted from fee calculations from FY 2003 forward. However,
the revised rule does exempt carbon dioxide emissions from fees as an
incentive to encourage dry cleaners to replace dry cleaning equipment
that uses perchloroethylene, a known carcinogen, with equipment that
uses the non-harmful liquid carbon dioxide as its sole dry cleaning
agent.
    The fee collection process has been changed to implement New
Jersey's ``uniform process.'' Previously, facilities were required to
submit all required fees with or before the applications for initial
permits, and with applications for modifications. The revised rule no
longer requires the requisite fees to be determined by the applicants
and submitted with the applications. Under the revised rule, fees are
determined by NJDEP's Bureau of Operating Permits upon receipt of
applications for initial permits, significant modifications, or
renewals. The New Jersey Treasury Department bills and collects the
fees. The bases used in calculating the fees for each application are
stipulated in N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31. To better track who has paid the
required fees, the option to pay by money order is eliminated.

G. Appendix

    DEP corrected a typographical error found in Table B of the
Appendix of the New Jersey Operating Permits Rule which incorrectly
listed ``2-Methoxyethanol'' with CAS number 108864. The correct CAS
number for ``2-Methoxyethanol'' is 109864.

III. What Is Our Proposed Action?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to New Jersey's regulations
as described above. The State of New Jersey has adopted the above rule
revisions in accordance with state rulemaking procedures. EPA is
therefore proposing to approve the revisions to New Jersey's Operating
Permits Rule, codified at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22, as a revision to New
Jersey's Operating Permit Program.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will 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, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing State Operating Permit Programs submitted pursuant to
title V of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve such regulations
provided that they meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's
regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove such
regulations for failure to use VCS. It would, thus, be inconsistent
with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews such regulations, to use
VCS in place of a State regulation that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: March 6, 2007.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E7-5026 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 13693]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05321]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March
13, 2014 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; an
adjudicatory matter; and
other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 6, 2014.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05321 Filed 3-7-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20028-20029]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0227]

Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth
Zone--Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.943
for the Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks in Houghton, MI from 9:30 p.m.
through 11:30 p.m. on June 15, 2019. This action is necessary to
protect participants and spectators prior to, during, and immediately
after the fireworks display. During the enforcement period listed
below, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or a
designated on-scene representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(1) will be enforced as
listed in Table 165.943 from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on June 15,
2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email LT Abbie Lyons, Chief of Waterways
Management, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Bridgefest
Regatta Fireworks safety zone listed as item (1) in Table 165.943 of 33
CFR 165.943 from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on June 15, 2019 on all
waters of the Keweenaw Waterway bounded by the arc of a circle with a
100-yard radius from the fireworks launch site with its center in
approximate position 47[deg]07'28'' N, 088[deg]35'02'' W. This action
is being taken to provide for the safety of life and property on a
navigable waterway during the fireworks display.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or a
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port Duluth or
an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at
(906) 635-3217.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.943 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this publication in the
Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community
with advance notification of the enforcement of this safety zone via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: May 3, 2019.
E.E. Williams,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Duluth.
[FR Doc. 2019-09471 Filed 5-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27937-27938]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12623]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0769; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-10]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-18, V-102, and V-278 in the
Vicinity of Guthrie, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airways V-18, V-102, and V-278 in the vicinity of Guthrie, TX. The FAA
is taking this action due to the planned decommissioning of the
Guthrie, TX, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid
(NAVAID), which provides navigation guidance for portions of the
affected air traffic service (ATS) routes. The Guthrie VORTAC is being
decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network
(MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, August 15, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. 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
the 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 modifies the route structure in the National Airspace
System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air
traffic.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register for Docket No. FAA-2018-0769 (83 FR 41021; August 17, 2018) to
amend VOR Federal airways V-18, V-102, and V-278 due to the planned
decommissioning of the Guthrie, TX, VORTAC. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal. No comments were received.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways
listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-18, V-102, and V-278. The
planned decommissioning of the Guthrie, TX, VORTAC has made these
actions necessary. The VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.
    V-18: V-18 extends between the Guthrie, TX, VORTAC and the
Charleston, SC, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Guthrie, TX,
VORTAC and the Millsap, TX, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions
of the existing airway remain as charted.
    V-102: V-102 extends between the Salt Flat, TX, VORTAC and the
Wichita Falls, TX, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Lubbock, TX,
VORTAC and the Wichita Falls, TX, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected
portions of the existing airway remain as charted.
    V-278: V-278 extends between the Texico, NM, VORTAC and the Vulcan,
AL, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Plainview, TX, VOR/DME and
the Bowie, TX, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the
existing airway remain as charted.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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
Department of Transportation (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.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal
airways V-18, V-102, and V-278 near Guthrie, TX, qualifies for
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and
its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from

further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate
or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting
points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E
Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As
such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially
significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order
1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA
has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined
that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of
an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    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 part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 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 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018 and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-18 [Amended]

    From Millsap, TX; Glen Rose, TX; Cedar Creek, TX; Quitman, TX;
Belcher, LA; Monroe, LA; Magnolia, MS; Meridian, MS; Crimson, AL;
Vulcan, AL; Talladega, AL; Atlanta, GA; Colliers, SC; to Charleston,
SC.
* * * * *

V-102 [Amended]

    From Salt Flat, TX; Carlsbad, NM; Hobbs, NM; to Lubbock, TX.
* * * * *

V-278 [Amended]

    From Texico, NM; to Plainview, TX. From Bowie, TX; Bonham, TX;
Paris, TX; Texarkana, AR; Monticello, AR; Greenville, MS; Sidon, MS;
Bigbee, MS; to Vulcan, AL.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2019.
Rodger A. Dean Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2019-12623 Filed 6-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20158-20160]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07724]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69255; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Option
Trading Rules To Extend the Operation of Its Pilot Program Regarding
Minimum Value Sizes for Flexible Exchange Options Until March 31, 2014

March 28, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on March 19, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 its option trading rules to extend
the operation of its pilot program (``Pilot Program'') regarding
minimum value sizes for flexible exchange options (``FLEX Options''),
currently scheduled to expire on March 29, 2013, until March 31, 2014.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 hereby proposes to amend its option trading rules to
extend the operation of its Pilot Program regarding minimum value sizes
for FLEX Options, currently scheduled to expire on March 29, 2013,\4\
until March 31, 2014. This filing does not propose any substantive
changes to the Pilot Program and contemplates that all other terms of
FLEX Options will remain the same. Overall, the Exchange believes that
extending the Pilot Program will benefit public customers and other
market participants who will be able to use FLEX Options to manage risk
for smaller portfolios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66649 (March 23,
2012), 77 FR 19047 (March 29, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the proposed extension of the Pilot Program, and as
required by the terms of the Pilot Program's implementation,\5\ the
Exchange has submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a Pilot Program Report that provides an
analysis of the Pilot Program covering the period during which the
Pilot Program has been in effect. This Pilot Program Report includes
(i) data and analysis on the open interest and trading volume in (a)
FLEX Equity Options that have opening transactions with a minimum size
of 0 to 249 contracts and less than $1 million in underlying value; (b)
FLEX Index Options that have opening transactions with a minimum
opening size of less than $10 million in underlying equivalent value;
and (ii) analysis on the types of investors that initiated opening FLEX
Equity and Index Options transactions (i.e., institutional, high net

worth, or retail). The report has been submitted to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See infra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that there is sufficient investor interest
and demand in the Pilot Program to warrant extension for another three
months. The Exchange believes that the Pilot Program has provided
investors with additional means of managing their risk exposures and
carrying out their investment objectives. The Exchange has not
experienced any adverse market effects with respect to the Pilot
Program.
    If, in the future, the Exchange proposes an additional extension of
the Pilot Program, or should the Exchange propose to make the Pilot
Program permanent, the Exchange will submit, along with any filing
proposing such amendments to the Pilot Program, an additional Pilot
Program Report covering the period during which the Pilot Program was
in effect and including the details referenced above, along with the
nominal dollar value of the underlying security of each trade. The
Pilot Program Report would be submitted to the Commission at least two
months prior to the expiration date of the Pilot Program.
    The Exchange notes that any positions established under this Pilot
Program would not be impacted by the expiration of the Pilot Program.
For example, a 10-contract FLEX Equity Option opening position that
overlies less than $1 million in the underlying security and expires in
January 2016 could be established during the Pilot Program. If the
Pilot Program were not extended, the position would continue to exist
and any further trading in the series would be subject to the minimum
value size requirements for continued trading in that series.
    The Exchange believes that the Pilot Program has been successful
and well-received by its membership and the investing public for the
period that it has been in operation as a Pilot Program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Pilot Program was initiated on May 12, 2010. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62084 (May 12, 2010), 75 FR
28091 (May 19, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\
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 mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed extension of the Pilot Program, which
eliminates the minimum value size applicable to FLEX Options, would
provide greater opportunities for investors to manage risk through the
use of FLEX Options. Further, the Exchange notes that it has not
experienced any adverse effects from the operation of the Pilot
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 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. The proposed change is being
made to extend the operation of the Pilot Program to allow additional
time to enable the Exchange to file to permanently adopt the
elimination of the minimum value size applicable to FLEX Options. Other
competing options exchanges have similar programs to the Pilot Program.
Thus, the proposed changes will not impose any burden on competition
while providing that the elimination of the minimum value size
applicable to FLEX Options continues without interruption until
permanent approval is granted by the Commission.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay would allow the Pilot Program to
continue without interruption, and believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest.\13\ Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-28 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-28. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the

Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-28 and should
be submitted on or before April 24, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07724 Filed 4-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


DELTAMETHRIN (097805)

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: March 16, 2009

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all
observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than
500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 &
<1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of
1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2007.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2007.

NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) pesticide usage data from
NPUD 02 of the CropLife Foundation are used only if data are not
available from the other sources.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) data for 2000 to 2005 when 95% or more of a crop is
grown California.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

March 16, 2009

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of DELTAMETHRIN (097805)

Sorted Alphabetically

	 	        Crop				 Lbs. A.I.			    Percent Crop Ttd.
      			    Avg.     	Max.

	1 	Almonds	<500	<1           <2.5

	2 	Apples	<500	<1           <2.5

	3 	Artichokes	<500	15              20

	4 	Corn	<500	<1           <2.5

	5 	Cotton	6,000	<2.5          <2.5

	6	Onions	<500	<1           <2.5

	7 	Pears	<500	5                5

	8 	Potatoes	<500	<1           <2.5

	9	Sorghum	1,000	<1           <2.5

	10	Soybeans	<500	<1           <2.5

	11	Sunflowers	<500	<1           <2.5

	12	Sweet Corn	<500	<1           <2.5

	13	Walnuts	<500	<1           <2.5

All numbers rounded.

'<500' indicates less than 500 pounds of active ingredient.

'<2.5' indicates less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.

'<1' indicates less than 1 percent of crop is treated.

SLUA data sources include:

	USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National
Agricultural Statistics Service);

	Private Pesticide Market Research,

	NCFAP 97 (National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy),

NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) of the CropLife America
Foundation and California DPR data.

	These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 6, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17703-17706]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06979]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0752; Product Identifier 2009-SW-44-AD; Amendment
39-21490; AD 2021-07-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Scientific Company Seat
Restraint System Rotary Buckle Assemblies

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Pacific Scientific Company rotary buckle assemblies (buckles).
This AD requires inspecting each buckle including its buckle handle
vane, and depending on the results, removing the buckle from service
and installing an airworthy buckle. This AD also prohibits installing
the affected buckles. This AD was prompted by several reports of
cracked buckle handles. The actions of this AD are intended to address
an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 11, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of May 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Meggitt Services, 1785 Voyager Ave., Simi Valley, CA 93063,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view
the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0752.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0752; 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 AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union
Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD, any service information that is
incorporated by reference, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristi Bradley, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Pacific
Scientific Company buckle part numbers (P/Ns) 1111430 and 1111475, all
dash numbers. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on September
24, 2020 (85 FR 60100). The FAA preceded the SNPRM with a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on
September 5, 2013 (78 FR 54594). The NPRM proposed to require
inspecting each buckle for a crack and the thickness of the buckle
handle vane. Depending on the inspection results, the NPRM proposed to
require replacing the buckle. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit
installing an affected buckle on any helicopter or airplane. The SNPRM
proposed to the same requirements except with longer compliance times
to accomplish the inspections. The SNPRM also corrected the name of
Pacific Scientific Aviation Services to Pacific Scientific Company,
updated the estimated costs of compliance, edited the Applicability
paragraph by adding a note to clarify that an affected buckle could be
included as a component of a different part-numbered restraint system
assembly and reference Appendix 1 of Pacific Scientific Service
Bulletin SB 25-1111432, dated May 22, 2007 (SB 25-1111432), which lists
the P/Ns of potentially affected restraint systems, updated the names
of certain potentially-affected Type Certificate holders, and updated
the contact information name and contact

information from Pacific Scientific Aviation Services to Meggitt
Services.
    The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2007-0256, dated September 19,
2007, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for
certain Pacific Scientific Company Seat Restraint System Plastic Rotary
Buckle Handles. According to EASA, Pacific Scientific Company reported
several instances of cracked handles on certain buckles with a date of
manufacture from November 2004 through May 2007. Testing on buckles
with a cracked handle indicated that in some circumstances, a load
placed on the restraint system prevents a strap from releasing as
intended when the buckle is rotated. EASA states in its AD that this
failure to release is possible when a passenger weighs more than 50 kg
(approximately 110 lbs.) and an aircraft is upside down.

Comments

    After the SNPRM was published, the FAA received comments from two
commenters.

Request for Credit

    NetJets QC requested that this AD allow credit for compliance with
Cessna Citation Service Letter (SL) 560-25-09, Cessna Citation SL560XL-
25-10, or Cessna Citation SL750-25-15, each dated December 10, 2007.
NetJets QC also requested that provisions be written in the AD for
logbook/Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) research sign-off, since these
buckles may not be installed on newly-manufactured aircraft.
    The FAA disagrees with both requests. This AD is an appliance AD
that applies to Pacific Scientific Company buckles P/Ns 1111430 and
1111475, all dash numbers, without regard to date of manufacture,
whereas each SL distinguishes the affected parts by date of
manufacture. If an affected buckle is not installed on an aircraft,
then this AD does not apply, and credit and provisions are not
necessary to relieve this AD's requirements for the concerned aircraft.
However, this AD does not prohibit using maintenance records to
determine if an affected buckle is installed. Using an IPC is not an
acceptable method to determine an aircraft's configuration.

Addition of MU-2B Aircraft

    Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (MHIA) suggested that the
FAA add ``Mitsubishi MU-2B series aircraft'' to the list of aircraft
models that could be affected by this AD. MHIA stated that Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries, Ltd., holds Supplemental Type Certificate No.
SA1751SW, which allows installation of certain affected buckles on
Mitsubishi MU-2B series aircraft.
    The FAA partially agrees. The FAA agrees that affected buckles
could be installed on Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Model MU-2B
series airplanes; however, the applicability only identifies possible
installations on airplanes and helicopters by ``make'' and not
``models.'' Accordingly, the FAA has added Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,
Ltd., to the list of airplanes that affected buckles could be installed
on in the applicability of this final rule.

Extension of Compliance Time

    MHIA requested extending the compliance time to at least 12 months,
as replacement parts could be in short supply. MHIA states that it has
attempted to contact the product support representative at Meggitt
Services located in Simi Valley, CA in order to obtain additional
technical information; however, no formal response had been received
from Meggitt Services when MHIA submitted this comment on November 9,
2020. MHIA expressed concern that with limited support from Meggitt
Services, owners and operators of affected airplanes will have
difficulty meeting the compliance requirements because of a potential
lack of sufficient replacement parts.
    The FAA acknowledges MHIA's concern about contacting Meggitt
Services and has re-confirmed that its contact information is accurate.
The FAA disagrees with changing the compliance time to inspect an
affected buckle handle for a crack from 6 months to 12 months based on
a potential lack of sufficient replacement parts. The FAA has not
received any information to indicate that there is an insufficient
number of replacement parts that would necessitate extending the
compliance time from that stated in the proposed AD.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after
evaluating all of the information provided by EASA and determining the
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products and that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD requirements as proposed with the changes described previously.
These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposal in the
SNPRM and will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor
increase the scope of this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to certain buckles used on certain restraint
systems that are known to be installed on, but not limited to, certain
Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) model helicopters. The
applicability of the EASA AD is limited to rotorcraft only and is not
intended for airplanes. Since the affected buckles may be installed in
other aircraft resulting in the same unsafe condition, this AD applies
to the same certain buckles, which may be installed on but not limited
to certain airplanes and helicopters. This AD does not require
returning the unairworthy buckle assembly to the manufacturer, and this
AD does not apply to spare parts that are not installed on an aircraft.
Also, this AD applies to buckle P/Ns 1111430 and 1111475, all dash
numbers, and is not dependent on the restraint P/Ns. The EASA AD
requires inspecting the buckles within 30 days, whereas this AD
requires inspecting the buckle handle for a crack within 6 months and
the buckle handle vane thickness within 12 months instead. The EASA AD
requires a repetitive inspection of each buckle for cracks before any
flight for up to 6 months following the effective date of the EASA AD
until the buckle is replaced. This AD does not require an inspection
for cracks before any flight for the 6 months until the affected
buckles are replaced. The EASA AD identifies suspect parts by date of
manufacture, and this AD does not. Finally, the EASA AD allows for
marking a seat as ``un-operative'' and this AD does not.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed SB 25-1111432, which specifies inspecting each
buckle P/Ns 1111430-XX and 1111475-XX with a date of manufacture
between November 2004 and May 2007, to identify whether the handle is
one susceptible to cracking by checking the P/N on the reverse side of
the buckle assembly or by measuring the thickness of the handle vane.
If the buckle is identified as a ``suspect'' buckle, this service
information provides procedures for removing the buckle and replacing
it with an acceptable buckle. Information in this service information
also advises that buckles with a cracked handle should be removed from
service immediately.

    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 1,435 restraint systems
installed on aircraft of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at
$85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that
operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this
AD.
    Inspecting a buckle costs a minimal amount and takes a nominal
amount of time. Replacing a buckle takes about 0.5 work-hour and parts
cost about $636 for an estimated cost of $679 per buckle and up to
$974,365 for the U.S. fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2021-07-13 Pacific Scientific Company: Amendment 39-21490; Docket
No. FAA-2013-0752; Product Identifier 2009-SW-44-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to Pacific Scientific
Company rotary buckle assembly (buckle), part numbers (P/Ns) 1111430
and 1111475, all dash numbers. These buckles may be installed on but
not limited to Bombardier Inc., Learjet Inc., Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd., Textron Aviation, Inc. (Type Certificate (TC)
previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company), and Viking Air Limited
(TC previously held by de Havilland, Inc.) model airplanes and
Airbus Helicopters (TC previously held by Eurocopter France) model
helicopters, certificated in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (a):  The rotary buckle may be included as a
component of a different part-numbered restraint system assembly.
Pacific Scientific Service Bulletin SB 25-1111432, dated May 22,
2007 (SB 25-1111432), Appendix 1, includes a list of these restraint
system P/Ns.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a cracked rotary buckle
handle, which could prevent a strap from releasing as intended when
the buckle is rotated.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 11, 2021.

(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 6 months, inspect the buckle handle for a crack. If
the buckle handle is cracked, before further flight, remove the
buckle as depicted in Figure 5 and by following the Procedures,
paragraph 9, of SB 25-1111432, and replace it with an airworthy
buckle, except you are not required to return the removed buckle to
Pacific Scientific.
    (2) Within 12 months, measure the thickness of the buckle handle
vane as depicted in Figure 3 of SB 25-1111432. If the handle vane
thickness is 0.125 inch or greater, before further flight, remove
the buckle from service and replace it with an airworthy buckle.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a buckle
or a restraint system with a buckle, P/N 1111430 or 1111475, all
dash numbers, with a handle vane thickness of 0.125 inch or greater
on any airplane or helicopter.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Kristi Bradley,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
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

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD 2007-
0256, dated September 19, 2007. You may view the EASA AD on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2013-0752.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2500, Cabin
Equipment/Furnishings.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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) Pacific Scientific Service Bulletin SB 25-1111432, dated May
22, 2007.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Meggitt Services, 1785 Voyager Ave., Simi Valley, CA 93063,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. 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, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 25, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-06979 Filed 4-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P