[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75100-75103]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29484]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0926; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-085-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by an analysis, which determined that in a
limited flight envelope with specific conditions, divergent flutter
could occur during a high g-load maneuver in combination with certain
system failures. This proposed AD would require replacing the lateral
control electronic (LCE)

modules, replacing the inboard elevator power control packages (PCPs),
installing new external compensators for the PCPs, and revising the
maintenance or inspection program. We are proposing this AD to prevent
certain system failures from resulting in divergent flutter, and
subsequent loss of continued safe flight and landing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 2,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0926; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Tsuji, Senior Aerospace
Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0926;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-085-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    It was determined by analysis that, within a limited speed/Mach/
altitude envelope and with specific payload and fuel conditions,
divergent flutter could occur on Model 747-8 and 747-8F airplanes with
0% tail fuel during a high g-load maneuver (>1.6 g) in combination with
any of the following system failures:
     Dual hydraulic failure resulting in a free outboard (OB)
aileron, free inboard (IB) elevator, and free OB elevator;
     Dual electrical system failure resulting in both OB
ailerons free;
     System failures resulting in a free OB aileron;
     System failures resulting in a free IB elevator; and
     Latent excessive IB elevator freeplay.
    We are proposing this AD to prevent certain system failures from
resulting in divergent flutter, and subsequent loss of continued safe
flight and landing.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed the following service information. For information on
the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2014-0926.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2506, February 3,
2014.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2513, Revision 1,
dated July 18, 2014.
    We have also reviewed Boeing 747-8/8F Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs) Document D011U721-02-03, Revision December 2013,
which contains the following tasks in Section G., ``CMR Tasks:''
     Item Numbers 27-CMR-10, ``Lubricate inboard elevator hinge
bearings.''
     Item Number 27-CMR-11, ``Functional check of inboard
elevator hinge bearing and power control unit rod end bearing
freeplay.''

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information identified previously.

Explanation of Applicability, Compliance Time, and Repetitive Intervals

    The applicability in paragraph (c) and the compliance times and
repetitive intervals in paragraph (i) of this proposed AD are based on
airplane utilization. Model 747-8 airplanes referred to as Boeing
Business Jets (BBJs) are designated as low utilization airplanes and
are maintained under a Boeing Manufacturer's Recommended Program (MRP).
The Boeing MRP is limited to airplanes operated less than 1,200 flight
hours per calendar year. Therefore, this proposed AD has different
implementation task intervals and repetitive intervals for these low
utilization airplanes due to unique operations.

Explanation of ``RC'' Steps in Service Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee,
to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for
annotating which steps in the service information are required for
compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in
the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's
understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent
judgment in AD compliance. The actions specified in the service
information described previously include steps that are labeled as RC
(required for compliance) because these steps have a direct effect on
detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe
condition.

    As noted in the specified service information, steps labeled as RC
must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, steps that are
not labeled as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not labeled as
RC may be deviated from, done as part of other actions, or done using
accepted methods different from those identified in the service
information without obtaining approval of an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC), provided the steps labeled as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions
or changes to steps labeled as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of LCEs...................  4 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $340          $2,720
                                         hour = $340.
Replacement of IB elevator PCPs and     57 work-hours x $85 per           44,894          49,739         397,912
 installation of external IB elevator    hour = $4,845.
 compensators.
Revision to maintenance or inspection   1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85             680
 program.                                hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for this Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0926; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-085-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 2, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in
any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of
this AD.
    (1) Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2506, dated February 3, 2014.
    (2) Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2513, Revision 1, dated July
18, 2014.
    (3) Model 747-8 series airplanes that are operated less than
1,200 flight hours per calendar year.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an analysis, which determined that in a
limited flight envelope with specific conditions, divergent flutter
could occur during a high g-load maneuver in combination with
certain system failures. We are issuing this AD to prevent certain
system failures from resulting in divergent flutter, and subsequent
loss of continued safe flight and landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement of Lateral Control Electronic (LCE) Modules

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD: Within
12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the LCE
modules with new LCE modules having revised software, and do an
operational test of the LCE modules, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
27A2506, dated February 3, 2014. If the operational test fails,
before further flight, do corrective actions and repeat the
operational test and applicable corrective actions until the
operational test passes.

(h) Replacement of Inboard Elevator Power Control Packages and
Installation of External Inboard Elevator Compensators

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Within
60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace both

inboard elevator power control packages (PCPs) with new PCPs that
have the internal compensators removed, install two larger external
compensators for each PCP, and do an operational test of each
inboard elevator PCP, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2513, Revision
1, dated July 18, 2014. If the operational test fails, before
further flight, do corrective actions and repeat the operational
test and applicable corrective actions until the operational test
passes.

(i) Revision to the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    For all airplanes: Within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate Item Numbers 27-CMR-10, ``Lubricate
inboard elevator hinge bearings,'' and 27-CMR-11, ``Functional check
of inboard elevator hinge bearing and power control unit rod end
bearing freeplay,'' of Section G., ``CMR Tasks,'' of the 747-8/8F
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs) Document D011U721-02-
03, Revision December 2013. The initial compliance times and
repetitive intervals for the lubrication and functional check are
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of
this AD that are not identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD:
    (i) The initial compliance time for the lubrication of the
inboard elevator hinge bearings is within 18 months after the most
recent lubrication. The repetitive lubrication intervals are
specified in Item Number 27-CMR-10, ``Lubricate inboard elevator
hinge bearings,'' of Section G., ``CMR Tasks,'' of the 747-8/8F
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs) Document D011U721-02-
03, Revision December 2013.
    (ii) The initial compliance time for the functional check of the
inboard elevator hinge bearing and power control unit rod end
bearing freeplay is within 12 months after the effective date of
this AD. The repetitive functional check intervals are specified in
Item Number 27-CMR-11, ``Functional check of inboard elevator hinge
bearing and power control unit rod end bearing freeplay,'' of
Section G., CMR Tasks, of the 747-8/8F Certification Maintenance
Requirements, D011U721-02-03, December 2013.
    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD:
    (i) The initial compliance time for the lubrication of the
inboard elevator hinge bearings is within 24 months after the most
recent lubrication. Repeat the lubrication thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 24 months.
    (ii) The initial compliance time for the functional check of the
inboard elevator hinge bearing and power control unit rod end
bearing freeplay is within 36 months after the effective date of
this AD. Repeat the functional check thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 36 months.

(j) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
LCE having part number (P/N) CA49253-001 or CA49253-002, or an
inboard elevator PCP having P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>, on any airplane.

(k) Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
27A2513, dated February 4, 2014, which is not incorporated by
reference in this AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) If the service information contains steps that are labeled
as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps must be done to comply
with this AD; any steps that are not labeled as RC are recommended.
Those steps that are not labeled as RC may be deviated from, done as
part of other actions, or done using accepted methods different from
those identified in the specified service information without
obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the steps labeled as RC can
be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition.
Any substitutions or changes to steps labeled as RC require approval
of an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Doug Tsuji,
Senior Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 10, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-29484 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 69269-69271]
[DOCID:fr07de07-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56883; File No. SR-NSX-2007-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change as
Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, To Modify Rebate Programs
for Automatic Execution Transactions in Certain Designated ETFs

December 3, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 1, 2007, the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' or
``Exchange'') 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 substantially prepared by the
Exchange. On October 31, 2007 NSX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change. On November 13, 2007 NSX filed Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NSX is proposing a change to its Rules and Fee Schedule to modify
its market data rebate program and its liquidity provider rebate
program for transactions that are executed through NSX BLADE\SM\, the
Exchange's trading platform, effective October 1, 2007. The Exchange
wishes to modify these rebate programs for only those transactions in
certain Designated ETF Shares in which the User effecting such order
has chosen the automatic execution mode of order interaction as set
forth in Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(1). The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Exchange's Web site, http://www.nsx.com, the

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

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

1. Purpose
    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1(a), the Exchange maintains a Fee
Schedule that contains its current fees, dues and other charges
applicable to transactions in NSX BLADE (the ``NSX BLADE Fee
Schedule''). Currently, the NSX BLADE Fee Schedule provides for a
rebate of $0.0030 per share for adding liquidity into NSX BLADE through
transactions in which ETP Holders have selected the Automatic Execution
mode of order interaction (``AutoEx''), regardless of which symbol such
transaction involves. Similarly, orders that are AutoEx at less than
$1.00 per share will result in a rebate for a dollar amount equal to
0.3% of the price per share, multiplied by the number of shares
executed. The Exchange also currently provides a 100% pro rata
transaction credit of gross Tape ``A'', ``B'' and ``C'' market data
revenue associated with

trading regardless of the symbol that is the subject of such trades.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56008 (July 3,
2007), 72 FR 37809 (July 11, 2007) (SR-NSX-2007-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing that the NSX BLADE Fee Schedule be
modified to include the concept of Designated ETF Shares, which are
certain Exchange Traded Funds and Exchange Traded Notes (hereinafter
``ETF Shares'') that the Exchange has determined should be subject to
different liquidity providing and market data rebates than other
symbols. These Designated ETF Shares are generally all Exchange Traded
Funds and Exchange Traded Notes that are eligible to trade on the
Exchange except for the Nasdaq-100 Index, more commonly referred to as
the QQQQs. The Designated ETF Shares are listed by the Exchange on
Exhibit A to the NSX BLADE Fee Schedule.
    ETP Holders providing liquidity using AutoEx in Designated ETF
Shares will receive a rebate of $0.0035 per share executed. Similarly,
ETP Holders providing liquidity on orders executed at less than $1.00
per share using AutoEx in Designated ETF Shares will result in a rebate
for a dollar amount equal to 0.35% of the price per share, multiplied
by the number of shares executed. However, trades using AutoEx in
Designated ETF Shares would no longer be eligible for market data
revenue transaction credits as reflected in the amendments to Exchange
Rule 16.2(b). The change in the liquidity provider and market data
rebates is being proposed in order to increase trading volume in these
Designated ETF Shares. There is no need to provide a similar incentive
to increase trading volume in the securities that are not contained in
the Exhibit A. These changes would be effective October 1, 2007.
    The same trades in non-Designated ETF Shares using AutoEx, as well
as all trades using the Order Delivery mode of order interaction as set
forth in Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(2) (``Order Delivery''), would continue
to receive the current rebate. Thus, for orders executed at $1.00 or
more per share for non-Designated ETF shares, the liquidity provider
rebate remains $0.0030 per share executed and, for all orders executed
at a $1.00 or more per share using Order Delivery, the liquidity
provider rebate remains $0.0028 per share executed.\6\ These trades
will continue to receive market data revenue transaction credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For orders executed at less than $1.00 per share, the rebate
for non-Designated ETF shares using AutoEx remains 0.30% of the
price per share, multiplied by the number of shares executed and the
rebate for all trades using Order Delivery remains 0.28% of the
price per share, multiplied by the number of shares executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to delete the provision relating to
ITS Transactions in the Fee Schedule as the Intermarket Trading System
Plan has expired and therefore, the provision is no longer applicable.
    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1(c), the Exchange will ``provide ETP
Holders with notice of all relevant dues, fees, assessments and charges
of the Exchange'' through the issuance of a Regulatory Circular of the
changes to the NSX BLADE Fee Schedule and will provide a copy of the
rule filing on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.nsx.com).

    The Exchange liquidity provider rebates and market data rebates
have been designed in this manner in order to ensure that the Exchange
can continue to fulfill its obligations under the Act. Moreover, the
proposed liquidity provider and market data rebates are not
discriminatory in that all ETP Holders are eligible to trade in
Designated ETF Shares listed on Exhibit A using AutoEx and may do so at
their discretion.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges. NSX believes that the change is consistent with an equitable
allocation of fees, because decreased market data revenue sharing for
liquidity providers is offset by enhanced liquidity provider credits
for the same market participants, which allows a more direct and
readily calculated incentive for liquidity provision. Moreover, the
proposed liquidity provider and market data rebates are not
discriminatory in that all ETP Holders are eligible to trade in
Designated ETF Shares listed on Exhibit A using AutoEx and may do so at
their discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change is filed pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \10\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member imposed by a self-regulatory
organization. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon Commission
receipt of the filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \11\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on November 13, 2007, the date on which NSX filed
Amendment No. 2. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-NSX-2007-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2007-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use

only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of NSX. 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-NSX-2007-11 and should be submitted on
or before December 28, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-23753 Filed 12-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 55932]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23027]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3327-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of North Carolina (FEMA-3327-EM), dated August 25, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 28, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of
August 25, 2011.

    Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Chowan, Columbus, Duplin,
Edgecombe, Gates, Greene, Hertford, Lenoir, Martin, New Hanover,
Pasquotank, Pender, Wayne, and Washington Counties for emergency
protective measures (Category B), including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-23027 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 18991-18992]
[DOCID:fr16ap07-80]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0660; FRL-8299-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Pesticide Product Registration
Maintenance Fee, EPA ICR Number 1214.07, OMB Control Number 2070-0100

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection activity and its
expected burden and costs.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0660, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: OPP Regulatory

Public Docket (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Hogue, Field and External
Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, 7506P, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On October 25, 2006 (71 FR 62432), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no

comments on this ICR during the 60-day comment period. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0660, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the OPP Regulatory

Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the Docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Pesticide Product Registration Maintenance Fee.
    ICR Status: This is a request to renew an existing approved
collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2007. Under OMB
regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. This
ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its
estimated burden and cost.
    Abstract: This information collection provides a practical means of
communication between the registrants and Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to collect registration
maintenance fees from pesticide registrants as required by the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 4(i)(5).
Annually, the Agency provides registrants a list of the registered
products currently registered with the Agency. Registrants are provided
the opportunity to review the list, determine its accuracy, and remit
payment of the maintenance fees. Each affected firm is required to
complete the filing form and submit their fee payment by January 15 of
each year. The failure to pay the required fee for a product will
result in cancellation of that product's registration. Information
submitted under this ICR is considered by OPP to contain no
confidential business information (CBI). If, however, registrants
submit data that contains CBI or relates to trade secrets or commercial
or financial information, such information is protected from disclosure
under section 10 of FIFRA.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.96
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: All pesticide registrants holding
currently active registrations under FIFRA section 3 and Section 24(c)
are subject to this information collection activity.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,720.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1645.
    Estimated Total Annual Labor Cost: $125,800.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 118 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This is an adjustment in the estimated burden due
to the steady decline of the number of pesticide registrants and,
therefore, participation under this program.

    Dated: April 6, 2007.
Robert Gunter,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E7-7173 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2080-2081]
[DOCID:fr14ja09-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0653]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Filing Objections and Requests for a Hearing on a
Regulation or Order

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on requirements for filing
objections and requests for a hearing on a regulation or order.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by March 16, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice

of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Filing Objections and Requests for a Hearing on a Regulation or Order--
21 CFR Part 12 (OMB Control Number 0910-0184)--Extension

    The regulations in 21 CFR 12.22, issued under section 701(e)(2) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C.
371(e)(2)), set forth the instructions for filing objections and
requests for a hearing on a regulation or order under Sec.  12.20(d)
(21CFR 12.20(d)). Objections and requests must be submitted within the
time specified in Sec.  12.20(e). Each objection, for which a hearing
has been requested, must be separately numbered and specify the
provision of the regulation or the proposed order. In addition, each
objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the
factual information and any other document, with some exceptions,
supporting the objection. Failure to include this information
constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. FDA
uses the description and analysis to determine whether a hearing
request is justified. The description and analysis may be used only for
the purpose of determining whether a hearing has been justified under
21 CFR 12.24 and do not limit the evidence that may be presented if a
hearing is granted.
    Respondents to this information collection are those parties that
may be adversely affected by an order or regulation.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
21 CFR Section     Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.22                           5                     1                  5                 20                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The burden estimate for this collection of information is based on
past filings. Agency personnel, responsible for processing the filing
of objections and requests for a public hearing on a specific
regulation or order, estimate approximately five requests are received
by the agency annually, with each requiring approximately 20 hours of
preparation time.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 7, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-574 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 46517]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18970]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Docket No. ER19-2626-000]

Rosewater Wind Farm LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Rosewater
Wind Farm LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 9, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 20, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-18970 Filed 9-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8989-8994]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04511]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-9990-15-Region 2]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Robintech, Inc./
National Pipe Co. Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Robintech, Inc./National Pipe Co. Superfund site (Site),
located in the Town of Vestal, New York, includes an approximately
12.7-acre parcel of property (hereinafter, ``Property'') and areas
affected by the release or threat of release of hazardous substances to
the west of the Property (hereinafter, ``Off-Property''). This direct
final partial deletion is being published by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), with the concurrence of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Because no further
response actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), other than groundwater
monitoring, periodic IC verification, and five-year reviews, as well as
O&M activities, as necessary, are needed for the Property's overburden
soil, overburden groundwater, and an approximately 9.7-acre portion of
the bedrock aquifer underlying the Property (hereinafter, collectively
referred to as ``Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property''), EPA is
issuing this Notice of Partial Deletion (NOPD) of this Site area from
the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this
proposed action. However, this partial deletion does not preclude
future actions under Superfund. The overburden and bedrock aquifers in
the Off-Property area, and the remaining portion of the bedrock aquifer
underlying the Property, will remain on the NPL and are not part of
this deletion action.

DATES: This direct final partial deletion will be effective May 13,
2019 unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 12, 2019. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final NOPD in the Federal Register, informing the public that
the partial deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: To the attention of Mark Granger, Remedial Project
Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, NY
10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway,
18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Record Center's normal hours of
operation (Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1986-0005. The http://www.regulations.gov website 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 comments. If you
send comments to EPA via email, your email address will be included as
part of the comment that is placed in the Docket and made available on
the website. If you submit electronic comments, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comments and with any disks or CD-ROMs that you submit. If EPA cannot
read your comments because of technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comments
fully. Electronic files should

avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and
should be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the Docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available Docket materials can be obtained either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records
Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, Telephone:
212-637-4308, Hours: Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
and
Town of Vestal Public Library, 320 Vestal Parkway East, Vestal, NY
13850, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Mon.: 2:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m.,
Tue-Thu: 9:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m., Fri: 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Sat: 10:00
a.m.-2:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Granger, Remedial Project
Manager, by mail at Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th floor,
New York, NY 10007-1866; telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    The Property at the Site contains a two-story commercial building
and a warehouse and is bounded on the west by an amusement facility and
fuel storage tanks, on the south by Old Vestal Road, on the east by
Commerce Road, and on the north by railroad tracks. The Off-Property
area extends westward toward the Susquehanna River, which is located
approximately 2,500 feet from the Property.
    EPA and the State of New York, through NYSDEC, have determined that
no further response action under CERCLA is needed for the Proposed
Deleted Portion of the Property, as defined above, and is proposing to
delete this portion of the Site from the NPL. See the above-referenced
docket for more information, including a figure of the Proposed Deleted
Portion of the Property.
    An approximately three-acre portion of the bedrock aquifer
underlying the Property, bounded to the east by the western walls of
the warehouse and former manufacturing building, to the south and west
by the Property line, and to the north by a line extending from the
northwest corner of the warehouse to the western property line
(hereinafter, ``Retained Portion of the Property''), as well as the
overburden and bedrock aquifers in the Off-Property area, would remain
on the NPL.
    The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40
CFR part 300 (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9605. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of releases
that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or
the environment. The releases on the NPL may be the subject of remedial
actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This
partial deletion of the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property is
proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with
the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on NPL.
60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in Sec.  300.425(e)(3) of the
NCP, and as clarified in 60 FR 55466, a site (or portion thereof)
deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action
if future conditions at the site warrant such actions.
    EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct final NOPD to remove the
Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property from the NPL.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites (or portions thereof) from the NPL. Section III discusses
procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV demonstrates
how the deletion criteria have been met. Section V discusses EPA's
action to delete the Property's overburden soil and overburden
groundwater and an approximately 9.7-acre portion of the bedrock
aquifer underlying the Property from the NPL unless adverse comments
are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release of
hazardous substances poses no significant threat to public health or
the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not
appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), and the NCP,
EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness
of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if
a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to
ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information
becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a
significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site
may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking
system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to the deletion of the Proposed
Deleted Portion of the Property:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of New York prior to developing
this direct final NOPD and the Notice of Intent to Partially Delete
(NOIPD) also published in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this issue
of the Federal Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
NOPD and the parallel NOIPD prior to their publication today, and the
State, through the NYSDEC, has concurred on the partial deletion of a
portion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrent with the publication of this direct final NOPD, a
notice of the availability of the parallel NOIPD is being published in
a major local newspaper, the Press and Sun Bulletin. The newspaper
notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the NOIPD
of the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property from the NPL.
    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial
deletion in the Docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.

    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish a
timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final NOPD before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and, if
appropriate, continue with the deletion process based on the NOIPD and
the comments received.
    Deletion of a site (or portion thereof) from the NPL does not
itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a site (or portion thereof) from the NPL does not in any
way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The
NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist
EPA's management of sites. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that
the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for
further response actions should future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion

    The following information provides the Agency's rationale for
deleting the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Site (NYD002232957) is in Vestal, a regionally important
industrial center adjacent to Binghamton, New York in the Susquehanna
River basin. The Property, which occupies approximately 12.7 acres, is
bordered by Commerce Road and several warehouses and light industrial
buildings to the east, Old Vestal Road and several residences to the
south, an amusement facility and fuel storage tanks to the west, and
railroad tracks to the north.
    The Property and the area downgradient (i.e., to the west) of the
Property is zoned industrial/commercial. With the strong presence of
commercial and industrial infrastructure, future land use is
anticipated to remain industrial/commercial.
    The Property is located approximately half-way down the westerly
face of a hill that slopes gently toward the Susquehanna River.
Consistent with this, EPA field observations and examination of
topographic contours indicate that the overland flow of surface water
across the Property is to the west, controlled by a series of conduits
and drainage ditches which direct the flow to the river, located
approximately a half mile to the north and west. The area where the
Site is located is not known to contain or impact any ecologically-
significant habitat, wetlands, agricultural land, or historic or
landmark sites.
    The area has two distinct groundwater aquifers. The upper or
overburden aquifer is comprised of material consisting mainly of till
and is approximately 20 to 40 feet thick. In addition, fill material
associated with extensive grading on-Site for storage and parking
spaces ranges from zero to six feet in thickness. Groundwater is
encountered within the upper aquifer unit six to twenty feet below
ground surface (bgs). The lower or bedrock aquifer consists of shale
with a weathered zone seven- to ten-feet thick. The primary
permeability of this material is low, but the secondary permeability is
much higher. Fractures along the horizontal bedding planes and vertical
joints in the shale allow for groundwater flow.
    Groundwater flow in the vicinity of the Site is primarily toward
the west and northwest. There are no private drinking water wells in
the vicinity of the Site. All residents are supplied with drinking
water by the Vestal municipal well fields. One of these well fields is
located downgradient of the Site near the river. None of the wells in
the Vestal well fields are affected by Site-related contamination.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

    Eight groundwater extraction wells were drilled on-Site between
1983 and 1984 by former Site owner/operators. These six-inch diameter
wells were installed with steel casing through the till overburden
formation and then finished as open bedrock holes to an average depth
of 300 feet bgs. The wells provided cooling water for the operators of
a pipe-production process, which was then discharged to surface water
at a permitted effluent-discharge point. An effluent sample collected
at the Site by NYSDEC in 1984 to verify discharge-permit compliance
found volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that were not covered under the
permit. Further investigations resulted in the conclusion that the
contamination was coming from the bedrock groundwater beneath the Site.
NYSDEC also determined that there were soil source areas in the
overburden affecting groundwater in both the overburden and bedrock
geologic units.
    Sampling was conducted by EPA in 1985 to evaluate the Site for
inclusion on the NPL. Groundwater monitoring revealed elevated
concentrations of VOCs in the overburden soil and bedrock groundwater.
Based on the results of this monitoring, the Site was placed on the NPL
in June 1986 (51 FR 21054).
    Following the listing of the Site on the NPL in 1986, a remedial
investigation (RI) was performed. The RI revealed numerous VOCs in the
overburden and bedrock groundwater and in overburden soils. The RI
report, along with a human-health risk assessment (HHRA) and a
feasibility study (FS) report, was completed in 1991.
    The HHRA concluded that an unacceptable risk existed for
hypothetical future residents' consumption of groundwater, driven
primarily by VOCs. The hypothetical future use of both the overburden
and bedrock aquifers for drinking-water purposes resulted in
unacceptable risk. The ecological risk assessment concluded that no
habitats or species of special concern would likely be affected by
Site-related contaminants.

Selected Remedy

    Following the completion of the RI/FS, a record of decision (ROD)
was signed in March 1992 (1992 ROD). The 1992 ROD, also referred to as
the Operable Unit One (OU1) ROD, addressed contamination present in the
overburden and bedrock aquifers by extraction and treatment via air
stripping. The remedial action objectives (RAOs) specified in the 1992
ROD were:
     Restore the aquifer as a potential source of drinking
water by reducing contaminant levels to below the New York State and
Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). See Table 1, below.
     Reduce or eliminate the potential for off-Site migration
of contaminants.

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Cleanup goal
                           VOC                             from 1992 ROD
                                                               (ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,1-Trichloroethane...................................             5.0
1,1-Dichloroethane......................................             5.0
Trichloroethene.........................................             5.0
1,1-Dichloroethene......................................             5.0
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene................................             5.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene..................................             5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1992 ROD remedy included the extraction and treatment via air
stripping of contaminated bedrock and overburden groundwater.
    An investigation to assess suspected elevated lead concentrations
in Site soil and sediment did not reveal elevated lead concentrations
in any Site media. Accordingly, a no action ROD for these soils and
sediments was signed in March 1993.

    The results of a preliminary remedial design (RD) investigation
indicated that overburden groundwater and subsurface soils were
contaminated at levels much greater than those detected during prior
investigations; the contaminated subsurface soils were subsequently
determined to be source areas. In addition, the pre-RD investigation
concluded that the overburden-formation till was of relatively low-
permeability with an extremely-low groundwater yield. Therefore, the
extraction of contaminated groundwater from the overburden (the remedy
selected for the overburden in the 1992 ROD) was determined not to be
feasible.
    An alternative approach to address the contaminated groundwater was
determined to be necessary. In addition, EPA determined that the source
areas in the overburden soil needed to be addressed. A ROD was signed
in July 1997 (1997 ROD or OU3 ROD) which addressed source contamination
present above and below the water table in the overburden in three
areas of the Site. Additionally, based on the tight overburden
formation, resulting in extremely low groundwater yields (approximately
0.1 gallon per minute), consistent with EPA and New York State
guidance, the overburden aquifer is not usable. Therefore, the 1997 ROD
also concluded that Federal and state MCLs are not applicable with
respect to the overburden aquifer. As the bedrock aquifer is usable,
Federal and state MCLs remain applicable with respect to that aquifer.
    The RAOs specified in the 1997 ROD were:
     Mitigate the potential for contaminants to migrate from
the soil into the overburden aquifer and reduce soil contamination to
meet the soil cleanup objectives identified in NYSDEC's Technical and
Administrative Guidance Memorandum No. 94-HWR-4046, January 1994.
     mitigate the potential for contaminants to migrate from
the overburden aquifer into the bedrock aquifer.
     reduce or eliminate the threat to public health and the
environment posed by groundwater contamination by remediating
groundwater to MCLs for VOCs.
     reduce or eliminate the potential for off-Site migration
of contaminants.
    The 1997 ROD included the excavation of unsaturated- and saturated-
overburden soils in three areas of the Site and treatment of VOCs using
low-temperature thermal desorption; the extraction of contaminated
groundwater from the bedrock aquifer through the existing production-
well network until MCLs are achieved; remediation of contaminated
overburden groundwater through natural attenuation processes, including
chemical degradation, dilution, and dispersion, at the Property and in
downgradient areas.
    In August 2018, an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) was
issued to document EPA's determination to incorporate into the remedy
an institutional control to address the potential for vapor intrusion
should the occupancy of the Property buildings change in the future or
if there is new construction in Property or Off-Property areas.

Remedy Implementation

    Negotiations between EPA and a group of potentially responsible
parties (hereinafter, PRP Group) resulted in an agreement embodied in
an October 1998 Consent Decree to implement the RD, construction, and
operation and maintenance (O&M) of the remedy selected in the 1997 ROD.
Soil Remediation
    The RD of the soil source-removal excavation and treatment was
initiated in 1999 by Vertex Engineering Service, Inc. (Vertex), the
contractor for the PRP Group. Following the completion of the plans and
specifications, Vertex initiated the implementation of the soil remedy.
The excavation, treatment, and backfilling of more than 10,000 cubic
yards of VOC-contaminated soil was performed from 2000 to 2001. Post-
excavation soil sampling results indicated that residual levels of VOCs
in soils were below the target cleanup levels.
Groundwater Remediation
    The 1997 ROD formalized a remedial strategy to address the source
areas and groundwater in the overburden and provided for the continued
extraction and treatment of contaminated bedrock groundwater using the
existing production wells. After eliminating a conduit of contamination
from the overburden into the bedrock by sealing one of the production
wells in 1996, the rebuilding and upgrade of the existing bedrock
extraction wells was completed in 2001. This work included installing
new pumps, piping, wiring, and instrumentation for the existing
production-well system. A combination of logistical circumstances,
primarily, the decision by the operator of the Property to discontinue
the use of the extracted groundwater as cooling water in its pipe
manufacturing process resulted in the system being shut down in 2003.
In 2005, after the completion of negotiations between EPA, the PRP
Group, and the property owner, carbon treatment was added to the
bedrock-groundwater extraction and treatment system, and operation of
the system resumed. The Property owner operated the system on behalf of
the PRP Group until May 2014, when the system, which had treated the
groundwater to asymptotic levels above the MCLs, became inoperable. EPA
is currently investigating alternatives to the extraction and treatment
of the bedrock groundwater in the Retained Portion of the Property.

Monitoring

    To monitor the effect of both the overburden-soil source removal
and the ten years of bedrock-groundwater extraction and treatment,
long-term groundwater monitoring in both the overburden and bedrock
aquifers is being performed annually. As noted above, because of the
tight overburden formation, resulting in extremely-low groundwater
yields, the overburden aquifer is not usable. Therefore, pursuant to
the 1997 ROD, Federal and state groundwater standards are not
applicable with respect to the overburden aquifer. With respect to the
bedrock aquifer, groundwater VOC contaminant levels are below the 1997
ROD-specified Federal and state MCLs for Site-related constituents
within the area of the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property (see
Table 2, below).

                        Table 2--1990 to Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Bedrock well number                      Total VOCs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PW-9....................................  ND
MW-3A...................................  ND
MW-4A...................................  ND
MW-13A..................................  ND
MW-15A..................................  ND
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    O&M for the bedrock-groundwater extraction-and-treatment system
component of OU1 began in 2005. Per the O&M Manual, O&M for OU1
included inspection/maintenance procedures, schedules for proper
operation, and influent and effluent monitoring to evaluate remedy
performance. O&M of the system continued through 2014, at which point
the system became inoperable and was turned off to explore alternatives
to the extraction and treatment of the bedrock groundwater. The long-
term monitoring components of the overburden (OU3) and bedrock (OU1)
aquifers began in 2001 and has continued since that time.

Institutional Controls

    With respect to institutional controls (ICs), the 1997 ROD called
for the implementation of ICs to restrict the

installation and use of groundwater wells at and downgradient of the
Property until groundwater quality has been restored. The on-Property
ICs were implemented through a March 2006 Declaration of Easements,
Covenants and Restrictions (``deed restriction'') for the Property. As
noted above, in August 2018 an ESD was issued to document EPA's
determination to incorporate into the remedy an IC relating to vapor
intrusion; toward this end, the Town of Vestal has agreed to notify EPA
when there is a change in use relative to the Property and Off-Property
areas.
    With respect to areas downgradient of the Property, drinking water
is provided by public supplies for the entire town. Town of Vestal code
sec. 24-73.d requires all development (residential, commercial,
industrial, etc.) to connect to the public drinking-water supply system
in all areas of the Town where the public supply is available. The
Property and the plume downgradient of the Property are in an area
where the public drinking-water supply system is available. Further,
the installation of any other groundwater-withdrawal well is restricted
within areas of the Town designated as an ``aquifer district'' (Town of
Vestal code sec. 23-518.a-c). The Property and the plume area
downgradient of the Property are located within an ``aquifer
district.''

Five-Year Review

    Contamination remains in the groundwater underlying the Property
and in Off-Property areas above levels that would allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure. Therefore, pursuant to CERCLA Section
121(c), EPA is required to conduct a review of the remedy at least once
every five years. Five-year reviews were conducted in 2006, 2011, and
2016. While the most recent five-year review concluded that there are
no completed exposure pathways, a short-term protectiveness finding was
made for the Site in light of recommendations that more information was
needed relative to the off-Property overburden groundwater and the
evaluation of alternatives to the existing extraction and treatment of
bedrock groundwater remedy needed to be completed. Neither of these
recommendations relate to the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property.
    The next five-year review is scheduled for 2021.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities for the Site have been satisfied as
required pursuant to CERCLA Sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k)
and 9617. As part of the three remedy selection processes, the public
was invited to comment on the proposed remedies. All other documents
and information that EPA relied on or considered in recommending this
deletion are available for the public to review at the information
repositories identified above.

Determination That a Portion of the Site Meets the Criteria for
Deletion from the NPL

    Because of the tight overburden formation, resulting in extremely-
low groundwater yields, the overburden aquifer is not usable.
Therefore, as reflected in the 1997 ROD, Federal and state MCLs are not
applicable with respect to the overburden aquifer.
    Because of the completion of all appropriate response actions in
the overburden soil and overburden groundwater on the Property and
because the bedrock aquifer underlying the Property outside the
Retained Portion of the Property is not contaminated, and because there
are appropriate institutional controls in place, EPA and NYSDEC have
determined that these areas no longer pose a threat to public health or
the environment. EPA and NYSDEC have concluded that this NOPD, which
pertains only to the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property, may
proceed. The Retained Portion of the Property will remain on the NPL,
as well as the Off-Property portions of the Site's overburden and
bedrock aquifers. Because contamination remains in both the Property
and Off-Property overburden and bedrock groundwater, groundwater
monitoring, periodic IC verification, and five-year reviews will still
be required, as will O&M activities, as necessary.
    All the completion requirements for the Proposed Deleted Portion of
the Property have been met, as described in the September 2001 soil
Remedial Action Report, the September 2001 Preliminary Close-Out
Report, and the 2006, 2011, and 2016 five-year review reports. The
implemented remedy has achieved the degree of cleanup or protection
specified in the OU1 and OU3 RODs for the Proposed Deleted Portion of
the Property. The selected remedial action objectives and associated
cleanup levels for the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property are
consistent with EPA policy and guidance. No further Superfund response
for the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property is needed to protect
human health and the environment. The State of New York, in an August
9, 2018 letter from the NYSDEC, concurred with the proposed partial
deletion of the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property from the NPL.
    The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if all
appropriate response under CERCLA has been implemented and no further
response action is appropriate. 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the
concurrence of the State of New York, through NYSDEC, believes that
this criterion for the deletion of the Proposed Deleted Portion of the
Property has been met in that the soil on and the groundwater beneath
the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property no longer pose a threat to
public health or the environment. Consequently, EPA is deleting the
Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property from the NPL. Documents
supporting this action are available in the Docket.

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York, through NYSDEC,
has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been
completed at the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property and that
these media no longer pose a threat to public health or the
environment. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Proposed Deleted Portion of
the Property from the NPL. An approximately three-acre portion of the
southwest On-Property bedrock aquifer (west of the former manufacturing
building and warehouse and south of this area to Old Vestal Road) will
remain on the NPL, as will the Off-Property portion of the Site's
overburden and bedrock aquifers. Because contamination remains in both
On-Property and Off-Property overburden and bedrock groundwater,
groundwater monitoring and five-year reviews will still be required, as
will O&M activities, as necessary. The partial deletion does not
preclude future action under CERCLA. Because EPA considers this action
to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking this action without
prior publication. This action will be effective May 13, 2019 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by April 12, 2019. If adverse comments
are received within the 30-day public comment period of this action,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final NOPD before
the effective date of the partial deletion and the deletion will not
take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and, if no
comments were received which warrant a change in EPA's decision with
respect to the partial deletion, EPA will continue with the deletion
process on the basis of the NOIPD and the comments received. In such a
case,

there will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: October 18, 2018.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is
amended as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

0
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the entry
for ``NY'', ``Robintech, Inc./National Pipe Co.'', ``Town of Vestal''
to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State                          Site name                 City/County              Notes (a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
NY.................................  Robintech, Inc./National     Town of Vestal........  P
                                      Pipe Co..

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) * * *
* * * * *
    *P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
* * * * *

    Editorial note: This document was received for publication by
the Office of the Federal Register on March 7, 2019.

[FR Doc. 2019-04511 Filed 3-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73789-73790]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-P-1189]

Canned Tuna Deviating From the Standard of Identity; Amendment of
Temporary Marketing Permits

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the
temporary permits issued to Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, and StarKist Seafood
Co. to market test canned tuna. The Bumble Bee Foods, LLC's temporary
permit is amended to add one additional manufacturing location. The
StarKist Seafood Co.'s temporary permit is amended to increase the
amount of test product and to add one additional manufacturing
location. These amendments will allow the applicants to continue to
test market the test product and collect data on consumer acceptance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjan Morravej, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration,
5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of June 20, 2014 (79
FR 35362), we issued a notice announcing that we had issued temporary
permits to Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, 9655 Granite Ridge Dr., San Diego, CA
92123; Chicken of the Sea International, 9330 Scranton Rd., Suite 500,
San Diego, CA 92121; and StarKist Seafood Co., 225 North Shore Dr.,
Pittsburgh, PA 15212, to market test products identified as canned tuna
products. We issued the permits to facilitate market testing of
products that deviate from the requirements of the standard of identity
for canned tuna in 21 CFR 161.190, which were issued under section 401
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341).
    In the Federal Register of March 7, 2016 (81 FR 11813), we issued a
notice announcing that we were extending the temporary market permits
issued to Bumble Bee Foods, LLC; Chicken of the Sea International; and
StarKist Seafood Co. The extension allows the applicants to continue to
measure consumer acceptance of the products and assess the commercial
feasibility of the products, in support of a petition to amend the
standard of identity for canned tuna. The new expiration date of the
permits will be either the effective date of a final rule amending the
standard of identity for canned tuna that may result from the petition
or 30 days after denial of the petition.
    In the Federal Register of March 5, 2021 (86 FR 12954), we issued a
notice announcing that we were amending the temporary permit issued to
StarKist Seafood Co. to allow the test product to be manufactured at
three additional plants: Tropical Canning (Thailand) Public Co., Ltd.,
1/1 M.2 T. Thungyai, Hatyai, Songkhla 90110, Thailand; I.S.A. Value
Co., Ltd., 44/4 Moo1, Petchkasem Road, Yaicha, Sampran, Nakornpathom
73110, Thailand; and Tri-Marine (Solomon Islands), Soltuna Ltd., 1 Tuna
Dr., Noro, Western Province, Solomon Islands, and to increase the
amount of test product to 213,500,000 pounds (96,841,971 kilograms).
    Under our regulations at 21 CFR 130.17(f), we are amending the
temporary permits issued to Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, and StarKist Seafood
Co. We are amending the temporary permit issued to Bumble Bee Foods,
LLC, to allow the test product to be manufactured at one additional
plant: Marindustrias, S.A. de C.V. Calle Central Oriente No. 5, Parque
Industrial Fondeport, Manzanillo Colima, CL 28219 Mexico. We are
amending the temporary permit issued to StarKist Seafood Co. to
increase the amount of test product to be market tested to 217,900,000
pounds (98,837,777 kilograms) in retail cans of various sizes and to
allow the test product to be manufactured at one additional plant:
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] De Conserverie en Afrique (SCA S.A.), Nouveau
Quai de Peche-Mole 10-BP 782, Dakar, Senegal. All other conditions and
terms of the permits remain the same.

    Dated: December 21, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-28164 Filed 12-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 150 (Friday, August 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48061-48062]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16779]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No.: FAA-2022-0121; Summary Notice No. -2022-20]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; FulcrumAir
Corp.

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the
summary is intended to affect the

legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before August 24, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2022-0181
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Timothy R. Adams,
Deputy Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2022-0181.
    Petitioner: FulcrumAir Corp.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  61.3(a)(1)(i),
91.7(a), 91.109(a), 91.151(b), 91.403(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),
91.409(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a), 91.417(b), 133.19(a),
133.21(a), 133.21(b), 133.27(b), 133.33(a), 133.33(b)(1), 133.43,
133.45(a), 133.45(b), 133.45(c), 133.45(d), 133.47, 133.49, and
133.51.
    Description of Relief Sought: FulcrumAir Corp. petitions for an
exemption to operate its E7500 unmanned aircraft system (UAS),
weighing over 55 pounds (lbs.) but no more than 220 lbs., to provide
commercial external-load rotorcraft operations in the United States
with a Part 133 Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate. The
E7500 UAS is an electric vertical take-off and landing heavy lift
coaxial helicopter designed to sling a machine used to install Bird
Flight Diverters, and other cable sensing machines on overhead power
transmission lines located in low-risk remote and sparsely populated
areas. The petitioner intends to operate in Class G airspace at or
below 400 feet above ground level. Operations will occur within
visual line of sight of the pilot and during daylight hours only.
The petitioner proposes to use a pilot in command holding a remote
pilot certificate issued under 14 CFR part 107.

[FR Doc. 2022-16779 Filed 8-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P