[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47009-47017]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17155]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No.: FAA-2015-1746; Amdt. No. 91-342]
RIN 2120-AK54

Changes to the Application Requirements for Authorization To
Operate in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises the FAA's requirements for an application
to operate in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace and
eliminates the burden and expense of developing, processing, and
approving RVSM maintenance programs. As a result of this revision, an
applicant to operate in RVSM airspace will no longer be required to
develop and submit an RVSM maintenance program solely for the purpose
of obtaining an RVSM authorization. Because of other, independent FAA
airworthiness regulations, all aircraft operators remain required to
maintain RVSM equipment in an airworthy condition.

DATES: Effective August 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Charles Fellows, Aviation Safety Inspector,
Avionics Branch, Aircraft Maintenance Division, Flight Standards
Services, AFS-360, Federal Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza
North SW., Washington, DC 20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Sections 106(f), 40113,
and 44701 authorize the Administrator to prescribe regulations
necessary for aviation safety. Section 40103 authorizes the
Administrator to prescribe regulations to enhance the efficiency of the
national airspace. This rulemaking is within the scope of these
authorities because it removes an existing safety and airspace-related
regulation that the FAA no longer finds necessary for aviation safety.

I. Overview of Final Rule

    This action amends Appendix G of part 91 of Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) by removing the requirement that any
applicant for a Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM)
authorization must submit an RVSM maintenance program to the FAA for
approval.

II. Background

    The FAA's vertical separation standards establish the vertical
distance that must separate aircraft routes in the national airspace
system. In the early 1970's, rising air-traffic volume and fuel costs
sparked an interest in reducing vertical separation standards for
aircraft operating above flight level (FL) 290 (above 18,000 ft.,
flight levels are assigned in 500-ft. increments; FL290 represents an
pressure altitude of 29,000 ft. referenced to a barometric pressure of
29.92 inches at sea level). At the time, the FAA required aircraft
operating above FL290 to maintain a minimum of 2,000 ft. of vertical
separation. Use of high-altitude routes was desirable, however, because
the diminished atmospheric drag at these altitudes results in enhanced
aircraft efficiency and a corresponding decrease in fuel consumption.
Operators, therefore, sought and continue to seek not only the most
direct routes, but also the most efficient altitudes for operation of
their aircraft. Higher demand for these high-altitude routes has
resulted in greater congestion.
    In 1981, the FAA initiated the Vertical Studies Program. This
program, in conjunction with the RTCA (formerly Radio Technical
Commission for Aeronautics) Special Committee (SC)-150 and the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Review of General
Concept of Separation Panel (RGCSP), determined:
     RVSM is ``technically feasible without imposing
unreasonably demanding technical requirements on the equipment;''
     RVSM could provide ``significant benefits in terms of
economy and en-route airspace capacity;'' and
     Implementation of RVSM would require ``sound operational
judgment supported by an assessment of system performance based on:
Aircraft altitude-keeping capability, operational considerations,
system performance monitoring, and risk assessment.''
    In response to the findings made by the Vertical Separation
Program, the FAA began a two-phase implementation of RVSM operations
for aircraft registered in the United States (U.S.). In 1997, and as
the first phase, the FAA published two amendments to part 91 of Title
14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The first amendment
established Sec.  91.706 (Operations within airspace designed as
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace), which, among other
things, allows operators of U.S.-registered aircraft to fly in RVSM
airspace outside of the U.S. Appendix G (Operations in Reduced Vertical
Separation Minimum (RVSM) Airspace), was added which contained a set of
operational, aircraft design, and other standards applicable to those
seeking to operate in RVSM airspace. See Reduced Vertical Separation
Minimum Operations, (62 FR 17480; Apr. 9, 1997). Appendix G includes
the requirement that all applicants for RVSM authorization must submit
an approved RVSM maintenance program to the FAA.
    The second phase of RVSM implementation occurred in October 2003,
with the publication of a second RVSM-related FAA rulemaking. Reduced
Vertical Separation Minimum in Domestic Airspace, (68 FR 61304; Oct.
27, 2003 and 68 FR 70132; Dec. 17, 2003). The 2003 rule introduced RVSM
airspace over the U.S. and, like the 1997 rulemaking, required all
U.S.-registered RVSM operators to comply with the application,
operations, and aircraft design requirements of part 91, appendix G.
The FAA's RVSM program allows for 1,000 ft. of vertical separation for
aircraft between FL290 and FL410 in U.S. airspace. Before the 2003
rule, air traffic controllers could only assign Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) aircraft flying at FL290 and above to FL290, 310, 330, 350, 370,
390, and 410 since the existing vertical separation standard was 2,000
ft. After the rule changes, IFR aircraft could also fly at FL300, 320,
340, 360, 380, and 400--nearly doubling capacity within this particular
segment of airspace, mitigating the fuel penalties attributed to flying
at sub-optimum altitudes, and increasing the flexibility of air traffic
control.
    In 2008, the FAA reviewed its RVSM authorizations, which applied to
more than 15,000 U.S.-registered aircraft. The FAA's evaluation found
that the existing

processes ensured compliance with RVSM operating requirements. At the
same time, FAA representatives began meeting with the National Business
Aviation Association (NBAA) to develop ways to streamline the RVSM
application process to lower the burden for operators obtaining
authorizations and reduce the FAA's workload associated with processing
and granting these authorizations. The parties formed the RVSM Process
Enhancement Team (PET) to focus on changes that could be accomplished
without rulemaking. The PET completed its tasks in 2013. Among other
things, it revised existing policies and guidance to facilitate more
efficient processing of operator requests to change existing
authorizations, and created a job aid to assist inspectors and
standardize their review of operator applications. In a separate
initiative, the FAA with input from industry determined that
eliminating the redundant maintenance program component of the RVSM
application would improve efficiency and reduce costs for both the
agency and operators while maintaining the same high level of safety.
    The requirement for an applicant to submit a maintenance program
with the application for an RVSM authorization was promulgated in 1997
when most aircraft required significant design changes or inspections
to qualify for RVSM operation. RVSM operations have become much more
common since then. RVSM systems are now incorporated into aircraft type
designs or have been incorporated through modifications performed using
supplemental type designs or amended type designs. Operators must
properly maintain those systems as part of their airworthiness
obligations, making a separate RVSM maintenance program redundant and
unnecessary.

A. Summary of the NPRM

    In May 2015, the FAA issued an NPRM, (15 FR 30394; May 28, 2015)
that proposed to amend the requirements for an application to operate
in RVSM airspace. The FAA proposed to remove and reserve paragraph
(b)(1), of section 3 of Appendix G of part 91, to eliminate the
requirement that any operator seeking RVSM authorization under Sec.
91.180 and Sec.  91.706 had to develop and submit an RVSM maintenance
program for FAA approval.

B. General Overview of Comments

    The comment period for the NPRM closed on July 27, 2015. The FAA
received 38 comments. The commenters included the National Air
Transportation Association (NATA) and the National Business Aviation
Association (NBAA). Twenty commenters supported the rule change in its
entirety, twelve commenters provisionally supported the change while
supplying additional comments, and eight commenters opposed the rule
change. The FAA divided the issues raised in the comments into three
categories addressing: (1) Safety concerns; (2) further enhancements to
the RVSM authorization process; and (3) miscellaneous comments or
recommendations.

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

Safety Concerns

    Although there were slight variations, many of the comments
submitted in opposition to the proposal claimed that reducing the
regulatory requirements for an RVSM authorization would reduce aviation
safety.
    The FAA reiterates that this final rule eliminates an application
requirement, and leaves intact FAA requirements to maintain RVSM
equipment and operate RVSM authorized aircraft in an airworthy
condition. As described in the NPRM, the requirement to submit a
maintenance program as part of an RVSM application was promulgated in
an environment where RVSM technology was not firmly established and
RVSM maintenance procedures were unproven. As RVSM equipment was
installed on more aircraft, and confidence in established maintenance
procedures increased, the requirement for each applicant to develop its
own RVSM-specific maintenance procedures ceased to produce any
appreciable safety benefit.
    Sections 91.180 and 91.706 will continue to require operators to
meet the equipment and performance standards specified in Appendix G to
part 91. These performance standards were developed by the RTCA SC-150
and the ICAO RGCSP as the minimum performance standard for aircraft to
conduct RVSM operation, and adopted by the FAA. In addition, Sec. Sec.
91.405 and 91.407 continue to require operators to have their aircraft
inspected and approved for return to service by authorized persons and
otherwise maintained in accordance with part 43. Moreover, each person
performing maintenance and preventive maintenance is required to do so
using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the
manufacturer's maintenance manual, Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness (ICA), or other means acceptable to the Administrator.
The primary effect of this final rule is to remove the requirement for
an applicant to submit an RVSM-specific maintenance program to the FAA
as part of its application for an RVSM authorization.
    One commenter stated that the requirement to maintain an aircraft
in a condition for safe flight, as codified in Sec.  91.7, applies only
to a pilot, as opposed to an operator. The commenter stated that an
operator is only required to maintain RVSM equipment because of its
maintenance program obligations.
    The FAA disagrees. As previously described, although this final
rule eliminates an operator's obligation to submit a maintenance
program as part of an RVSM application, operators will nevertheless
continue to be required to maintain their RVSM equipment in accordance
with applicable airworthiness standards. In particular, Sec. Sec.
43.13, 91.405, and 91.407 continue to require aircraft to be inspected
and approved for return to service in accordance with manufacturers'
maintenance information or other material acceptable to the
Administrator. Operators with maintenance programs, such as air
carriers conducting operations under part 121, will continue to be
required to maintain RVSM equipment in accordance with those programs.
    Two commenters raised the issue of identifying required maintenance
information. One commenter stated that most RVSM applicants do not have
the latest RVSM maintenance information until they acquire that
information in the course of preparing to apply for an RVSM
authorization. Another commenter stated that ICA may not be available
for all RVSM designs. As an example, the commenter referred to aircraft
modified to meet RVSM performance standards under a supplemental type
certificate (STC), rather than with equipment installed under a type
certificate (TC), and also to aircraft modifications classified as
minor changes to type design.
    To the extent that these commenters assert that the requirement to
submit a maintenance program as part of an RVSM application is
necessary for operators to access or determine the appropriate
maintenance instructions, the FAA disagrees. For many newer aircraft,
RVSM capability is incorporated into the original type design. For
other aircraft, incorporating alterations to meet RVSM performance
requirements is classified as a major change to type design, and as
such must be incorporated through an STC or an amended type
certificate. In either case, Sec.  21.50(b) requires, among other
things,

a TC or STC holder to make ICA available to any person required to
comply with those ICA, including owners and operators. Each owner or
operator should, therefore, have access to all required maintenance and
preventive maintenance information.
    One commenter stated that he services aircraft that have been
upgraded to RVSM capability by way of STCs, and removing the RVSM
maintenance program requirement would remove the information from the
aircraft records that identifies which STC is installed. The FAA
disagrees. When STCs are incorporated into aircraft they constitute
major changes to the aircraft type design. Identification of the design
change and associated ICA are recorded in the appropriate aircraft
records. Section 21.50 requires design approval holders to make ICA
available to any owner, operator, or other person required to comply
with their terms.
    Another commenter stated that submission of an RVSM maintenance
program is necessary to identify necessary repairs to RVSM and other
aviation data equipment and that the FAA has a statutory obligation,
under 49 U.S.C. 44701, to promote the safe flight of civil aircraft.
The FAA disagrees that submission of an RVSM maintenance program with
an RVSM application for authorization is necessary to identify repairs
for the reasons previously stated. Removal of the requirement will not
negatively impact the safe flight of civil aircraft or conflict with
the FAA's obligations under 49 U.S.C. 44701.
    Among the commenters who raised safety concerns, several
recommended alternatives. One commenter recommended that the FAA
require operators to ``identify practices'' for the maintenance of RVSM
equipment (alternative 2 considered in the proposal), but without
requiring that these practices be submitted as part of an application.
The same commenter also recommended that the FAA modify the alternative
to specifically require each operator to identify the TC or STC
holder's ICA and ensure each is listed in the operator's maintenance
tracking system.
    The FAA believes that adopting the proposed alternative would
provide no greater safety benefit and would do less to reduce the
unnecessary burden on industry than eliminating the requirement to
submit an RVSM maintenance program for approval. The commenter's
recommendation would continue to require operators to provide redundant
paperwork as part of each RVSM application. The FAA also believes that
requiring an applicant to identify maintenance practices, in addition
to the existing requirements to follow those practices, would not
meaningfully contribute to aviation safety. As stated previously, Sec.
21.50 requires design approval holders to make ICA available to any
owner, operator, or other person required to comply with the terms of
those ICA.
    With respect to the recommendation to require operators to track
RVSM-specific information in a maintenance tracking system, the FAA
agrees that any operator using a maintenance tracking system should use
that system to track the maintenance of RVSM equipment as identified in
the appropriate ICA. However, some operators--such as part 91
operators--are not required to develop maintenance tracking systems. To
the extent that the commenter is recommending that the FAA require part
91 operators to implement maintenance tracking systems, the
recommendation is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter observed that the FAA often rejects, for various
reasons, maintenance programs that accompany operators' applications
for RVSM authorizations. The commenter stated that the existence of
these rejections is evidence that continued FAA oversight is necessary
to maintain safety. The FAA disagrees. The FAA often rejects a program
submission or requests that additional revisions be made to an
application for reasons related to an operator's lack of familiarity
with the process for developing a program and submitting an
application. These issues may be unrelated to the adequacy of a
particular maintenance program. Moreover, many part 91 operators
applying for RVSM authorizations do not perform maintenance
themselves--RVSM or otherwise--and are reproducing plans developed by
an original equipment manufacturer. Regardless of who performs the
maintenance, Sec. Sec.  91.405 and 91.407 require each aircraft owner
or operator to have the aircraft inspected and approved for return to
service by an individual or entity authorized by Sec.  43.7.
    One commenter stated that the expense and effort required to create
an RVSM maintenance program helps to ensure each operator's commitment
to safety. Another commenter stated that the requirement to develop and
submit a maintenance program encourages operators to adhere to the
appropriate maintenance information. The FAA believes that imposing a
requirement on operators to submit a maintenance program for approval
imposes a significant cost on operators that is not an effective or
appropriate means of obtaining an operators' commitment to safety. As
previously described, operators will continue to be required to
maintain their aircraft in an airworthy condition in accordance with
existing regulations.

Further Enhancements to the RVSM Authorization Process

    Three comments were received that the proposal ``did not go far
enough,'' and recommended that the FAA eliminate RVSM approvals
entirely. For example, one commenter stated that the industry's
experience in safely installing, maintaining, and operating RVSM
equipment demonstrates that there is no longer a need for RVSM
approvals. The FAA proposed only to remove the requirement to submit a
maintenance program from the application for RVSM approval. The FAA did
not propose to eliminate RVSM approvals entirely. The commenter's
recommendation is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    One individual commenter recommended that, in cases where an
operator was applying to operate an aircraft which was previously
listed on an authorization, the FAA should issue a temporary, interim
RVSM approval. The commenter stated that the NPRM underestimated the
costs of compliance with the FAA's RVSM approval program, because an
operator awaiting RVSM authorization consumes significant additional
funds flying below optimal altitudes. Operators are required to apply
for a new authorization whenever an aircraft changes ownership or
registration, regardless of whether the underlying aircraft is
modified. The FAA did not propose to introduce interim RVSM
authorizations. The commenters' recommendation is, therefore, outside
the scope of this rulemaking.

Miscellaneous Comments or Recommendations

    One commenter stated that a reduction to the FAA's workload is not
a legitimate rationale for FAA rulemaking and that the FAA's goal and
statutory obligation is to promote safe flight of civil aircraft. The
FAA notes that this final rule eliminates a requirement that is no
longer necessary to provide the level of safety required for these
operations. The FAA is required by numerous statutes and executive
orders to consider both the costs and benefits of its regulations and
to adopt proposals that are cost justified. Costs incurred by the FAA
are a legitimate factor to be considered in accomplishing this
analysis. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (Regulatory Flexibility

Act); Executive Order 13563; Executive Order 12866.
    One individual commenter stated that the industry assumes this rule
change would allow an operator to obtain RVSM approval by submitting no
more than a letter to the FAA. The FAA disagrees. The requirement to
submit an RVSM maintenance program, a requirement eliminated by this
rule, was only one of three components of an RVSM application. Under
Sec. Sec.  91.180, 91.706, and Appendix G to part 91, the FAA continues
to require an applicant to submit documentation establishing that its
aircraft is RVSM compliant, and that the applicant's crew has adequate
knowledge of RVSM requirements, policies, and procedures as set forth
in Sec.  3(c)(2) of Appendix G. For part 121 and part 135 operators,
this requires initial and recurring pilot training as specified in
Sec.  3(b)(2) of Appendix G.
    One individual commenter recommended that the FAA eliminate the
requirement for maintenance program approval only with respect to
aircraft that are RVSM capable ``under a TC.'' The commenter
recommended that the FAA continue to require maintenance program
approval for any aircraft that is RVSM capable as a result of an
alteration performed in accordance with an STC because an STC indicates
a major deviation from the aircraft's original type design and
maintenance procedures would not be listed in the manufacturer's
recommended procedures.
    The FAA disagrees that aircraft with RVSM equipment installed
pursuant to an STC should be treated differently from aircraft with
RVSM equipment installed as part of an original or amended type design.
Both TC and STC holders must develop ICA, and Sec.  43.13 continues to
require maintenance and preventive maintenance to be performed in
accordance with the current manufacturer's maintenance manual, ICA, or
other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the
Administrator. Because ICA are available regardless of whether RVSM
equipment is installed under a TC or an STC, and because all operators
are equally obligated to maintain their equipment in accordance with
this maintenance information, the FAA finds no reason to differentiate
between these two kinds of operators.
    One individual commenter stated that avionics technology has
undergone a major transformation in the last 15 years, moving away from
discrete components and towards more fully integrated systems. The
commenter recommended that authorizations should similarly be analyzed
and approved in a more unified manner, to reduce the number of
individual performance-based approvals. The commenter's recommendation
that the FAA review all performance-based approvals in a single
application is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    Several individual commenters, both supporting and opposing the
proposal, stated that the burden on operators to obtain approval of an
RVSM maintenance program could be reduced substantially by
standardizing what is required by FAA inspectors in an RVSM
application. The FAA has published and continues to provide guidance to
its inspectors on the requirements for the issuance of an RVSM
authorization. In addition to the guidance, the FAA has developed job
aids to assist in the development of an RVSM program manual. The agency
believes these ongoing efforts will continue to increase
standardization in the application process.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
Because this rulemaking is a retrospective regulatory review, the
expected outcome would be a cost savings with positive net benefits.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and procedures. Such a determination has been made
for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:
    This rulemaking responds to requests from industry and FAA program
offices. The rule removes the requirement that operators seeking RVSM
authorization must submit an RVSM maintenance program for FAA approval.
It eliminates the considerable burden and expense to operators and FAA
safety inspectors of developing, processing, and approving RVSM
maintenance programs.
    When the former requirement was established, RVSM systems were yet
to be incorporated into initial aircraft type designs. This is no
longer the case. RVSM systems are now incorporated into initial
aircraft type designs, and operators must properly maintain these
systems as part of their airworthiness obligation. In light of these
developments, the requirement for RVSM applicants to submit specialized
maintenance programs is redundant. Removing this redundancy has no
effect on aviation safety.
    One commenter stated the NPRM underestimated the cost of
compliance, because an operator awaiting RVSM authorization incurs cost
flying below optimal altitudes. As the operators are already required
to incur this cost, this rule does not change this cost. The FAA did
not propose to introduce interim RVSM authorization, therefore no new
cost are required. The FAA notes that no other comments were received
on our NPRM cost-savings determination or methodology. While the same
methodology is used here, the FAA has updated the number of maintenance
programs expected to be submitted and the wage for the safety inspector
to 2015 dollars.
    The relief to part 91 operators and FAA safety inspectors from the
streamlining of regulations equals the number of RVSM maintenance
programs approved (including growth) multiplied by the costs per
operator of submitting an RVSM maintenance program for FAA approval. To
that result, the FAA added the number of RVSM maintenance programs
approved multiplied by the cost of an FAA safety inspector to review
and approve an RVSM maintenance program multiplied by the average
number of hours FAA safety inspectors expend reviewing and approving
each RVSM maintenance

program. The value for these variables is shown below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Average annual
                                                    growth (2010-2015)                        Hours expended by
                                                     in the number of    Operator cost for        FAA safety
                                                       maintenance          submitting a          inspectors
CY 2015--Number of maintenance programs submitted   programs submitted  maintenance program       reviewing
             to FAA for approval \1\               to FAA for approval     to the FAA for        maintenance
                                                    (used as forecast       approval \2\         programs for
                                                       of 2016-2020                              approval \3\
                                                         growth)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,437............................................               4.46%           \4\ $5,000                   12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying these estimates, the FAA anticipates that operators would
experience cost savings of approximate $12.7 million in year one of
implementation. The FAA calculated this figure by multiplying the
estimated number of maintenance programs expected to be submitted to
the FAA for approval during CY 2016 (2,546 approvals) by each
operator's cost for submitting a RVSM maintenance program to the FAA
for approval ($5,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FAA National Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem
(NPTRS).
    \2\ National Business Aviation Association--Part 91 Operator
Cost for Submitting an RVSM Approval.
    \3\ FAA Safety Inspectors involved in RVSM authorization
processing at FAA Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO).
    \4\ This amount consists of $3,123 in operator costs for
submitting an application form and supporting documentation to a
RVSM manual preparation service, and then reading, understanding,
signing, and submitting the completed RVSM maintenance program
manual to the FAA for approval. The remaining $1,977 is an
approximation of the amount paid by an operator for RVSM manual
preparation services. The estimate of $1,977 is an average of quotes
provided on the Internet by seven companies providing this service.
These seven quotes ranged from $795 to $3,850.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the cost savings realized by operators, eliminating
the requirement would free 30,552 hours for FAA safety inspectors to
perform alternative tasks during year one of implementation. The hours
are calculated by multiplying the average number of hours FAA safety
inspectors expend reviewing and approving each RVSM maintenance program
submitted (12 hours) by the number of RVSM maintenance program
approvals estimated for CY 2016 (2,546 approvals). The annual cost
savings of $1.4 million to the FAA equals the 30,552 hours multiplied
by the FAA fully-burdened wage of $45.96.\5\ As per Department of
Transportation (DOT) guidance, the FAA assumes that there will be a 1.2
percent projected annual increase in real wages.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Source: 2015 General Schedule Salary Table as published by
the U. S. Office of Personnel Management. The salary used for
calculating costs savings is the fully-burdened hourly wage for a GS
12 Step 5, which is the mid-range salary for this position.
    \6\ Office of the Secretary of Transportation Memorandum,
``Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in
Economic Analysis'', July 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these calculations, the cost savings to operators and the
FAA during the first five years of the rule's implementation will be
approximately $77.5 million ($67.6 million present value). The results
are presented below:
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20JY16.002

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether a rule significantly
affects a substantial number of small entities. This determination is
typically based on small entity size and revenue thresholds that vary
depending on the affected industry.\7\ In most cases, the FAA cannot
determine the size of part 91 operators because financial and
employment data for privately held entities is sparse. Nevertheless,
the FAA believes the number of small business entities is substantial.
The FAA estimates that this rulemaking will save each affected small
entity $5,000 per RVSM authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Thresholds are based on the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS is the standard used by
Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments
for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical
data related to the U.S. business economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the criteria used in the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis and used again here, this rule will impact a substantial
number of part 91 operators. Accordingly, the FAA prepared a final
regulatory flexibility analysis for part 91 operators, as described in
the next section. The FAA received no comments to the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    Under section 603(b) of the RFA (as amended), each regulatory
flexibility analysis is required to address the following points: (1)
Reasons the agency considered the rule, (2) the objectives and legal
basis for the rule, (3) the kind and number of small entities to which
the rule will apply, (4) the reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the rule, and (5) all Federal rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule.
Reasons the FAA Considered the Rule
    All part 91 operator RVSM-related obligations are required by FAA
airworthiness regulations to maintain RVSM equipment in an airworthy
condition. Thus, the requirement that operators seeking RVSM
authorization to develop and submit an RVSM maintenance program for FAA
approval, is redundant.
The Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Sec. Sec.  106, 40113, and 44701 of 49 U.S.C., which authorize
the FAA Administrator to prescribe regulations necessary for aviation
safety. Section 40103 authorizes the Administrator to prescribe
regulations to enhance the efficiency of the national airspace. This
rulemaking is within the scope of these authorities because it removes
existing safety and airspace-related regulations that the FAA no longer
finds necessary to protect aviation safety.
The Kind and Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
    This final rule will affect a substantial number of part 91
operators. The FAA estimates that this proposed rulemaking would save
each affected small entity $5,000 per RVSM authorization.
The Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the
Rule
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.
All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Rule
    This final rule eliminates an application requirement for
submission of an RVSM maintenance program and leaves intact current
requirements to maintain RVSM equipment and operate RVSM authorized
aircraft in an airworthy condition. Sections 43.13, 91.405, and 91.407
continue to require aircraft to be inspected and approved for return to
service in accordance with manufacturers' maintenance information or
other material acceptable to the Administrator. Operators with approved
maintenance programs will continue to be required to maintain RVSM
equipment in accordance with their approved programs.
Other Considerations
Alternatives
    Alternative 1: Retain the current requirement for submission of an
RVSM maintenance program for approval.
    Analysis: Without changes to Appendix G of part 91, any operator
seeking RVSM authorization would continue to be required to submit an
RVSM maintenance program. A non-commercial operator with no requirement
to hold a maintenance program for any other performance-based
authorization would nevertheless be required to submit an RVSM
maintenance program for approval--despite the fact that the operator is
already required by FAA regulations to maintain RVSM equipment in
accordance with its type design and in a condition for safe operation.
Furthermore, the review and approval of this information would continue
to consume FAA resources.
    Alternative 2: Replace the current Appendix G requirement that
operators include an ``approved RVSM maintenance program'' with a
requirement that operators ``identify practices'' for the maintenance
of RVSM equipment.
    Analysis: Relaxing Appendix G application requirements to allow
operators to ``identify practices'' for the maintenance of RVSM
equipment would allow a non-commercial operator to cite the applicable
manufacturer's maintenance manual or ICA. This alternative would likely
reduce the time and resources spent by operators and the FAA in
compiling and reviewing RVSM applications. This alternative is
undesirable, however, because it fails to address the absence of any
safety benefits associated with continuing to require an RVSM
maintenance program as a component of an RVSM application.

    The FAA expects this rule will save each affected small entity
$5,000 per RVSM authorization. Over a 5-year period, the number exceeds
$10,000 per RVSM authorization. While the rule may not have a
significant economic impact, it would have a positive impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it
will have only a domestic impact and, therefore, no effect on
international trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312d (regulatory documents covering
administrative or procedural requirements) and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism
implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 require the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this
document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed
under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of
the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120,
44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716,
44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508,
47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

0
2. Amend Appendix G, Section 3 by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(1).

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40103,
40113, and 44701(a) in Washington, DC, on July 12, 2016.
Michael Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17155 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


DATE:  March 14, 2007

MEMORANDUM to the Docket for the Pollution Prevention (P2) Amendments

SUBJECT:  Conference Call with Environmental Council of the States
(ECOS) about Pollution Prevention (P2) Amendments

PARTIPANTS:

Rick Colyer, OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Penny Lassiter, OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Rick Vetter, OGC/EPA

Jenny Craig, OPAR/OAR/EPA

Janet McDonald, OAR/EPA

Mark McDermid, State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Roger Fritz, State of Wisconsin

Bill Baumann, State of Wisconsin

Rick Sprott, State of Utah (with 4 other participants)

Arleen O’Donnell, State of Massachusetts

Laurel Kroack, State of Illinois

Emily Land, Environmental Commissioners of the States (ECOS)

Margaret Sealey, ECOS

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:

The goal of the meeting was to describe the upcoming P2 amendments and
the status of the rulemaking.  Rick Colyer described:  (1) the
relationship between P2 and the Once-In Always-In (OIAI) proposal; (2) a
summary of the draft P2 amendments package; and (3) changes and
clarifications in the draft final rule.

Relationship between P2 and OIAI:  OIAI pertains to when major sources
can become area sources.  The P2 amendments would pertain to affected
sources that are subject to a maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) rule under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (and there can be
many affected sources at a major source).  Under the pending P2 rule, if
an affected source eliminates all its hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions, it could get out of those applicable MACT requirements; if
there are other potential HAP emissions above the cutoff levels for area
sources at other parts of the facility, the facility would still be
considered a major source.

Proposed P2 amendments:  EPA proposed the amendments in 2003; EPA is now
in the last part of internal review and the package will hopefully go to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the next 2-3 weeks.  OMB
can have up to 3 months to review the package, and hopefully the rule
will be finalized by the end of June 2007.

In the proposed amendments, we created two new sections.  Option 1
relates to an affected source that eliminates all HAPs through P2 and
therefore is no longer subject to MACT; Option 2 would allow affected
sources to use P2 to meet performance standards to comply with MACT with
appropriate testing, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping.  A
source would apply to EPA or the delegated authority on either option 1
or 2.  Within 45 days (or 30, if the source is a Performance Track
facility), if EPA or the delegated authority agree with the source, it
would send an enforceable letter with terms of the agreement.

Rick Sprott asked whether the letter is legally enforceable, and Rick
Colyer answered yes.

Changes and clarifications in the draft final rule:

Rick Colyer noted that the current draft contained these changes and
clarifications.  Because the rule is not yet final there was always a
chance that there could potentially be some additional changes, but he
did not expect them.

Under Option 1, EPA originally said all affected sources subject to a
specific MACT standard at a facility would have to eliminate HAPs; that
has been changed to each affected source to provide more flexibility.

The proposal allowed sources to make changes right away; the draft final
rule says source could implement changes immediately only if it is a
minor permit modification; if it is a major modification, it would have
to go through public comment and implement the P2 measures only after
incorporation into the permit.

If a source eliminates HAPs, but then decides to emit HAPs again, it
would have to provide 15 days notice before going back to emitting those
HAPs (the proposal had 30 days).

Final rule would clarify what it means to “completely eliminate”
HAPs (i.e., below detectable limits, below reportable levels, below
levels of 1 percent of noncancer HAP or 0.1 percent of cancer HAP).

Under option 2, the proposal would have allowed permitting authorities
to set P2 requirements tighter than the MACT requirements; for the final
we are making P2 requirements at least as stringent, but they do not
have to be more stringent, than the MACT requirements.

In the proposal, there was language that sources were eligible for the
options if subject to MACT at the first compliance date.  That has been
changed so that sources could do P2 before or after compliance date.

Final rule would clarify that the option approval process is not tied to
the permitting process.  Option approval could be done concurrently if
it fits into the permitting process, but it does not have to.

On the question of permit modification, EPA would leave it up to the
permitting authority to decide whether major or minor permit
modifications are needed.

Roger Fritz asked whether the authority would be delegated to the MACT
or Title V authority.  Rick Vetter clarified that the state agency with
delegation for MACT would decide if the P2 option is appropriate for
complying with the MACT; the state agency with delegation for Title V
would decide whether it is a major or minor modification.

The ECOS representatives were positive regarding the direction the final
draft was taking.  Mark McDermid, Arleen O’Donnell, and Rick Sprott
all encouraged EPA to keep the P2 amendments rule moving and not to let
it get delayed because of the parallel effort on the OIAI proposal.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 60512]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3329-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Virginia; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-3329-EM), dated August
26, 2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 26, 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: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 26, 2011, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5208 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the Commonwealth of Virginia resulting from Hurricane Irene
beginning on August 26, 2011, and continuing, are of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such an emergency exists in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program. This assistance excludes regular time costs for
subgrantees' regular employees.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Donald
L. Keldsen, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Virginia have been
designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Accomack, Northampton, Isle of Wight, James City, Lancaster,
Mathews, Middlesex, Northumberland, Richmond, Westmoreland, and New
Kent Counties and the independent cities of Chesapeake, Hampton,
Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia
Beach, and Williamsburg 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. 2011-25137 Filed 9-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 9501]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03546]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending November 29, 2014

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 302. 201 et seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2014-0209.
    Date Filed: November 26, 2014.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion To Modify
Scope: December 17, 2014.

Description

    Application of Air Cargo Global, s.r.o. (``ACG'') requesting a
foreign air carrier permit and exemption authority to enable ACG to
engage in foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of property
and mail between any point or points in the United States and any point
or points outside the United States, and any other transportation
authorized by additional rights made available to European Community
carriers in the future.

 Barbara J. Hairston,
 Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2015-03546 Filed 2-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43601-43602]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15857]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0744; FRL-9946-87]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an
Existing Collection (EPA ICR No. 0794.16); Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: ``Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to
Health and the Environment under TSCA Sec. 8(e)'' and identified by EPA
ICR No. 0794.16 and OMB Control No. 2070-0046, represents the renewal
of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2017.
Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is
soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and
accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and
comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0744, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: David Brooks, Risk Assessment
Division (7403T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to Health and the
Environment under TSCA Sec. 8(e).
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 0794.16.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0046.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on February
28, 2017. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
requires that any person who manufactures, imports, processes or
distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and which
obtains information that reasonably supports the conclusion that such
substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or
the environment must immediately inform EPA of such information. EPA
routinely disseminates TSCA section 8(e) data it receives to other
federal agencies to provide information about newly discovered chemical
hazards and risks. This information collection refers to the reporting
requirement described above.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 15
U.S.C. 2607(e)). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice
confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim
of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance
with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to range from
0.5 hours to 50 hours per response, depending upon the nature of the
response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are companies that manufacture, process, import or distribute
in commerce a chemical substance or mixture, and that obtain
information that reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance
or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the
environment.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 65.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
8.8.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 21,412 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $1,650,068. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $1,650,068 and an estimated cost of $0 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is an increase of 2,894 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase reflects EPA's revised estimates of the
number of TSCA sec. 8(e) initial submissions. This change is an
adjustment.

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: June 22, 2016.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2016-15857 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 45802]
[DOCID:fr10au06-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-461-000]

Canyon Creek Compression Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

August 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 1, 2006, Canyon Creek Compression
Company (Canyon) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1, Ninth Revised Sheet No. 6A, to become
effective October 1, 2006.
    Canyon states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its
customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-13081 Filed 8-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5423-5424]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1988]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63769; File No. SR-BX-2011-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Extending
the Pilot Period To Receive Inbound Routes of Orders From Nasdaq
Execution Services

January 25, 2011.
    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 January 19, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by BX. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule
change as constituting a non-controversial rule change under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BX submits this proposed rule change to extend the pilot period of
BX's prior approval to receive inbound routes of equities orders from
Nasdaq Execution Services, LLC (``NES'') through June 15, 2011.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, BX 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. BX 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
    Currently, NES is the approved outbound routing facility of the
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') for cash equities, providing
outbound routing from NASDAQ to other market centers.\4\ BX also has
been previously approved to receive inbound routes of equities orders
by NES in its capacity as an order routing facility of NASDAQ on a
pilot basis.\5\ The Exchange hereby seeks to extend a previously
approved pilot period for such inbound routing (with the attendant
obligations and conditions) for an additional 6 months from the date of
this filing through June 15, 2011.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50311 (September 3,
2004), 69 FR 54818 (September 10, 2004) (Order Granting Application
for a Temporary Conditional Exemption Pursuant To Section 36(a) of
the Exchange Act by the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. Relating to the Acquisition of an ECN by The Nasdaq Stock
Market, Inc.) and 52902 (December 7, 2005), 70 FR 73810 (December
13, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-128) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change
To Establish Rules Governing the Operation of the INET System). See
also SR-NASDAQ-2011-004 (January 14, 2011); Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 63083 (October 13, 2010), 75 FR 64370 (October 19,
2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-127); 62736 (August 17, 2010), 75 FR 51861
(August 23, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-100); 61682 (March 10, 2010), 75
FR 12592 (March 16, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-030); 61460 (February 1,
2010), 75 FR 6077 (February 5, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-018); 60039
(June 3, 2009), 74 FR 27365 (June 9, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-050);
59875 (May 6, 2009), 74 FR 22794 (May 14, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-
043); 59807 (April 21, 2009), 74 FR 19251 (April 28, 2009) (SR-
NASDAQ-2009-036); 59153 (December 23, 2008), 73 FR 80485 (December
31, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-098); 58752 (October 8, 2008), 73 FR 61181
(October 15, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-079); 58135 (July 10, 2008), 73
FR 40898 (July 16, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-061); 58069 (June 30,
2008), 73 FR 39360 (July 9, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-054); 56708
(October 26, 2007), 72 FR 61925 (November 1, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-
078); 56867 (November 29, 2007), 72 FR 69263 (December 7, 2007) (SR-
NASDAQ-2007-065); 55335 (February 23, 2007), 72 FR 9369 (March 1,
2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-005); 54613 (October 17, 2006), 71 FR 62325
(October 24, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ 2006-043); 54271 (August 3, 2006), 71
FR 45876 (August 10, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-027); and 54155 (July 14,
2006), 71 FR 41291 (July 20, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-001).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59154 (December 23,
2008), 73 FR 80468 (December 31, 2008) (SR-BX-2008-048); 61271
(December 31, 2009), 75 FR 1102 (January 8, 2010) (SR-BX-2009-085);
61782 (March 25, 2010), 75 FR 16534 (April 1, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-
021); 62528 (July 19, 2010), 75 FR 43210 (July 23, 2010) (SR-BX-
2010-048).
    \6\ During this pilot period, the Exchange will file a separate
proposal with the Commission seeking permanent approval of the BX
and NES Routing Relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically,
the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to continue receiving
inbound routes of equities orders from NES acting in its capacity as a
facility of Nasdaq, in a manner consistent with prior approvals and
established protections. The Exchange believes that extending the
previously approved pilot period for six months is of sufficient length
to permit both the Exchange and the Commission to assess the impact of
the Exchange's authority to receive direct inbound routes of equities
orders via NES (including the attendant obligations and conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\11\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. BX has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay. BX notes that the proposal will allow
the Exchange to continue receiving inbound routes of equities orders
from NES, in a manner consistent with prior approvals and established
protections, while also permitting the Exchange and the Commission to
assess the impact of the pilot.\13\ The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because such waiver would allow the
pilot period to be extended without undue delay through June 15, 2011.
For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to
be operative upon filing with the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission is waiving this five-day pre-filing requirement.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See supra Section II.A.2.
    \14\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2011-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-003. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies
of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-003 and should be submitted on
or before February 22, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-1988 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 232 (Friday, December 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75570-75572]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30980]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65831; File No. SR-DTC-2011-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Enhance Risk Management
Controls Associated With the Receiver Authorized Delivery Function

November 28, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on November 16, 2011, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by DTC. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change would enhance the risk management controls
associated with DTC's Receiver Authorized Delivery (``RAD'') function.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC 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) The RAD function enables each Participant to control and review
a Deliver Order (``DO'') \3\ or a Payment Order (``PO'') \4\ that is
directed to its account by another Participant before its account is
updated. The RAD function was built in 1990 to route money market
instrument (``MMI'') transactions for receiver approval. In 1996, there
was a conversion for all transactions to settle in same-day funds
subject to the net debit cap control \5\ and collateral controls.\6\
Any DO that obligated a Participant to pay $15 million or more and any
PO that obligated a Participant to pay $1 million or more became
subject to RAD. In order to minimize blockage, DTC excluded from RAD
any DO under $15 million and any PO under $1 million. Transactions in
such lower amounts were directed to the account of the receiving
Participant without the RAD filter. For such lower amounts, the
receiving Participant has the ability on the same day as the original
delivery to instruct a matched

reclaim \7\ transaction not subject to the original delivering
Participant's collateral monitor and net debit cap controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Deliver Order is the term used to define an instruction
initiating the book-entry transfer of a security from one DTC
Participant, as delivering Participant, to another DTC Participant,
as receiving Participant.
    \4\ A Payment Order is the term used to define an instruction
initiating a transaction in which a Participant charges another
Participant for changes in value for outstanding stock loans or
option contract premiums. Payment orders involve no securities, only
money.
    \5\ The net debit cap control is designed so that DTC may
complete settlement even if a Participant fails to settle. Before
completing a transaction in which a Participant is the receiver, DTC
calculates the effect the transaction would have on such
Participant's account and determines whether any resulting net debit
balance would exceed the Participant's net debit cap. Any
transaction that would cause the net debit balance to exceed the
Participant's net debit cap is placed on a pending (recycling) queue
until another transaction creates sufficient credit in such
Participant's account so that the net debit cap will not be
exceeded.
    \6\ An example of a collateral control is the Collateral Monitor
(``CM''). DTC tracks collateral in a Participant's account through
the Collateral Monitor. At all times, the CM reflects the amount by
which the collateral value in the account exceeds the net debit
balance in the account. When processing a transaction, DTC verifies
that the CM of neither the deliverer nor the receiver will not
become negative when the transaction completes. If the transaction
would cause either party to have a negative CM, the transaction will
recycle until the deficient account has sufficient collateral to
proceed or until the applicable cutoff occurs.
    \7\ A ``reclaim'' is a separate DO or PO that a receiving
Participant may use to return a DO or PO (typically received in
error).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this rule filing, DTC is proposing the following revisions to
RAD:
    (i) DTC will expand RAD to include Omgeo Institutional Delivery
(``ID'') transactions in excess of $15 million at the receiving
Participant's election. If no election is made, these transactions will
be processed for receipt in the same manner as they currently are
processed. (Currently, ID transactions are not routed to RAD and are
not subject to matched reclaim.) The change will reduce the receiving
Participant's risk relating to ID transactions.
    (ii) Participants will be able to elect to have all free MMI
deliveries bypass RAD on a counterparty by counterparty basis.
Currently, all free money market instrument (``MMI'') deliveries are
routed to RAD for receiver approval.\8\ The change will help facilitate
customer account transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A receiver that authorizes a free MMI transaction is deemed
to have made an agreement with the deliverer that it will make
payment outside of DTC in accordance with the agreement of the
parties outside DTC. DTC does not monitor or enforce compliance with
such agreements. Participants must enforce these agreements
themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) DTC will be able, in its discretion, to apply RAD to all DOs
and POs initiated by a ``Wind-Down Participant'' \9\ regardless of
value. A receiving Participant will have the option to raise its RAD
limit in accordance with its own transaction management objectives (but
not to reinstitute matched reclaims in lieu of RAD). DTC views this
improvement as a means for Participants, bilaterally, and DTC,
multilaterally, to manage liquidity and credit risk in a Wind-Down
scenario and to eliminate the risk of matched reclaims to a Wind-Down
Participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DTC Rule 32 defines a ``Wind-Down Participant'' and provides
for actions that may be taken with respect to such a Participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iv) DTC will exclude from RAD certain receives or deliveries
(e.g., the OCC Market Loan program \10\ account) because these are
effectively matched and/or approved by other mechanisms.

    \10\ For more information about the OCC's Market Loan Program,
see Securities Exchange Release Act No. 34-59298 (January 26, 2009)
74 FR 5692 (January 30, 2009) [SR-DTC-2008-15].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DTC also seeks to conform the language of its existing procedures
pertaining to processing of reclaims to its practices:

    (v) Receiving Participants may, only on the same day as the
original delivery, instruct a matched reclaim transaction. Any such
matched reclaim of a DO with a settlement value of less than $15
million and a PO with a value less than $1 million may be processed
without reference to the collateral monitor and net debit cap controls
for the original delivering Participant.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For more information regarding this change, see Securities
Exchange Release Act No. 34-48121 (July 2, 2003) 68 FR 41030 (July
2, 2003) [SR-DTC-2003-06].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC has discussed these changes with selected Participants and with
its Settlement Advisory Board which agreed that these enhancements
should reduce risk.
    These changes will be reflected in revisions to the existing DTC
Settlement Services Guide, set forth in the attached Exhibit 5.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on DTC's
Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rule_filings/dtc/2011.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC as
well as the CPSS/IOSCO Recommendations for Securities Settlement
Systems applicable to DTC. The proposed change is designed to
facilitate the prompt and accurate settlement of securities
transactions by promoting efficiencies and reducing risk in the system.

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

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by DTC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall:
(a) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change or (b)
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2011-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2011-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at DTC's principal office and on DTC's Web site
at http://www.dtc.org. 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-DTC-2011-08 and
should be submitted on or before December 23, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30980 Filed 12-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P