[Federal Register: November 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 226)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65886-65888]
[DOCID:fr26no07-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01-07-157]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: Ambrose Light, Offshore Sandy Hook, NJ, Atlantic
Ocean

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
waters of the Atlantic Ocean within a 250 yard radius of Ambrose Light
(LLNR 720) located at position 40[deg]27'00'' N, 073[deg]48'00'' W,
approximately 8.35 nautical miles east of Sandy Hook, NJ. This safety
zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life, property and the
environment on navigable waters of the United States during survey and
reconstruction of the Ambrose Light that was recently damaged. This
safety zone is intended to keep vessels a safe distance from Ambrose
Light during the survey and reconstruction operations.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on November 5, 2007
through 11:59 p.m. on May 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket CGD01-07-157 and are available for
inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector New York, Room 209, Staten
Island, New York 10305 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander Mike McBrady,
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York (718) 354-
2353.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. A notice and comment period
was not held for this rulemaking because the safety zone is needed in
response to an emergency situation created when the Ambrose Light was
struck and damaged by a vessel. A survey and repairs are needed
immediately in order to restore the light to normal operations.
Delaying the necessary survey and repairs in order to conduct a notice
and comment period would be contrary to the public interest.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register as immediate action is needed to
protect vessels transiting the area from the hazards of the damaged
light tower and from the hazards associated with survey and
reconstruction operations. Any delay in implementing this rule would be
contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed due to the
potential hazards associated with the unstable light, the possibility
of it collapsing, or a vessel grounding on the remains of Ambrose Light
(LLNR 720).

Background and Purpose

    On Saturday, November 3, 2007, the M/T AXEL SPIRIT allided with
Ambrose Light (LLNR 720) in position 40[deg]27'00'' N, 073[deg]48'00''
W approximately 8.35 nautical miles east of Sandy Hook, NJ. Initial
damage assessment indicates that the Ambrose Light is no longer
watching properly and in danger of collapse, creating an additional
hazard to vessels operating in the area. This safety zone is being
created in response to this emergency situation in order to keep
mariners away from the hazards associated with the damaged structure
and from the hazards associated with survey and reconstruction
operations.

Discussion of Rule

    This rule will provide for the safety of vessel traffic in and
around Ambrose Light (LLNR 720). This regulation establishes a
temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean
within a 250-yard radius of position 40[deg]27'00'' N, 073[deg]48'00''
W, approximately 8.35 nautical miles east of Sandy Hook, NJ. The rule
described herein prohibits the transit of vessels through the safety
zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, New
York. This safety zone is in effect from 12:01 a.m. on November 5, 2007
until 11:59 p.m. on May 5, 2008. The zone will be enforced during the
entire effective period unless the survey and reconstruction work is
completed prior to the last effective date. If survey and
reconstruction is completed before May 5, 2008, the Coast Guard will
cease enforcement of the safety zone.

    Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the zone during the
enforcement period. The Captain of the Port New York will notify the
maritime community of the safety zone by publication in the Local
Notice to Mariners, Safety Voice Broadcasts, and on the internet at
http://homeport.uscg.mil/newyork.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule will be so minimal that
a full Regulatory is unnecessary. This regulation may have some impact
on the public, but the potential impact will be minimized for the
following reason: vessels may transit around the 250-yard safety zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit within a 250-yard radius of Ambrose Light (LLNR 720) at
40[deg]27'00'' N, 073[deg]48'00'' W approximately 8.35 nautical miles
east of Sandy Hook, NJ. However, this safety zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
as vessels will be able to transit around the 250-yard safety zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule will
affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, Waterways
Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This rule fits category (34)(g) as it
establishes a safety zone.
    A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' will be available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T01-157 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-157  Safety Zone: Ambrose Light, Offshore Sandy Hook, New
Jersey, Atlantic Ocean

    (a) Location. The following area is a Safety Zone: All navigable
waters of the Atlantic Ocean within a 250-yard radius of Ambrose Light
(LLNR 720) at position 40[deg]27'00'' N, 073[deg]48'00'' W,
approximately 8.35 nautical miles east of Sandy Hook, NJ.
    (b) Effective Dates. This regulation is effective from 12:01 a.m.
on November 5, 2007 to 11:59 p.m. on May 5, 2008.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
On-scene representative, means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port,
New York.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.23 apply.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, New York,
or his on-scene representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's on-scene representative on VHF
Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to do so. If permission is
granted, vessel operators must comply with all directions given to them
by the COTP or the COTP's on-scene representative.

    Dated: November 6, 2007.
R.R. O'Brien,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Sector New York.
[FR Doc. E7-22960 Filed 11-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 42956]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16674]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92531; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend NYSE Arca's Co-Location Services and Fee Schedule To Add Two
Partial Cabinet Solution Bundles

July 30, 2021.
    On January 19, 2021, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's co-location rules to add
two partial cabinet solution bundles. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on February 8, 2021.\3\
On March 18, 2021, the Commission extended the time period within which
to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change, to May 9, 2021.\4\ On May 6, 2021,
the Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission received a
comment letter on the proposal from the Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91044 (February 2,
2021), 86 FR 8662 (SR-NYSEArca-2021-07) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91360, 86 FR 15763
(March 24, 2021) (SR-NYSEArca-2021-07).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91785 (May 6, 2021),
86 FR 26082 (May 12, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-05, SR-NYSENAT-2021-01, SR-
NYSEArca-2021-07, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-04, NYSECHX-2021-01).
    \6\ See, respectively, letter dated July 6, 2021 from Elizabeth
K. King, Chief Regulatory Officer, ICE, General Counsel and
Corporate Secretary, NYSE to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission. All comments received by the Commission on the proposed
rule change are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2021-05/srnyse202105.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \7\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on February 8, 2021.\8\ The 180th day after publication of the Notice
is August 7, 2021. The Commission is extending the time period for
approving or disapproving the proposal for an additional 60 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \8\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule changes along with the comment received. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\9\ designates
October 6, 2021, as the date by which the Commission should either
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-
2021-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16674 Filed 8-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 76 (Monday, April 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22174-22177]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08972]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71945; File No. SR-NSCC-2014-802]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Advance Notice To Enhance NSCC's
Existing Parametric Value-at-Risk Margining Model

April 15, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and
Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given that on
March 28, 2014, National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
advance notice SR-NSCC-2014-802 (``Advance Notice'') as described in
Item I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by
NSCC. The

Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the Advance
Notice from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Advance
Notice

    The Advance Notice is filed by NSCC in connection with a proposed
adjustment to NSCC's existing parametric Value-at-Risk (``VaR'')
margining model, as more fully described below.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

1. Purpose
    In connection with its on-going assessment of the performance of
its margining models, NSCC is proposing to enhance its existing
parametric VaR model by supplementing the assumption of normal
distribution underlying the current model with a family of Student's t-
distributions. Currently, NSCC's parametric VaR methodology is based on
the assumption that the underlying securities portfolio return
distribution is normal. In an effort to enhance its parametric VaR
model, NSCC has reviewed prevalent academic research and data analyses
which show that the empirical distributions of securities portfolio
returns in the equities markets have ``fatter tails'' than what the
normal distribution implies, and VaR margin computed based only on the
normality assumption may underestimate the tail risk that is observed
during market volatility (``fat-tail'' risk).
    NSCC has evaluated a number of possible approaches to enhance its
parametric VaR model in order to better accommodate fat-tail risks, and
is proposing to apply an approach that is most appropriate for NSCC and
its circumstances. As such, the proposed enhancement would utilize
NSCC's existing parametric VaR model, and would supplement the normal
distribution underlying the model with a factor that utilizes the
degrees of freedom (``DOF'') derived from a family of Student's t-
distributions. The factor will help adjust the normal-based VaR model
to better reflect the distribution of actual observed historical
returns. Further, the existing normal distribution in the parametric
VaR model will operate as a floor to the proposed adjustments.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed change is being filed pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of
the Clearing Supervision Act, and is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(2), promulgated thereunder, which requires a registered clearing
agency to ``use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to
participants under normal market conditions and use risk-based models
and parameters to set margin requirements.'' \3\ Specifically, the
adjustment is expected to allow NSCC's parametric VaR model to remain
above its 99% coverage target during market volatility, and to more
appropriately calculate and collect margin, which better enables NSCC
to respond in the event that a Member defaults and minimizes potential
losses to NSCC and its non-defaulting Members. As such, NSCC believes
that the proposal promotes robust risk management and the safety and
soundness of NSCC's operations, which reduce systemic risk and support
the stability of the broader financial system, consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2), cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Advance Notice
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    In November 2013, NSCC distributed a White Paper to its Members
that described the proposed enhancement to the parametric VaR model and
the results of an impact study showing the potential impact of this
proposal on Members' Clearing Fund required deposits. NSCC did not
receive any written comments relating to the enhancement to the
parametric VaR model in response to this White Paper. NSCC will notify
the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC.

(C) Advance Notice Filed Pursuant to Section 806(e) of the Payment,
Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act

1. Description of Change
(i) Overview
    A primary objective of NSCC's Clearing Fund is to have on deposit
from each applicable Member assets sufficient to satisfy losses that
may otherwise be incurred by NSCC as the result of the default of the
Member and the resultant close out of that Member's unsettled positions
under NSCC's trade guaranty. Each Member's Clearing Fund required
deposit is calculated daily pursuant to a formula set forth in
Procedure XV of the NSCC's Rules and Procedures (``Rules'') designed to
provide sufficient funds to cover this risk of loss. The Clearing Fund
formula accounts for a variety of risk factors through the application
of a number of components, each described in Procedure XV. The VaR
component is a core component of this formula and is designed to
calculate the amount of money that may be lost on a portfolio over a
given period of time assumed necessary to liquidate the portfolio,
within a given level of confidence.
    Parametric VaR models utilized in the equities markets have
historically computed risk on the assumption that the underlying
securities portfolio return distribution is normal. The increased
frequency of market volatility in recent years has stressed the
performance of parametric VaR models throughout the financial services
industry. Analyses of these events and VaR models have shown that
``fat-tail'' risk may not be properly addressed by parametric VaR
models that are based only on the normal distribution assumption. As
such, it has become market practice to move away from the use of normal
distribution assumptions in parametric VaR models and to instead use
distributions, such as Student's t-distributions, that better
accommodate these fat-tail risk events.
    NSCC conducts back tests to measure the performance of Members'
portfolios against the calculated VaR margin requirements for those
portfolios. Over the past few years, these back tests have shown that,
while NSCC's VaR margin component has remained mostly above its 99%
coverage target when tested over a longer time horizon (a 12-month
rolling window), coverage fell below the 99% target in a few instances
in which back tests were conducted over shorter time frames (1-month
windows). Therefore, and in connection with its on-going assessment of
the performance of its margining models, NSCC has evaluated various
possible approaches to enhance its parametric VaR model, and is
proposing to apply an approach that incorporates Student's t-
distributions into that model in a way that is appropriate for NSCC and
its circumstances.
    The proposal would enhance NSCC's existing parametric VaR model,
which is

used as part of the calculation of the VaR component, by supplementing
the assumption of normal distribution underlying the current model with
a factor that utilizes the DOF derived from a family of Student's t-
distributions. The proposal is expected to improve NSCC's back-testing
performance over shorter time horizons, particularly during more
volatile market environments, and should enable the model to better
account for the higher degree of fat-tail risk observed in equities
markets.
(ii) Adjustment to Existing Parametric VaR Model
    The proposed enhancement would utilize NSCC's current parametric
VaR model, and would supplement the current normal distribution
underlying the parametric VaR model with a factor that utilizes the DOF
derived from a family of Student's t-distributions, which are more
representative of the historically observed distributions in the
equities markets. The Student's t-distributions would introduce an
additional statistical parameter, the DOF factor, to the model.
Following this enhancement, NSCC would estimate the DOF factor of the
empirical t-distribution in the model periodically by using daily
return data from the S&P 500 over a historical window no shorter than
12-months. NSCC would then compute a multiplication factor that
represents the magnitude of increase of t-distribution-based parametric
VaR from the normal-based parametric VaR. This multiplication factor
would be applied to Members' VaR margin requirement.
    NSCC has considered various alternatives to enhance its parametric
VaR model, and its internal studies have shown that this proposed
enhancement is an appropriate approach to addressing tail risks at
NSCC, and may be a more effective enhancement to the model than other
possible adjustments, including the augmented volatility model (AVM),
which NSCC has also considered. In 2012, NSCC designed AVM to protect
NSCC from elevated levels of volatility that were not captured in
historical data by incorporating the CBOE VIX, a forward-looking
measure of volatility, into the model. While both this proposal and AVM
would improve NSCC's ability to meet its back-testing coverage target,
the proposed enhancement to NSCC's parametric VaR model described in
this filing is expected to be a more stable adjustment to Members' VaR
margin components than AVM, while still improving the model's back-test
performances.
2. Anticipated Effect on and Management of Risks
    NSCC believes that the proposed enhancement to its current
parametric VaR model would improve NSCC's risk management by enabling
the model to remain above its 99% coverage target during market
volatility, and to more appropriately calculate and collect margin,
which better enables NSCC to respond in the event that a Member
defaults. Further, incorporation of the DOF factor into NSCC's existing
parametric VaR model should more accurately capture the fat-tail
characteristics of stock market return distributions.
    Additionally, NSCC has conducted extended outreach with its Members
regarding the proposed enhancement, describing the proposed change, the
reasoning for the change, and the potential impact of the change--both
the expected impact on Members' Clearing Fund required deposits as well
as the improvement to NSCC's risk management. This outreach included
the publication of a White Paper to impacted Members in November 2013
as well as individual outreach to Members to discuss the results of
impact studies. The proposed enhancement is expected to have a
relatively low impact on Members' VaR margin components and thus a
minimal impact on Members' overall Clearing Fund required deposits.
NSCC did not receive any objections to the proposed change from Members
in response to this outreach.
    NSCC believes that the proposed change should allow it to collect
margin that covers to a greater degree of certainty the risk that it
may face during market volatility or even extreme market environments.
While this change would impact NSCC's Members' Clearing Fund
requirements, as stated above, NSCC's Members are aware of the proposed
change and the potential impact on their Clearing Fund required
deposits. Further, prior to implementation of the proposed changes,
NSCC will run a parallel period during which Members would be able to
further review the possible impact.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Advance Notice, and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not
object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the
date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the
date that any additional information requested by the Commission is
received. NSCC shall not implement the proposed change if the
Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
providing NSCC with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed
change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the
advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by
the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies NSCC in writing
that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes NSCC to
implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any
conditions imposed by the Commission.
    NSCC shall post notice on its Web site of proposed changes that are
implemented.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Advance
Notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision 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 No. SR-NSCC-2014-802 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSCC-2014-802. 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 Advance Notice that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
Advance Notice between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and

printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on
NSCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSCC-2014-802 and should be
submitted on or before May 12, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08972 Filed 4-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                        OFFICE OF PREVENTION,

                        PESTICIDES AND TOXIC

                       			          				  SUBSTANCES

JUN 20 2006

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT	Environmental Risk Assessment for Monsanto’s MON89034 x
MON88017 Bacillus thuringiensis Corn EUP (MRID: NA; DP Barcode:
DP324864)

TO			Mike Mendelsohn, Senior Regulatory Action Leader

			Microbial Pesticides Branch

			Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, 7511P

FROM	Tessa Milofsky, M.S.	Agronomist				signed

			Microbial Pesticides Branch

			Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, 7511P

PEER REVIEW         Zigfridas Vaituzis, Ph.D. Microbiologist			signed

	Microbial Pesticides Branch

		Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, 7511P

CONCLUSION

At present, the Agency is aware of no identified significant adverse
effects of the Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, and Cry3Bb1 proteins on the abundance
of non-target beneficial organisms in any population in the field,
whether they are pest parasites, pest predators, or pollinators. The
Agency anticipates that, for the duration of this limited acreage
experimental crop-destruct program, no hazard will result to the
environment.

For the purposes of this EUP, the registrant’s request to bridge to
ecotoxicity data submitted in support of registered microbially-derived
Cry proteins is acceptable. However, a Section 3 registration will
require submission and review of additional non-target data.

BACKGROUND

Monsanto is applying for an Experimental Use Permit (EUP) to allow
further evaluation of transgenic corn [Zea mays] plant lines which
express the Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab, and Cry3Bb1 insecticidal proteins derived
from Bacillus thuringiensis. All corn plants that will be evaluated
under this EUP were derived from corn transformation event numbers 89034
and 88017 and express the Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, and Cry3Bb1 proteins. The
program will be carried out during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 cropping
seasons in 29 states and Puerto Rico on a total of 2797 acres in
2006-2007 and 6480 acres in 2007-2008, respectively (see EUP Program
Review for further details).

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

A.  Non-target species effects

In lieu of ecotoxicity testing for this limited duration and limited
acreage EUP, the applicant has requested to bridge to non-target effects
data submitted in support of Bt PIPs that were reviewed previously by
EPA, including Cry2Ab2 cotton, Cry2Ab2 corn, and Cry3Bb1 corn. Although
Cry1A.105 is considered a new active ingredient, it is a chimeric
protein with overall amino acid sequence identity to the Cry1Ac, Cry1Ab
and Cry1F proteins of 93.6, 90.0 and 76.7%, respectively. Given the
76.6% or greater sequence similarity between the individual proteins and
those which comprise Cry1A.105, data submitted in support of the
independent proteins may be used to support the chimeric protein at the
EUP stage. Extrapolating from previous studies on Bt proteins, which
tend to be very species specific in their activity, no significant or
irreversible interactions with non-target organisms are anticipated for
the proposed limited duration and limited acreage EUP. Further, the
nature of the contained EUP program and the expression of the active
ingredients within the corn plant will limit exposure to non-target
species. However, additional data will be required to support a Section
3 registration of MON89034 x MON88017.

	1. Risk Characterization for Terrestrial Animals

	a. Avian

Data submitted in support of the Cry1Ab corn, Cry1Ac cotton, Cry2Ab2
cotton, Cry2Ab2 corn, and Cry3Bb1 corn and registrations show that the
consumption of corn or cotton seed containing Bt Cry protein has no
measurable deleterious effects on the representative avian species
bobwhite quail. This finding suggests that the proposed limited
time/acreage EUP is not likely to have any measurable effects on avian
wildlife.

	b. Mammalian Wildlife

Many different Cry proteins have been evaluated in mammalian toxicology
tests over the last 40 years. No adverse effects have been observed in
mammals following oral exposure to any of these Cry proteins. Data
submitted to EPA in support of other Cry protein registrations indicate
that there is no significant toxicity to rodents from acute oral testing
at the maximum hazard dose. In light of the above toxicology
information, risk to mammalian wildlife from the proposed limited
time/acreage EUP is expected to be minimal to nonexistent.

	c. Non-target Plants

Since the active ingredient in this product is an insect toxin (Bt
endotoxin) that has never shown any toxicity to plants, non-target plant
study requirement has been waived for this product.

	d. Non-target Beneficial Organisms

		1. Honey Bees

Data submitted in support of the Cry1Ab corn, Cry1Ac cotton, Cry2Ab2
cotton and Cry3Bb1 corn registrations show that no deleterious effects
resulted from feeding pollen, collected from Bt expressing corn plants,
or microbe produced Cry toxin to honey bee adults and larvae. These
findings suggest that no discernible detrimental effects to honey bees
should result from the proposed limited time/acreage EUP.

		2. Lady Beetle:

Data submitted in support of the Cry1Ab corn, Cry1Ac cotton, Cry2Ab2
cotton and Cry3Bb1 corn registrations show that no deleterious effects
resulted from feeding pollen, collected from Bt expressing corn plants,
or microbe produced Cry toxin to lady beetles. These findings suggest
that no discernible detrimental effects to lady beetles should result
from the proposed limited time/acreage EUP.

		3. Carabid

Data submitted in support of the Cry3Bb1 Bt corn registration shows that
no deleterious effects resulted from feeding purified microbe produced
Cry toxin to the Carabid beetle, Poecilus chalcites. Lepidopteran active
Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, and Cry2Ab2 proteins have no effect on coleopteran
species. These findings suggest that no discernible detrimental effects
to carabid beetles should result from the proposed limited time/acreage
EUP.

.

		4. Orius

Data submitted in support of the Cry3Bb1 Bt corn registration shows that
no deleterious effects resulted from feeding microbe produced Cry toxin
to insidious flower bug, Orius insidiosus. These findings suggest that
no discernible detrimental effects to predaceous bugs should result from
the proposed limited time/acreage EUP.

		5. Earthworm:

Data submitted in support of Cry2Ab2 cotton, Cry3Bb1 corn and other
previous Bt corn and cotton registrations show that consumption of
purified Bt Cry protein has no measurable deleterious effects on
earthworms, a representative beneficial soil invertebrate species.
Consequently, the proposed limited time/acreage EUP is not likely to
have any measurable effects on beneficial soil invertebrates.

		6. Collembola:

Data submitted in support of Cry1Ab corn, Cry1Ac cotton, Cry2Ab2 cotton,
Cry3Bb1 corn and other previous Bt corn and cotton registrations show
that consumption of purified Bt Cry protein has no measurable
deleterious effects on collembola (Folsomia candida), a representative
beneficial soil insect species. Consequently, the proposed limited
time/acreage EUP is not likely to have any measurable population effects
on beneficial soil insects.

		7. Green Lacewing

Data submitted in support of the Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, Cry2Ab2, Cry3Bb1 and Bt
corn registrations show that consumption of Cry protein by the green
lacewing larvae at field exposure rates has no measurable detrimental
effects on these species.

		8. Parasitic Wasp

Data submitted in support of the Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, Cry1F, Cry2Ab2 and
Cry3Bb1 Bt registrations show that consumption of protein by the
parasitic wasps has no measurable detrimental effects on these species.

		9. Field Abundance

Field insect abundance studies show no consistent pattern of differences
in abundance of predatory insects in all currently registered Cry
protein plots, compared to control plots throughout the growing season.
These findings suggest that the proposed limited time/acreage EUP is not
likely to have measurable effects on non-target insects.

	2. Risk Characterization for Aquatic Animals

	  a. Fish

Data submitted in support of the Cry1Ab, Cry2Ab2 cotton, Cry2Ab2 corn
and Cry3Bb1 Bt corn registrations show that consumption of protein by
catfish and/or rainbow trout has no measurable detrimental effects on
these species. A data waiver request was accepted for Cry1F corn.

The requirement for a static renewal toxicity study is usually waived
since fish are not generally exposed to Cry protein expressed in Bt
corn. If exposure to Bt toxins via corn plant material (e.g. pollen or
leaf material) does take place, the exposure will be of short duration
and small quantity and is not expected to have any detectable effect on
freshwater fish. Farmed fish may be exposed to Cry protein in fish feed.
However, Cry protein activity is generally destroyed during typical fish
food manufacturing processes and consequently, exposure of farmed fish
to active Bt Cry proteins is not expected.

	  b. Aquatic Invertebrates

Data submitted in support of the Cry1Ab corn, Cry1F cotton, Cry2Ab2,
Cry3Bb1 corn, and registrations shows that consumption of these Cry
proteins has no measurable deleterious effects on Daphnia magna. These
data suggest that the expected environmental concentration of corn
pollen from the proposed limited time/acreage EUP is not likely to have
any measurable population effects on aquatic invertebrates.

	  c. Estuarine and Marine Animals

Estuarine and shrimp studies are not required for this product because
of very low potential for exposure.

B. Outcrossing and Weediness

EPA has reviewed the potential for gene capture and expression of the
Cry endotoxin in corn by wild or weedy relatives of corn in the United
States, its possessions or territories. The Agency has determined that
there is no significant risk of gene capture and expression of any Bt
endotoxin by wild or weedy relatives of corn in the U.S., its
possessions or territories.

Pollen transfer to non-Bt corn plants may be mitigated by one or more of
the following containment measures: 1) Test plants will be destroyed
prior to anthesis; 2) Tassels will be kept bagged prior to anthesis
until pollen shed is complete or until tassels are removed from the
plant; 3) Test plants will be detasseled prior to the onset of anthesis;
4) Test plants may be located within 660 feet of open-pollinating
conventional corn that is not part of this research, provided that the
period of pollen shed for the test plants does not overlap with the
presence of sexually receptive silks of the conventional plants; 5) Test
plants may be located within 660 feet of conventional corn in a breeding
nursery, provided the ear shoots of the conventional plants are covered
for the period of time during which the silks of the conventional plants
are viable. The EUP trials will be conducted under a crop-destruct
program; therefore, any foliage containing foreign proteins will be
harvested and/or destroyed.

C. Environmental fate

Numerous studies, when performed under realistic environmental
conditions, have shown that the Bt proteins produced in Bt crops are
rapidly degraded in soil. These findings were confirmed in a FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel Report (December 8, 1999) that concluded
“bioaccumulation is not expected to occur with transgenic proteins
because biodegredation mechanisms for proteins are ubiquitous.”  As a
component of EPA’s regulatory data requirements, the degradation of Bt
protein in plant tissue is evaluated for each Bt crop that is approved
by EPA. In addition, EPA scientists have carried out independent studies
that evaluated the degradation of Bt proteins (Cry1Ac cotton, Cry1Ab
corn, and Cry3A potato) in soil. In all of these studies, the amount of
Bt protein, added as Bt plant material to the soil, was higher than
conservative upper estimates of how much plant tissue and Bt protein
might enter the soil from cultivation of Bt crops.

All of these studies demonstrated that the Bt proteins expressed in Bt
plants are rapidly degraded at rates similar to microbial Bt products.
These findings support evidence that, when assessed under realistic
environmental conditions, Cry proteins expressed in Bt plants readily
degrade.

D. Endangered species considerations

Based on previously submitted Cry protein toxicity and exposure data,
EPA does not expect that exposure to MON89034 x MON88017 EUP plots will
result in a "may effect" situation for endangered mammals, birds,
plants, aquatic, and most insect species. Test plots must not be located
within ¼ mile of the habitats of endangered/threatened lepidoptera or
coleoptera species that could be affected by exposure to the toxin.

Of particular concern is the endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides
melissa samuelis) with populations in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Wisconsin. Because of the
potential for Bt Cry protein containing pollen to affect Lepidoptera
adversely, the test plots must not be near habitats of the Karner blue
butterfly and may not be planted in the following counties where the
Karner blue butterfly is known to exist in scattered populations:
Illinois - Lake; Indiana - LaPorte and Lake; Michigan - Allegan, Lake,
Monroe, Montcalm, Muskegon, Newaygo and Oceana; Minnesota - Anoka and
Winona; New Hampshire - Merrimack; New York - Albany, Saratoga,
Schenectady and Warren; Wisconsin  - Adams, Barron, Burnett, Chippewa,
Clark, Dunn, Eau Claire, Green Lake, Jackson, Juneau, Kenosha,
Marquette, Menominee, Monroe, Oconto, Outagamie, Polk, Portage, Sauk,
Shawano, St. Croix, Waupaca, Waushara, Wood. Although it is unlikely
that sufficient Cry protein expressing pollen would accumulate on the
wild lupine (Lupinus perennis) that constitutes the butterfly’s sole
food source, this precaution is needed in the lack of adequate data from
the field indicating the precise proximity of wild lupine to proposed
experimental plots.

Also of concern are the following beetles which are found in the states
and counties listed below: 1) American burying beetle in Arkansas
(Franklin, Logan, and Sebastian counties), Georgia (Lamar county),
Kansas (Doniphan, Douglas, Montgomery, Pottawatomie, Riley and Saline
countries), Kentucky (Henderson, Jefferson and Trigg counties), Missouri
(Bollinger, Boone, Franklin, Howard, Jefferson, Mississippi, Newton, St.
Louis and Wayne counties), South Dakota (Brookings, Haakon and Union
counties), Texas (Lamar and Red River counties); 2) the delta green
ground beetle in California (Solano county), and 3) the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle in California (Butte, Colusa, Dorado, Fresno,
Glenn, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin,
Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo and Yuba counties). In Michigan
(Emmet and Montmorency counties), do not dispose of Cry
protein-containing plant litter into or near the aquatic habitat of
Hungerford’s crawling water beetle.

In addition, because there are no sexually compatible wild or weedy
relatives of maize (Zea mays) in the United States, the Cry protein
endotoxin gene cannot escape into plants on which endangered or
threatened species feed on in these areas.

E. HAZARD ASSESSMENT

At present, the Agency is aware of no identified significant adverse
effects of any Cry proteins included in MON89034 x MON88017 on the
abundance of non-target beneficial organisms in any population in the
field, whether they are pest parasites, pest predators, or pollinators.
Provided that experimental use sites are not located within ¼ mile of
endangered coleoptera or lepidoptera habitat, the Agency anticipates
that, for the duration of this limited acreage experimental
crop-destruct program, no hazard will result to the environment.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16389-16391]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05325]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 751

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057; FRL-8332-04-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AK86

Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos; Regulation of Certain
Conditions of Use Under Section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA); Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule, notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
availability of and soliciting public comment on additional data
received by EPA related to the proposed rule for Part 1: Chrysotile
Asbestos; Regulations of Certain Conditions of Use under TSCA. These
additional data pertain to chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the
chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets
used in chemical production and may be used by EPA in the development
of the final rule, including EPA's determination of what constitutes
``as soon as practicable'' with regard to the proposed chrysotile
asbestos prohibition compliance dates for these uses.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at https://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. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Peter Gimlin, Existing Chemicals
Risk Management Division (7404M), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of April 12, 2022 (87 FR 21706 (FRL-8332-
02-OCSPP)), EPA proposed a rule under TSCA section 6(a) to address the
unreasonable risk presented by chrysotile asbestos under the conditions
of use evaluated in the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 1:
Chrysotile Asbestos. EPA proposed to prohibit manufacture (including
import), processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of
chrysotile asbestos for chrysotile asbestos diaphragms for use in the
chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets
used in chemical production, effective two years after the effective
date of the final rule, which is 60 days after publication of the final
rule. EPA also proposed to prohibit the manufacture (including import),
processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile
asbestos-containing brake blocks used in the oil industry, aftermarket
automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings, other
chrysotile asbestos-containing vehicle friction products, and other
chrysotile asbestos-containing gaskets, effective 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule. EPA also proposed to prohibit
manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in
commerce of aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing
brakes/linings for consumer use, and other chrysotile asbestos-
containing gaskets for consumer use, effective 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule. Additionally, EPA proposed disposal
and related recordkeeping requirements. In accordance with TSCA section
6(c)(2)(A), EPA also discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule a
primary alternative regulatory option to address

the unreasonable risk presented by chrysotile asbestos under the
conditions of use evaluated in the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part
1: Chrysotile Asbestos. This primary alternative regulatory option
included, among other requirements, a prohibition on the manufacture
(including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and
commercial use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in the chlor-alkali
industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets in chemical
production effective 5 years after the effective date of the final rule
and a requirement to comply with an Existing Chemicals Exposure Limit
(ECEL) and related monitoring and recordkeeping requirements prior to
the prohibition taking effect.
    After being extended 30 days (87 FR 31814, May 25, 2022 (FRL-8332-
03-OCSPP)), the comment period for the proposed rule closed on July 13,
2022. EPA received about 155 discrete comments as of the end of the
extended public comment period. In the proposed rule, EPA requested
public comment on several aspects of the proposed rule including the
proposed prohibition compliance dates for the manufacture (including
import), processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of
chrysotile asbestos.
    Specific to chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali
industry, EPA sought public comment ``to support or refute its
assumption that [chlor-alkali] plants using asbestos diaphragms will
convert to non-asbestos technologies, and the timeframes required for
such conversions.'' 87 FR 21721. EPA sought comment on a prohibition
compliance date that under TSCA sections 6(d)(1) would be both ``as
soon as practicable'' and ``provide for a reasonable transition
period,'' including information on the specific and detailed timelines
to build asbestos-free facilities or to convert existing asbestos-using
facilities to asbestos-free technology and the availability of
asbestos-free technology. 87 FR 21726. EPA also requested information
on ``potential barriers to achieving the proposed prohibition date
while considering the supply of chlor-alkali chemicals and on the
potential impact of this transition on the market price of chlor-alkali
chemicals.'' Id.
    EPA received significant comment on these issues during the public
comment period for the proposed rule. EPA received comments supporting
the proposed two-year prohibition timeline, such as from the Asbestos
Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO). ADAO stated: ``EPA's proposal
correctly calls for the chlor-alkali industry to stop importing and
using asbestos two years after the final rule becomes effective. . . .
this phase-out deadline . . . can be accomplished without disrupting
the U.S. supply of chlorine and caustic soda . . . [industry's] recent
voluntary closure of substantial asbestos-diaphragm capacity
demonstrates that the remaining plants can be shut down quickly and
without hardship to industry or consumers.'' (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-
0397). However, many commenters argued the two-year timeline would not
provide the chlor-alkali industry a reasonable transition period and
requested EPA provide additional time to allow the chlor-alkali
industry to transition away from asbestos-containing diaphragms, to
allow for this transition to occur without causing economic
disruptions, and public health impacts resulting from potential
disruption of drinking water disinfection supplies due to fluctuations
in the production of chlorine. Some commenters also expressed concerns
about the proposed alternative five-year timeline for similar reasons.
Commenters provided EPA with information on the conversion process to
non-asbestos technologies and the timing involved, including examples
from plants in the United States and elsewhere in the world. Commenters
noted that Canada provided 11 years for the conversion of one plant,
and in the European Union, Germany allowed 14 years for the conversion
of one plant. Comments indicated that a single plant could be converted
within 45 to 55 months, including project design and engineering,
permitting, construction and startup (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-0405c).
However, commenters expressed concerns, including: ``recent supply
chain disruptions cast doubt on whether that aggressive five-year
timeline can be met for a single . . . facility conversion; it would be
clearly infeasible for multiple plant conversions. . . . Globally,
there are only four electrolyzer manufacturers. Based on raw metal
supply disruptions, electrolyzer market demand and production capacity,
manufacturers have indicated they may only support a large-scale
conversion every 3-4 years. . . . The logistical and cost-intensive
process of converting several facilities simultaneously compound the
infeasibility of EPA's proposed timeframe.'' (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-
0405) That commenter (and others) noted the time required to obtain an
air permit: ``. . . preparing, applying for, and obtaining an [state]
air permit, which is generally required to commence construction, . . .
can easily take eighteen months or even the entire twenty-four-month
period.'' The commenter also noted ``. . . sequential conversion to
membrane is needed to maintain an ongoing supply of the chlor-alkali
chemicals. Even if it were possible to construct the plants
concurrently, shutting down that amount of capacity at the same time
would have dramatic impact on supply across many industries and public
services . . .'' (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-0405). Many commenters raised
concerns about the impact the 2-year prohibition on the nation's supply
of chlorine and caustic soda, which are essential chemicals for many
industries. Many commenters asserted that a sudden shortage of chlorine
could severely impact the ability of municipal water treatment
facilities to disinfect public drinking water and therefore present a
public health concern.
    After the close of the public comment period for the proposed rule,
EPA received comments and held meetings with stakeholders, including
affected industry and interested groups, related to the use of
chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry and
chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical
production. Topics of these comments and meetings included media
reports regarding asbestos workplace practices in the chlor-alkali
industry, the timing of any prohibition on the manufacture (including
import), processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of
chrysotile asbestos diaphragms and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet
gaskets, and the requirement, included in the primary regulatory
alternative described in the preamble to the proposed rule, for
processors and users of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms and chrysotile
asbestos-containing sheet gaskets to comply with an ECEL as an interim
control measure prior to the effective date of a prohibition. Meetings
were held with: ADAO (July 6 & October 13, 2022); Chlorine Institute
(July 6, 2022); Dow Chemicals (October 28, 2022); Axial/Westlake
(November 3, 2022); Olin Corp. (November 14, 2022); OxyChem (November
16, December 7, 2022 & February 9, 2023), and Chemours (January 18,
2023). EPA received data as part of and following those stakeholder
meetings and is now making those public data and stakeholder meeting
summaries available to the public in the rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2021-0057). Some industry information made available to EPA has
been claimed as

confidential information under TSCA section 14 and is not available in
the public docket. The additional information provided in the docket
includes a supplemental letter from ADAO that provided additional
information and recommendations to EPA on chlor-alkali diaphragm use
(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-0412). The ADAO letter notes a report on
workplace practices, which provides documentation on the exposure of
workers at chlor-alkali facilities to chrysotile asbestos. The letter
also provides information to show that the chlor-alkali industry ``has
shut down a substantial portion of its asbestos diaphragm production
capacity in the last three years and is in the process of transitioning
to non-asbestos membrane technology,'' and information on industry
conversion to membrane technology, specifically the conversion of the
OxyChem facility in LaPorte/Battleground, Texas (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-
0412). Finally, in the letter, ADAO recommends EPA seek answers from
industry to seven specific questions regarding chlor-alkali production
statistics; reduction of asbestos-diaphragm capacity, supply of chlor-
alkali chemicals to water treatment facilities; specific conversion
plans for asbestos-diaphragm facilities; financial and economic
analyses, import volumes, and amounts of stockpiled asbestos (EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2021-0057-0412).
    In addition, other information made available to EPA after the
close of the public comment period has been posted to the docket,
including several public comments submitted to EPA regarding the
potential impacts of the proposed rule's compliance date for the
prohibition on the commercial use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in
the chlor-alkali industry on the supply of chlorine used for drinking
water disinfection.
    EPA received comments pertaining to the timing of the prohibition
on the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in
commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms
requesting the consideration of the current transition schedules for
chlor-alkali facilities from chrysotile asbestos diaphragms to non-
asbestos alternative technology. For example, comments suggest it may
be practicable to prohibit the manufacture (including import) of
chrysotile asbestos before prohibiting processing, distribution in
commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos, as all chlor-alkali
companies that currently use chrysotile asbestos already have or will
have a sufficient supply of chrysotile asbestos for foreseeable future
operations prior to the prohibition compliance dates. Regarding the
timing of the prohibition on processing, distribution in commerce and
commercial use, some commenters believe it may be practicable for the
compliance dates to vary for different affected persons, as comments
have informed EPA that individual chlor-alkali companies may have
different considerations for the timing of any transition away from
chrysotile asbestos diaphragm technology, based on whether they intend
to close or convert facilities, the number and size of facilities they
have, and inherent technical differences in specific plant conversions.
Comments received described the different approaches to move away from
chrysotile asbestos use given the different designs of chrysotile
asbestos diaphragm technology, the type of intended conversion to a
non-asbestos diaphragm technology or membrane technology, the limited
availability of suppliers and technical expertise during the conversion
process, as well as differences regarding permits needed for the
conversion of facilities and permitting timelines based on their
location. Comments indicate that an approach that can accommodate
differences among facilities may provide a reasonable transition period
for each remaining chlor-alkali facility still using chrysotile
asbestos diaphragms, while ensuring the associated unreasonable risk is
addressed as soon as practicable. Another commenter, however, believes
that since industry is already transitioning to non-asbestos chlor-
alkali technology an expeditious ban of the use of chrysotile asbestos
in chlor-alkali production will not only protect public health but
achieve important economic and environmental benefits.
    Comments EPA received regarding the timing of the prohibition on
the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in
commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet
gaskets in chemical production, state that the prohibition compliance
date should be delayed for titanium dioxide production facilities to
allow a transition from chrysotile asbestos containing sheet gaskets to
non-asbestos sheet gaskets, as titanium dioxide producers have
different technical considerations from other chemical producers for
the transition away from the chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet
gaskets.
    Comments from stakeholders also included discussion of workplace
monitoring strategies to comply with an asbestos ECEL during the
interim period prior to a prohibition on the commercial use of
chrysotile asbestos diaphragms. For example, AIHA stated that ``the
proposed exposure limits of 0.005 f/cc and 0.0025 f/cc cannot be
measured for an 8-hour work shift by existing sampling and analytical
protocols for asbestos . . . due to the volume of air that would need
to be collected to achieve the detection limit necessary . . .'' (EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-0288). OxyChem has suggested that calculation of
compliance with an ECEL could take into account the assigned protection
factor (APF) used for individual tasks when such respirator use is
required by a facility's exposure control plan.

II. Request for Public Comments

    EPA requests public comment on any data in the docket that was
received during and after the proposed rule public comment period, and
how EPA should consider it during the development of the final rule. In
particular, EPA is seeking comments on how to consider the additional
information received regarding maintaining the prohibition compliance
dates, staggering the prohibition compliance dates or establishing
longer deadlines for the prohibition on processing, distribution in
commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos for chrysotile
asbestos diaphragms for use in the chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile
asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production. EPA is
also seeking comments on the new information provided regarding the
practicability of measuring 0.005 f/cc and 0.0025 f/cc for an 8-hour
work shift by existing sampling and analytical protocols and how EPA
could put in place effective interim exposure reduction requirements in
a way that they are compatible with OSHA requirements and industrial
hygiene practices, where those requirements and practices will address
unreasonable risk until prohibitions are fully implemented. EPA also
seeks comments on the workplace safety concerns in the chlor-alkali
industry raised by ADAO in its comments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Export certification,
Hazardous substances, Import certification, Recordkeeping.

    Dated: March 10, 2023.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2023-05325 Filed 3-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19615-19617]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09218]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0776; Product Identifier 2017-NM-062-AD; Amendment
39-19264; AD 2018-09-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the frame web
common to the stringer ties adjacent to the air-conditioning support
brackets. This AD requires an inspection of the frame for any air-
conditioning bracket assembly or intercostal, and, depending on the
results, repetitive inspections of the frame web for cracking of
certain locations, and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 8, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 8,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0776.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0776; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38623). The
NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks in the frame web common to the
stringer ties adjacent to the air-conditioning support brackets. The
NPRM proposed to require an inspection for any air-conditioning bracket
assembly or intercostal, and, depending on the results, repetitive
inspections for cracking of certain locations, and applicable on-
condition actions.
    We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the frame
web common to the stringer ties adjacent to the air-conditioning
support brackets, which could result in a severed frame, and, in
combination with potential multiple site damage (MSD) at the stringer
S-10 lap splice or chem-milled skin cracks, could result in possible
rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental
type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified
in the NPRM.
    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph
(c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not
affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD.
Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a
``change in product'' alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval
request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR
39.17.

Request for Clarification of the Unsafe Condition and Inspection Area

    Boeing requested that we revise the preamble of the NPRM and
paragraph (e) of the proposed AD to clarify the unsafe condition.
Boeing also requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD
to clarify the type of cracking (frame web cracking) and the inspection
area (frame web common to the stringer ties). The commenter mentioned
that without these clarifications the specific wording could be
misleading.
    We agree that clarification is necessary for the reasons provided
by the commenter and have revised this AD accordingly.

Request To Update Responsible ACO Branch

    Boeing requested that we change all references to the Seattle ACO
Branch to refer to the Los Angeles ACO Branch. Boeing pointed out that
responsibility for The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -
500 series airplanes has changed to the Los Angeles ACO Branch.
    We agree for the reasons provided by the commenter and have revised
this AD accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1363, dated April
7, 2017. This service information describes procedures for an
inspection of the frame for any air-conditioning bracket assembly or
intercostal, repetitive inspections of the frame web for

cracking of certain locations, and applicable on-condition actions.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 302 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                   Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections..................  27 work-hours x $85                $0  $2,295 per            $693,090 per
                                per hour = $2,295                      inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2018-09-08 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19264; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0776; Product Identifier 2017-NM-062-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 8, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -300, -
400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1363, dated April
7, 2017.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/EBD1CEC7B301293E86257CB30045557A?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the frame web
common to the stringer ties adjacent to the air-conditioning support
brackets. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the
frame web common to the stringer ties adjacent to the air-
conditioning support brackets, which could result in a severed
frame, and, in combination with potential multiple site damage (MSD)
at the stringer S-10 lap splice or chem-milled skin cracks, could
result in possible rapid decompression and loss of structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1363, dated April 7, 2017, do
all applicable actions identified as ``RC'' (required for
compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1363, dated
April 7, 2017.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1363, dated April
7, 2017, uses the phrase ``after the original issue date of this
service bulletin,'' for purposes of determining compliance with the
requirements of this AD, the phrase ``after the effective date of
this AD'' applies.

    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1363, dated April
7, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as
RC: This AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections

    Accomplishment of a reinforcement repair for a frame web crack
at the stringer tie location using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD terminates
the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for
the repaired stringer tie location only, provided the crack is
removed or trimmed out from the stringer tie holes.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the
provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact George Garrido,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5232; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1363, dated April 7,
2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 20, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-09218 Filed 5-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


A p. o. Box 331, Millwood, VA 22646 ( 540) 837 16ó2 Task Force June 25, 200 1 BY HAND Mr. Charles M. Auer Director, Chemical Control Division ( TS 778) Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Environmental Protection Agency Waterside Mall, East Tower ( Room 403) 401 M Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 Re: EDC Enforceable Consent Agreement ( OPPTS   42 197C)

Dear Mr. Auer:

I am writing to respond to your letter of February 13, 2001 concerning a testing program for ethylene dichioride ( EDC) outlined by theHAP Task Force in 1999 and enclosing a draft enforceable consent agreement ( ECA) for our review. This response has been delayed by the need to coordinate with the Vinyl Chloride Health Committee of the American Chemistry Council, which is representing theEDC producers in developing their response to the inclusion of EDC in the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program ( VCCEP) pilot, and to discuss certain elements of the pharmacokinetics proposal with the appropriate EPA scientists.

I am pleased to inform you that the HAP Task Force intends to proceed to negotiate and execute an ECA for EDC along the lines of the draft you provided. It is our intent that the ECA be signed by the Task Force and EPA within six months of the date of this letter. Based on the interactions we have had with EPA scientists, we believe that the revisions to the pharmacokinetics proposal suggested by EPA will be adequately addressed in the final protocols and ECA.

Do~. 631521 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 MAR11 5: 03PM OPPT 2003 0010 0039 Mr. Charles Auer June 25, 2001 Page 2 I understand that the Vinyl Chloride Health Committee is writing separately to express the EDC producers' commitment to sponsor EDC in the first tier of the VCCEP pilot.

We will shortly provide you our comments on the draft ECA along with the protocols and other attachment appendices.

Sincerely,

p~ v ~` ~/ WC~

Peter E. Voytek, Ph. D. Manager cc: Mr. Richard W. Leukroth W. Caffey Norman, Esq. Courtney M. Price Doc. 631521


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64908-64909]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-2815-000]

Horseshoe Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Horseshoe Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 4, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: September 14, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20369 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P