EPA REVIEW " Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloths Field Study in Residential Housing"

Work Assignment#: Task Order 110 CONSULTANT NAME: Sandy M. Roda VERSAR JOB NUMBER: 110667.1000.110 GENERAL IMPRESSIONS The EPA draft report entitled " Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloths Field Study in Residential Housing" prepared by Battelle presents field study results for an innovative approach to lead clearance testing that may be appropriate following renovation and remodeling projects. The report includes prior work leading up to the field study including laboratory analysis development, controlled experiments and pilot field testing studies. The presentation of all preliminary work was highly crucial to understanding the background and execution of the actual field study protocols, procedures, and results available in this final report. The Appendices also contain details important to the understanding of the final report ( i. e. laboratory QC results and individual lab evaluation, ECC sampling steps, photographic standards for dust level evaluation, ect.)

Overall the final report contained information that was well organized and accurately presented in terms of confidence intervals and probabilities. The DCC/ WG relevance and implication to real world situations, however, was continually discussed, as well as the limited sample size and affect of surface condition for floors and sills. Conclusions of the study should be expanded and organized to state all concerns of the field study components as they relate to R & R activities in either bulleted, table or itemized form.

EPA Response: We understand the point. However, we found that the large number and complexity of such issues were better dealt with in the main text.

It is suggested that conclusions for the existing study be separated and a section added to discuss all recommendations for future studies.

EPA Response: Same as above.

Study conclusions did identify one specific treatment that was clearly better than another but the wording of the conclusions were not convincing.

EPA Response: Statistically, the wet treatment was not proven superior in the small sample achieved for this study. However, operational issues suggest it is the preferred method. The clarity of this conclusion will be addressed in the final version of the report.

The conclusions gave the impression that future studies would be necessary to further evaluate the various treatments in field housing.

EPA Response: While many questions were answered and issues resolved by this Field Study, further data collection may be necessary to answer additional questions though EPA may or may not elect to perform such studies.

Several areas of the report may need further clarification. On page 7 the basic approach of the first controlled room study may be better understood using a table or diagram. In addition, it is not clear if it involves two wipe methods or two wipe types and if 1 ft2 from the ASTM or both ASTM and ECCs of the sampling regions.

EPA Response: We will attempt to clarify any ambiguities in these descriptions. However, we will not add significantly more structure at this point to explain this study. Those with greater interest in the details of the First Controlled Room Study would be better served to go directly to Appendix C for a full description of the study.

On page 17, second paragraph, the report states " Regardless of how dirty the used cloth was, a fresh DCC was instituted ". Does this mean even if the wipe was not dirty?

EPA Response: No. This paragraph will be edited to make its point more clearly.

On page 41, if a regression line should be interpreted cautiously then it should not be included in the graph.

EPA Response: We understand the reviewer's point but we still believe there is value of showing a plot of the trend.

In addition, on page 50 in the conclusions section under " Wet Treatment of DCC/ WG  , the third sentence may be referring to sills. EPA Response: This observation is correct. The text will be corrected.

GENERAL QUESTIONS The design of the field study was adequate to achieve the study's objects with several exceptions. Since the sampling size was small the selection of units should have been more representative of R & R locations.

EPA Response: This is a legitimate criticism of the study, but recruiting R& R sites and resolving the scheduling treatment and sample collection would have been extremely difficult. In addition, the mix of work activities that had been conducted at the sites used in this study appeared to EPA to be reasonably representative of the work activities that might occur at typical R& R sites.

The units did, however, present a worse case scenario and for that reason was appropriate for different treatment evaluations.

EPA Response: We are glad to hear that this reviewer accepts this.

The actual study itself could have been improved by providing better time control of staff so that protocols could be completed and also additional training and oversee for execution of the treatments so that there were less deviations from the QAPP.

EPA Response: This is true. However, use of volunteers was a cost containment issue. Any additional oversight and controls would have reduced the size of study that could have been done.

If the DCC/ WG is intended to serve as an alternative to the wipe sampling clearance method currently recommended after R & R projects then the treatment protocols tested in this field study should be evaluated in situations following documented R & R activities. Specific R & R activities need to be defined and placed into categories and those categories evaluated under the DCC/ WG protocol.

EPA Response: EPA agrees with the value of this suggestion.

The variability of individuals to compare a wipe to the various photographic standards needs to be defined.

EPA Response: This issue is addressed in the First Controlled Room Study.

Further laboratory analysis of ECCs should be conducted including a more definitive extraction comparison of types of ECCs.

EPA Response: This is a good suggestion if resources permit. EPA did conduct laboratory extraction of lead from ECCs in the Round Robin Study ( as preparation for the Field Study). This type of analysis proved to be very costly since the standard analytical protocol needed to be modified. There also were serious difficulties encountered with digestion of ECCs. The limited budget for this research effort did not permit this type of analysis for the Field Study.

One would have expected the recovery of lead using the ASTM collection procedure to yield a higher percent recovery particularly if the surface is smooth. It is really not clear whether the ASTM applies to the wipe or collection method. What was the ASTM wipe material ( manufacturer name) used? What type of material was used to make the QC spikes, what type of material was used by the laboratory to make their internal spikes, were both spiked ASTM wipes and spiked ECC wipes submitted blindly to the lab at the same time as field study samples, and were digestates analyzed by both ICP MS and FAAS to see if a difference was actually exhibited by instrumental analysis?

EPA Response: All these questions could be answered but they would require some research.

Additional evaluation of the effectiveness of cleaning agents in wet ECCs compared to water is needed.

EPA Response: If the research budget allowed, this would be one area that EPA would like to explore. It is noteworthy that wet DCCs, when used with water were found to work as effectively as DCCs used with the cleaning agent.

Evaluation of the ability of those performing R & R activities to conduct a DCC/ WG protocol including instructions for cleanup before DCC/ WG for each category of R & R requires more study EPA Response: This information would be useful.

Questions and discussions have been posed above to clarify aspects of the study and the results. The report contains pictures of floor conditions and should either contain pictures of photographic standards or both should be part of the Appendices.

EPA Response: The photographic standards are included in Appendix A. They will be more explicitly referenced in the main report text. It would be attractive to include photographs of all units in an appendix.

Using 11 photographic standards may be too many and the number should be perhaps reduced to 5 or 6.

EPA Response: The larger number of standards was used in the earlier Controlled Room Study but the field study was reduced to four standards.

From the photographs there appears to be a degree of overlap and thus may not be very easily discernable from individual to individual.

EPA Response: The subjective difference in interpretation of standards was investigated in the First Controlled Room Study.

The graphs that are divided into quadrants are very effective at illustrating the results for the treatment and before and after lead loadings with respect to the standard.

The report assesses and describes the variability, uncertainties, and limitations of the data and analysis. As previously discussed, certain aspects of the report could be clarified. The individual variability associated with reading the photographic standards should be assessed. EPA Response: This is covered in the First Controlled Room Study Report.

References to limited sample size and choice of units sampled are made several times throughout the report. Conclusions from the study indicate further work is needed including both controlled conditions and in the field.

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1. Yes, to some extent depending on if future studies are being planned. The concerns of the author are expressed several times and the poorer condition of the floors noted as being an important aspect that may interfere with the DCC/ WG procedure. The clean up that is designated prior to DCC/ WG protocol is also important and only broom sweeping was used.

2. Additional field study data should be collected. Statistical significance may be demonstrated between treatments if the power is increased. More specific questions should be addressed, such as vacuum vs. broom cleanup, and each room subjected to only one individual DCC/ WG protocols with before and after wipes.

3. The DCC/ WG procedures would always, in my opinion, be inferior to the actual collection of dust wipe samples and analysis by NLLAP Laboratories because of the subjective nature of the WG assessment. However, this does not preclude the DCC/ WG from being a very promising alternative in some or all situations of R & R using a pass/ fail assessment. That is why additional research is needed to more definitively define R & R activities vs. specific DCC treatments and the ability of individuals to apply the protocol.

4. ( 5) No, however, this also appears to be related to floor condition and discoloration present from some surfaces when using the wet protocol. It is not clear whether the discoloration was seen using the detergent, water, or both.

5. ( 6) The DCC/ WG protocols do seem practical for clearance testing at R & R sites, however, it may depend on the type and extent of the work that has been performed. Also, the additional items and time required for this procedure may not be practical depending on the individuals and their training in lead assessment work.

6. ( 7) Yes, on poor, deteriorated, or rough surfaces as described in the report and in large R & R projects where high levels of lead based paint are known to exist and paint removal is planned. DCC/ WG protocol is practical for smaller, well contained jobs where the site has been uninhabited and contamination spread into other areas is not suspected. It may be practical for individuals performing R & R activities in their own homes or property because not only does it provide education but also awareness of clean up and possible lead contamination. Additional research would be necessary.

7. ( 8) There are several places to obtain surface condition descriptions or codes. One is the HUD Guidelines and the other in an ASTM standard. Condition descriptions should indicate deteriorated conditions on both the floor and sill such as chalking, cracking or flaking finishes or paint. Presence of nails, ect. Or damage should also be described. Both type of surface of the floor or sill and condition should be included as part of the testing procedure and noted as protocol interferences.

8. ( 9) Because of the potential for larger amounts of dust a cleaning procedure should be recommended after R & R and prior to initiating DCC/ WG protocols. Broom sweeping of large debris followed by vacuum to pick up smaller particles. A wet mop of the surface would also be a viable procedure, however, the surface would have to be allowed to dry prior to sampling with dry ECCs or the same results may not be seen as was demonstrated in the report. A wet mop of the surface following vacuum would be indicated if implementing the wet cloth protocol.

9. ( 10) Many lead hazard control and lead abatement projects are conducted because high to very high lead hazards exist in the dwellings. The only protocol demonstrated in the field study that had success at higher lead levels was the wet cloth protocol. This protocol should be tested for both a clean up and possible clearance procedure.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 200 (Friday, October 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62447-62449]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1136; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-12]

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, Revocation of Class E
Airspace; Mountain Home, ID

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D airspace, Class E surface area
airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface, and removes Class E surface area airspace designated as an
extension at Mountain Home AFB, Mountain Home, ID. The FAA found it
necessary to amend the airspace area by increasing the Class D airspace
and reducing the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations for arriving and departing aircraft at the airport and
to change from navigation aids to geographic coordinate references in
the legal description. This action updates the geographic coordinates
of Mountain Home Municipal Airport, Mountain Home, ID.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 29591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Haga, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use

of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Mountain Home AFB,
ID.

History

    On July 28, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class D airspace, Class
E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface, and remove Class E surface area airspace
designated as an extension at Mountain Home AFB, Mountain Home, ID, (80
FR 44896). Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. One comment was received from Mr. Ted Thompson expressing concern
about the reduction of Class E airspace to the west of Mountain Home
Municipal airport if an instrument approach is established from the
west. In accordance with FAA Joint Order 7400.2K, airspace is
established based upon existing procedures. Any changes to airspace
that would be required by the development of a new instrument procedure
would be addressed at that time. Subsequent to publication, the FAA
found slight changes were necessary in the geographic coordinates noted
in the legal description of the Class E airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above surface.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order
7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class
E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and
removes Class E surface area airspace as an extension at Mountain Home
AFB, Mountain Home, ID. After a review, the FAA found an increase of
the Class D airspace necessary to protect instrument arrival procedures
at the airport. Class D airspace is extended upward from the surface to
and including 5,500 feet within a 5-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB,
extending to 6.5 miles to the southeast and northwest of the airport.
Class E surface area airspace extends upward from the surface within a
5-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB, extending to 6.5 miles to the
southeast and northwest of the airport. Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified to within a 7.7-mile
radius northeast of Mountain Home AFB, extending to 12.4 miles to the
northeast, and 17.7 miles to the east. The lateral boundary for that
Class E airspace extending from 1,200 feet above the surface is defined
utilizing latitude and longitude reference points instead of Federal
airway reference, and does not change the lateral boundaries or
operating requirements of the 1,200 foot airspace. This action also
updates the geographic coordinates of Mountain Home Municipal Airport,
Mountain Home, ID.

 Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace

* * * * *

ANM ID D Mountain Home, ID [Modified]

Mountain Home AFB, ID
    (Lat. 43[deg]02'37'' N., long. 115[deg]52'21'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
5,500 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Mountain Home AFB and
within 2 miles each side of the 135[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 5-mile radius to 6.5 miles southeast of the
airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 315[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 5-mile radius to 6.5 miles northwest
of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas

* * * * *

ANM ID E2 Mountain Home, ID [Modified]

Mountain Home AFB, ID
    (Lat. 43[deg]02'37'' N., long. 115[deg]52'21'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile
radius of the Mountain Home AFB, and within 2 miles each side of the
135[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius
to 6.5 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side
of the 315[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile
radius to 6.5 miles northwest of the airport.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ANM ID E4 Mountain Home, ID [Removed]

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth

* * * * *

ANM ID E5 Mountain Home, ID [Modified]

Mountain Home AFB, ID
    (Lat. 43[deg]02'37'' N., long. 115[deg]52'21'' W.)
Mountain Home Municipal Airport
    (Lat. 43[deg]07'54'' N., long. 115[deg]43'50'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
bounded by a line beginning at lat. 43[deg]06'48'' N., long.
115[deg]28'39'' W.; to lat. 43[deg]02'06'' N., long. 115[deg]31'12''
W.; to lat. 43[deg]03'25'' N., long. 115[deg]36'21'' W.; to lat.
42[deg]54'24'' N., long. 115[deg]48'41'' W.; to lat. 42[deg]54'24''
N., long. 115[deg]56'47'' W.; to lat. 43[deg]00'12'' N., long.
116[deg]04'42'' W.; to lat. 43[deg]06'51'' N., long. 116[deg]01'24''
W.; to lat. 43[deg]09'22'' N., long. 115[deg]57'57'' W.; to lat.
43[deg]12'54'' N., long. 115[deg]42'51'' W., thence to point of
beginning, that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the
surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 43[deg]33'06'' N., long.
116[deg]11'32'' W.; to lat. 42[deg]48'43'' N., long. 115[deg]00'21''
W.; to lat. 42[deg]23'58'' N., long. 115[deg]00'21'' W.; to lat.
42[deg]23'58'' N., long. 115[deg]18'28'' W.; thence clockwise along
the 46.0-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB to lat. 43[deg]09'17'' N.,
long. 116[deg]54'28'' W.; thence to point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 1, 2015.
Christopher Ramirez,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-25991 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56883-56886]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22688]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67822; File No. SR-BX-2012-060]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Transaction Fees

September 10, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 30, 2012, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter XV, Section 2 entitled ``BX
Options Market--Fees and Rebates'' to amend rebates and fees relating
to various options and make technical corrections to this section.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=BXRulefilings, at
the

principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Chapter XV,
Section 2(1) to amend rebates and fees for Customers, BX Options Market
Makers \3\ and Non-Customers \4\ in various options,\5\ as well as
remove certain options from the Fees and Rebates schedule below,\6\ as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A BX Options Market Makers must be registered as such
pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 2 of the BX Options Rules, and must
also remain in good standing pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 4.
    \4\ A Non-Customer includes a Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer
and Non-BX Options Market Maker.
    \5\ The Exchange is proposing to amend fees and rebates for
options overlying iShares Russell 2000 (``IWM''), PowerShares QQQ
Trust (``QQQ'')[supreg]; Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/
SPDRs (``SPY''); and all other Penny Pilot Options.
    \6\ The Exchange is proposing to eliminate fees and rebates for
Bank of America Corporation (``BAC''), Citigroup, Inc. (``C''),
Cisco Systems, Inc. (``CSCO''), Ford Motor Company Common Stock
(``F''), Intel Corp (``INTC''), Microsoft Corporation (``MSFT''), JP
Morgan Chase & Co. (``JPM''), SPDR Gold Shares (``GLD''), iShares
Silver Trust (``SLV'') and United States Oil Fund LP Units (``USO'')
(``Deleted Symbols'').

                                                Fees and Rebates
                                             [Per executed contract]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                BX Options
                                                              Customer         market maker     Non-customer \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IWM, QQQ and SPY:
    Rebate to Add Liquidity............................      \2\ $0.[15]00          \2\ $0.15        [$0.00] N/A
    Fee to Add Liquidity...............................        \3\ 0.1[5]8        \3\ 0.1[5]8            0.4[3]5
    Rebate to Remove Liquidity.........................               0.12         [0.00] N/A         [0.00] N/A
    Fee to Remove Liquidity............................         [0.00] N/A            0.4[3]5            0.4[3]5
[BAC, C, CSCO, F, INTC, MSFT, JPM, GLD, SLV and USO:
    Rebate to Add Liquidity............................           \2\ 0.15           \2\ 0.15               0.00
    Fee to Add Liquidity...............................           \3\ 0.37           \3\ 0.37               0.43
    Rebate to Remove Liquidity.........................               0.32               0.00               0.00
    Fee to Remove Liquidity............................               0.00               0.43              0.43]
All Other Penny Pilot Options:
    Rebate to Add Liquidity............................        \2\ 0.[1]00           \2\ 0.10         [0.00] N/A
    Fee to Add Liquidity...............................           \3\ 0.40           \3\ 0.40            0.4[3]5
    Rebate to Remove Liquidity.........................               0.32         [0.00] N/A         [0.00] N/A
    Fee to Remove Liquidity............................         [0.00] N/A            0.4[3]5            0.4[3]5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A Non-Customer includes a Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer and Non-BX Options Market Maker.
\2\ The Rebate to Add Liquidity will be paid to a Customer or BX Options Market Maker only when the Customer or
  BX Options Market Maker is contra to a Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker.
\3\ The Fee to Add Liquidity will be assessed to a Customer or BX Options Market Maker only when the Customer or
  BX Options Market Maker is contra to a Customer.

    The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the Rebate to Add Liquidity,
in any symbol, to a Customer. The Exchange is also proposing to
increase the Fee to Add Liquidity in IWM, QQQ and SPY from $0.15 to
$0.18 per executed contract for Customers and BX Options Market Makers.
For Non-Customers the Fee to Add or to Remove Liquidity in IWM, QQQ and
SPY and for all other Penny Pilot Options would increase from $0.43 to
$0.45 per executed contract. Additionally, for BX Options Market Makers
the Fee to Remove Liquidity in IWM, QQQ and SPY and for all other Penny
Pilot Options would increase from $0.43 to $0.45 per executed contract.
The Exchange is also proposing to remove entirely from the Fees and
Rebates schedule certain other options.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. As a result, the pricing for the Deleted Symbols
currently in place will be eliminated and revert to the current fees
and rebates for all other Penny Pilot Options. The Rebate to Add
Liquidity will decrease for Customers and BX Options Market Makers
from $0.15 to $0.00 and from $0.15 to $0.10 per contract,
respectively. A Non-Customer will continue not to be paid a Rebate
for Adding Liquidity. The Rebate to Remove Liquidity will remain
unchanged, a Customer will continue to be paid a $0.32 per contract
rebate and BX Options Market Makers and Non-Customers will not be
entitled to a Rebate to Remove Liquidity. The Fee to Remove
Liquidity will remain unchanged for Customers as they will not be
assessed this fee as is the case today. The Fee for Removing
Liquidity will increase for BX Options Market Makers and Non-
Customers from $0.43 to $0.45 per contract because the Exchange is
proposing to increase this fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to make technical corrections in
Chapter XV, Section 2 by replacing ``$0.00'' with ``N/A'' for several
categories. This is not a change to these fees and rebates, but a
technical amendment since in these instances ``N/A'' better reflects
that a fee is not relevant for this category rather than ``$0.00''
which simply reflects that no fee is currently being charged for this
category.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amended fees and rebates
are competitive and will encourage BX members to transact business on
the Exchange. Despite the reduction of the Customer rebate to $0.00,
the Exchange believes that the fees remain competitive with other
options exchanges and that market participants will continue to send
order flow to the Exchange.

2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that they provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which BX operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess different fees
and rebates for IWM, QQQ and SPY as compared to all other Penny Pilot
Options is reasonable given the fact that certain symbols such as IWM,
QQQ and SPY are highly liquid Penny Pilot Options as compared to other
Penny Pilot Options. Additionally, other options exchanges
differentiate pricing by security today.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC's (``Phlx'') Pricing Schedule,
which has different pricing for its Select Symbols and different
pricing for other Multiply Listed Options. See also the NASDAQ
Options Market LLC (``NOM'') at Chapter XV, Section 2(1), which
distinguishes pricing for NDX and MNX. See also the International
Securities Exchange LLC's Fee Schedule, which distinguishes pricing
for Special Non-Select Penny Pilot Symbols. See also the Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated's Fees Schedule, which
distinguishes index products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess different fees
and rebates for IWM, QQQ and SPY as compared to all other Penny Pilot
Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as described
hereafter. With respect to the proposed elimination of the Rebate to
Add Liquidity \11\ for IWM, QQQ, SPY and all other Penny Pilot Options,
the Exchange believes it is critical to incentivize BX Options Market
Makers because they have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements,\12\ which normally do not apply to other market
participants. A BX Options Market Maker has the obligation to make
continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with a course of dealings. The Exchange is proposing to
eliminate the Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity because the Exchange
believes that Customers do not require a similar incentive as do BX
Options Market Makers because they post liquidity on the Exchange for
reasons other than the opportunity to receive rebates and additionally,
Customers, unlike BX Options Market Makers, are not assessed a Fee to
Remove Liquidity.\13\ BX Options Market Makers would continue to
receive the opportunity to earn a $0.10 per contract (all other Penny
Pilot Options) or $0.15 per contract (IWM, QQQ, and SPY) Rebate to Add
Liquidity only when they are contra to a Non-Customer or BX Options
Market Maker. The proposed differentiation as between Customers and BX
Options Market Makers and other market participants recognizes the
differing contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment
on the Exchange by BX Options Market Makers, as well as the differing
mix of orders entered. This is not to say that Customer order flow is
not important, to the contrary, the Exchange believes that the pursuit
of such order flow by BX Options Market Makers and other market
participants because of the valuable liquidity Customer order flow
brings to the marketplace is the very reason that at this time, the
Exchange desires to incentivize and reward BX Options Market Makers to
make continuous markets and pursue Customer Order which can be freely
removed at no expense. Also, it is important to note that BX Options
Market Makers are unaware at the time the order is entered whether they
would be entitled to a $0.10 or $0.15 per contract Rebate to Add
Liquidity, depending on the security, because they are unaware of the
identity of the contra-party, which would determine whether they
receive a rebate. Because of anonymity of the contra-parties, BX
Options Market Makers aggressively pursue order flow which benefits all
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange proposes to eliminate for Customers the Rebate
to Add Liquidity for IWM, QQQ, and SPY of $0.15 per contract and of
$0.10 per contract for other Penny Pilot Options.
    \12\ Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), Section 5
(Obligations of Market Makers), in registering as a Market Maker, an
Options Participant commits himself to various obligations.
Transactions of a Market Maker in its market making capacity must
constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and Market Makers
should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all Market
Makers are designated as specialists on BX for all purposes under
the Act or rules thereunder. See Chapter VII, Section 5.
    \13\ Today, Customers are not assessed a Fee to Remove Liquidity
unlike other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Fee to Add Liquidity for
IWM, QQQ, SPY for all market participants and for Non-Customers in all
other Penny Pilot Options, as well as to increase the Fee to Remove
Liquidity for IWM, QQQ, SPY and all other Penny Pilot Options for BX
Options Market Makers and for Non-Customers is reasonable because the
increased fees would allow the Exchange to continue to reward Customers
for removing liquidity, and BX Options Market Makers for providing
liquidity with rebates. The advantage of increased Customer order flow
benefits all market participants. In addition, the proposed amended
Fees to Add or to Remove Liquidity are no greater than the rates
assessed by other exchanges for similar fees.\14\ Attracting Customer,
BX Options Market Maker, and Non-Customer order flow to the Exchange
benefits all market participants. BX Options Market Makers have burdens
that do not apply to other market participants. The Exchange is also
uniformly assessing all Non-Customer market participants
(Professionals, Firms, Broker-Dealers, Non-BX Options Market Makers and
BX Options Market Makers) the same $0.45 per executed contract Fee to
Add or to Remove Liquidity on every transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See BATS Exchange, Inc.'s Fee Schedule. See also NOM
Chapter XV, Section 2 (the Penny Pilot Fees to Remove Liquidity are
$0.45 per contract for all market participants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Fee to Add Liquidity for
IWM, QQQ, SPY for all market participants and for Non-Customers of all
other Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange is increasing all market participant Fees to Add
Liquidity. Specifically, while Customers and BX Options Market Makers
are being increased by $0.03 per executed contract, Non-Customers are
being increased by $0.02 per executed contract because they are
assessed higher fees. The Exchange is assessing higher fees to all
participants and not a select group of market participants. The
Exchange's proposal to increase the Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX
Options Market Makers and Non-Customers for IWM, QQQ, SPY and for all
other Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange is uniformly assessing all market participants,
except Customers,\15\ a $0.45 per executed contract Fee to Remove
Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Customers are not assessed a Fee to Remove Liquidity today
in either Penny Pilot or all other Penny Pilot Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to eliminate the fees and
rebates currently in place for Deleted Symbols and instead include
these symbols in all other Penny Pilot Options and assess those fees
and pay those rebates is reasonable because the Exchange does not
believes [sic] it is necessary to incentivize BX Options Participants
with higher rebates and lower fees as compare [sic] to other Non-Penny
[sic] Pilot Options. The Exchange believes that the fee [sic] and

rebates in place for all other Penny Pilot Options will continue to
incentivize NOM Participants to transact business on the Exchange
because despite the increase to the fees and the rebate reduction, the
pricing for these Non-Penny [sic] Pilot Options remains competitive.
The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess the Deleted Symbols the fees and rebates
currently assessed and paid all other Penny Pilot Options because the
fees and rebates would be the same as those assessed and paid for all
other Non-Penny [sic] Pilot Options today. The Exchange would assess
and pay fees and rebates for the Deleted Symbols, which are Non-Penny
[sic] Pilot symbols, the same pricing as is assessed and paid for all
other Non-Penny [sic] Pilot symbols options.
    The Exchange's proposal to make technical corrections in Chapter
XV, Section 2, by replacing ``$0.00'' with ``N/A'' for several
categories is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because this is not a change to these fees and rebates, but a
clarification that in these instances ``N/A'' better reflects that a
fee is not relevant for this category rather than using ``$0.00'' which
simply reflects that no fee is currently being charged for this
category.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of
ten U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable
market participants can and do send order flow to competing exchanges
if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive. The
Exchange believes that the proposed amended fee and rebate scheme is
competitive and similar to other fees and rebates in place on other
exchanges. The Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace
materially impacts the fees and rebates present on the Exchange today
and substantially influences the proposal set forth above.

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

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, BX has designed its fees and
rebates to compete effectively for the execution and routing of options
contracts and to reduce the overall cost to investors of options
trading. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee/rebate pricing
structure would attract liquidity to and benefit order interaction at
the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\16\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2012-060 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2012-060. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2012-060 and should be
submitted on or before October 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22688 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35831-35832]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12627]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-359, OMB Control No. 3235-0410]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request: Extension; Rules 17h-
1T and 17h-2T

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rules
17h-1T and 17h-2T (17 CFR 240.17h-1T and 17 CFR 240.17h-2T), under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17h-1T requires a covered broker-dealer to maintain and
preserve records and other information concerning certain entities that
are associated with the broker-dealer. This requirement extends to the
financial and securities activities of the holding company, affiliates
and subsidiaries of the broker-dealer that are reasonably likely to
have a material impact on the financial or operational condition of the
broker-dealer. Rule 17h-2T requires a covered broker-dealer to file
with the Commission quarterly reports and a cumulative year-end report
concerning the information required to be maintained and preserved
under Rule 17h-1T.
    The collection of information required by Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T,
collectively referred to as the ``risk assessment rules,'' is necessary
to enable the Commission to monitor the activities of a broker-dealer
affiliate whose business activities are reasonably likely to have a
material impact on the financial or operational condition of the
broker-dealer. Without this information, the Commission would be unable
to assess the potentially damaging impact of the affiliate's activities
on the broker-dealer.
    There are currently 235 respondents that must comply with Rules
17h-1T and 17h-2T. Each of these 235 respondents are estimated to
require 10 hours per year to maintain the records required under Rule
17h-1T, for an aggregate estimated annual burden of 2,350 hours (235
respondents x 10 hours). In addition, each of these 235 respondents
must make five annual responses under Rule 17h-2T. These five responses
are estimated to require 14 hours per respondent per year for an
aggregate estimated annual burden of 3,290 hours (235 respondents x 14
hours).
    In addition, new respondents must draft an organizational chart
required under Rule 17h-1T and establish a system for complying with
the risk assessment rules. The staff estimates that drafting the
required organizational chart requires one hour and establishing a
system for complying with the risk assessment rules requires three
hours. Based on the reduction in the number of filers in recent years,
the staff estimates there will be zero new respondents, and thus, a
corresponding estimated burden of zero hours for new respondents. Thus,
the total compliance burden per year is approximately 5,640 burden
hours (2,350 hours + 3,290 hours).
    The retention period for the recordkeeping requirement for the
information, reports and records required under Rule 17h-1T is not less
than three years. There is no specific retention period or
recordkeeping requirement for Rule 17h-2T. The collection of
information is mandatory. All information obtained by the Commission
pursuant to the provisions of Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T from a broker or
dealer concerning a material associated person is deemed confidential
information for the purposes of section 24(b) of the Exchange Act.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: >www.reginfo.gov<. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by July 13, 2022. >[email protected]< and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected]. Comments must be
submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: June 7, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12627 Filed 6-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 121 (Friday, June 24, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37738-37740]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0497]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lake of the Ozarks, Mile Marker 42.5 Lake of the
Ozarks, MO; Lake of the Ozarks, MO

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 200-yard radius of a fireworks launch barge
at mile maker (MM) 42.5 on the Lake of the Ozarks. The safety zone is
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by the fireworks display. Entry of vessels or
persons into the zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 1, 2022 from 9:30 p.m. through
10:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0497 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Stephanie Moore, Sector Upper
Mississippi River Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good

cause finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because we must
establish this safety zone by July 1, 2022 and lack sufficient time to
provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments
before issuing the rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Upper
Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the fireworks display on July 1, 2022 will be a safety
concern for anyone on the Lake of the Ozarks at the designated launch
location. This rule resulted from a marine event notification stating
that there will be a fireworks display on the Lake of the Ozarks. This
rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone before,
during, and after the fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
on July 1, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within
a 200 yard radius of a fireworks launch barge located at MM 42.5 on the
Lake of the Ozarks. The duration of this zone is intended to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable
waters before, during, and after the fireworks display. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated
representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG
Sector Upper Mississippi River. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement date and times for these
safety zones, as well as any emergent safety concerns that may delay
the enforcement of the zones.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on on size, location,
and duration of the temporary safety zones. This action involves a
fireworks display at MM 42.5 on the Lake of the Ozarks on July 1, 2022.
Moreover, the Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners and
mariners may seek permission to enter the zones.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) 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.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not

individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 1 hour that
will prohibit entry within a 200 yard radius of a fireworks launch
barge. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L60a of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    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: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0497 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0497   Safety Zones; Lake of the Ozarks, Mile Marker
42.5, Lake of the Ozarks, MO.

    (a) Location.all navigable waters extending 200 yards in all
directions around a fireworks launch barge at mile marker (MM) 42.5 on
the Lake of the Ozarks on July 1, 2022 from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
    (b) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative. A
designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control
of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the
zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF radio Channel 16 or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative while
navigating in the regulated area.
    (c) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the enforcement date and times
for this safety zone, as well as any emergent safety concerns that may
delay the enforcement of the zone through either a Safety Marine
Information Broadcast (SMIB), Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) and or
the Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs).

    Dated: June 16, 2022.
R.M. Scott,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2022-13393 Filed 6-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 3485]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-31462]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68519; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-143]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Extension of the Exchange's Penny Pilot Program and
Replacement of Penny Pilot Issues That Have Been Delisted

December 21, 2012.

Correction

    In notice document 2012-31462, appearing on pages 136-138 in the
issue of Wednesday, January 2, 2013, make the following correction:
    On page number 138, in the second column, on the forty-first line,
the date reading ``January 23, 2012'' should read ``January 23, 2013''.
[FR Doc. C1-2012-31462 Filed 1-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43778-43779]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19926]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0793]

Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee meeting;
teleconference option.

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

SUMMARY: The meeting of the full Chemical Transportation Advisory
Committee (CTAC), scheduled for October 5, 2017, was announced in the
Federal Register on August 30, 2017. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-08-30/pdf/2017-18331.pdf At that time no teleconference option was
announced; this notice announces the alternative of participating by
teleconference. To participate via teleconference, please dial 202-475-
4000; the participant access code is 607 493 32#.

DATES: The teleconference option will be available between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. on October 5, 2017, unless the meeting ends earlier. In-person
participation is still available for the October 5 meeting as well as
the subcommittee meetings on October 3 and 4; see the notice published
August 30, 2017, for location and pre-registration details (link
above). No teleconference option is available for the subcommittee
meetings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Jake Lobb, Alternate
Designated Federal Official of the Chemical Transportation Advisory
Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20593-
7509, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 30, 2017, the Coast Guard
announced a meeting of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee,
to occur at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC (82 FR 41279).
The full committee will meet on October 5, after subcommittee meetings
on October 3 and 4.
    To accommodate committee members and members of the public whose
travel plans may be affected by recent hurricanes, the U.S. Coast Guard
is offering a teleconference option as an alternative to in-person
participation. The teleconference will be available only on October 5.
To participate via teleconference, please dial<PHONE_NUMBER>; the
participant access code is 607 493 32#. If you encounter technical
difficulties with teleconference access,

contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

    Dated: September 14, 2017.
F.J. Sturm,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2017-19926 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77497-77500]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27399]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0833; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00245-T;
Amendment 39-22258; AD 2022-25-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-18-
04, which applied to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. AD
2020-18-04 required a one-time health check of the slat power control
unit (PCU) torque sensing unit (TSU) for discrepancies, and corrective
actions if necessary; a detailed inspection of the left-hand (LH) and
right-hand (RH) slat transmission systems for discrepancies, and
corrective actions if necessary; and LH and RH track 12 slat gear
rotary actuator (SGRA) water drainage and vent plug cleaning (which
includes an inspection for moisture). This AD was prompted by a
determination that requiring modification of the PCU by replacing each
affected slat PCU with a serviceable PCU (one having a different part
number) is necessary. This AD continues to require the actions required
by AD 2020-18-04, and also requires modification (replacement of each
affected slat PCU with a slat PCU having a different part number), and
revising the limitations on the installation of affected parts; as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 23, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 23,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2021-0833; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material incorporated by reference in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2021-0833.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dat Le, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-18-04, Amendment 39-21225 (85 FR
54896, September 3, 2020) (AD 2020-18-04). AD 2020-18-04 applied to all
Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. AD 2020-18-04 required a
one-time health check of the slat PCU TSU for discrepancies, and
corrective actions if necessary; a detailed inspection of the LH and RH
slat transmission systems for discrepancies, and corrective actions if
necessary; and LH and RH track 12 SGRA water drainage and vent plug
cleaning (which includes an inspection for moisture). The FAA issued AD
2020-18-04 to address a slat system jam during landing phase which
could lead to a double shaft disconnection or rupture, potentially
causing one or more slat surfaces to be no longer connected to either
the slat wing tip brake or the slat PCU, possibly resulting in reduced
control of the airplane.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2021
(86 FR 54136). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2021-0053R1, dated April 19,
2021, issued by European Union Aviation Safety Agency (referred to
after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that since EASA AD 2020-
0163R1, dated August 7, 2020 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2020-18-04),
was issued, EASA received information that prompted it to add a
requirement for repetitive TSU health checks, introduce a definition of
serviceable part to clarify actions that have to be accomplished on
affected parts, and remove a requirement for a water drainage and vent
plug cleaning of the LH and RH track 12 SGRA.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2021-0833.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to remove a requirement for water
drainage and vent plug cleaning of the SGRA, require repetitive health
checks of the slat PCU TSU, a detailed visual inspection of the slat
transmission systems, and corrective actions if necessary, as specified
in EASA AD 2020-0163R1.
    The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-18-04. The SNPRM published
in the Federal Register on June 1, 2022 (87 FR 33076) (the SNPRM). The
SNPRM was prompted by EASA issuance of AD 2021-0275, dated December 10,
2021, (EASA AD 2021-0275), which determined that requiring modification
of the PCU by replacing each affected slat PCU with a serviceable PCU
(one having a different part number) is necessary, and clarified the
limitations related to when an affected slat PCU may be installed on an
airplane. In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed to require modification
(replacement of each affected slat PCU with a slat PCU having a
different part number), requiring an inspection report, and revising
the limitations on the installation of affected parts. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address a slat system jam during landing, which
could lead to a double shaft disconnection/rupture, potentially causing
one or more

slat surfaces to be no longer connected to either the slat wing tip
brake or the slat PCU, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
airplane.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from Delta Air Lines (Delta). The
following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's
response to each comment.

Request for Removing the Initial Health Check Requirement

    Delta requested that the terminating action (modification of the
PCU) specified in paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2021-0275 for the repetitive
health checks in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2021-0275 be extended to the
initial health check specified in paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0275
too. Delta noted that it seems that the health checks are intended only
for those slats that have not been modified. Delta stated that for a
modified PCU, a detailed inspection (as specified in paragraph (1) of
EASA AD 2021-0275) is required and that an initial health check would
not reveal further information or instruction. Delta added that the
detailed inspection and initial health check have the same compliance
time. Delta recommended revising paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in
the SNPRM) to permit the terminating action to be used for the initial
health check too.
    The FAA agrees to the request for the reasons that Delta provided.
The FAA has revised paragraph (h) of this AD to provide terminating
action for the initial health check.

Request for Removal of the Reporting Requirement

    Delta requested removing the requirement to send inspection reports
to Airbus. Delta pointed out that Airbus provided a modification that
terminates inspection requirements. Delta noted also that if there are
findings that require a request for repair instruction, the operator
would need to provide details of the discrepancies before receiving
repair instructions. Delta recommended revising paragraph (h) of
proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to remove the reporting requirement and
state that reporting is not required.
    The FAA agrees with the request for the reasons stated. The FAA has
revised paragraph (h) of this AD and the Cost of Compliance and Related
Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51 sections of this AD
accordingly; and added paragraph (i) to this AD to state that
inspection reports are not required.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting
this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial
changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted
as proposed in the SNPRM. None of the changes will increase the
economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0275 specifies procedures for repetitive health checks
of the slat PCU TSU for discrepancies, and corrective actions
(replacement) if necessary; a detailed visual inspection of the LH and
RH slat transmission systems for discrepancies, and corrective actions
(repair) if necessary; and a modification of the PCU (replacement of
each slat PCU having part number (P/N) 4785A0000-04 or 4785A0000-05
with a slat PCU having P/N 4785A0000-06), which terminates the health
checks. EASA AD 2021-0275 also specifies limitations for installing
affected slat PCUs. This material 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.

Interim Action

    The preamble to AD 2020-18-04 explains that the FAA considers those
requirements ``interim action'' and that the manufacturer is developing
a final action to address the unsafe condition. That AD explains that
the FAA might consider further rulemaking if a final action is
identified. The same explanation was in the preamble of the NPRM. Since
the FAA issued AD 2020-18-04 and the NPRM, the manufacturer has
developed a modification to the PCU, and the FAA has determined that
further rulemaking is indeed necessary; this AD follows from that
determination.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                   Parts cost         Cost per product         Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 40 work-hours x $85 per hour = Up         $275,300  Up to $278,700............  Up to $4,180,500.
 to $3,400.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2020-18-04, Amendment 39-21225 (85
FR 54896, September 3, 2020); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2022-25-02 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22258; Docket No. FAA-2021-0833;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00245-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 23, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-18-04, Amendment 39-21225 (85 FR 54896,
September 3, 2020) (AD 2020-18-04).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a slat system jam during
landing, the determination that health checks must be repetitive to
monitor torque sensor unit (TSU) wear, and the development of a
modification that terminates the health checks. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address a slat system jam during landing, which could
lead to a double shaft disconnection/rupture, potentially causing
one or more slat surfaces to be no longer connected to either the
slat wing tip brake or the slat power control unit (PCU), possibly
resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0275, dated December 10, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0275).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0275

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0275 refers to March 11, 2021 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2021-0053, dated February 25, 2021), this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0275 specifies
compliance times for accomplishment of certain actions, replace the
text ``but not exceeding the compliance time for the repeat health
check as determined in accordance with the instructions of AOT
[Alert Operators Transmission] A27P015-20, or AOT A27P016-20,'' with
``but within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
<IP_ADDRESS> of AOT A27P015-20; or <IP_ADDRESS>.2 or <IP_ADDRESS>.2 of AOT A27P016-
20; as applicable.''
    (3) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2021-0275 specifies
``Appendix 5 of the AOT,'' use ``the Appendix labeled TSU Condition
Check Flowchart of the AOT.''
    (4) Where note 2 of EASA AD 2021-0275 states that the
certificate of release accompanying a replacement part ``will
clarify,'' use ``may be used to clarify.''
    (5) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0275 does not apply
to this AD.
    (6) Where EASA AD 2021-0275 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (7) Where paragraph (7) of EASA AD 2021-0275 states that the
modification specified in paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2021-0275 is
terminating action for paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2021-0275, this AD
considers accomplishing the modification specified in paragraph (6)
of EASA AD 2021-0275 to also be terminating action for the initial
health check specified in paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0275.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0275
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation 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 responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information referenced
in EASA AD 2021-0275 contains paragraphs that are labeled as RC, the
instructions in RC paragraphs, including subparagraphs under an RC
paragraph, must be done to comply with this AD; any paragraphs,
including subparagraphs under those paragraphs, that are not
identified as RC are recommended. The instructions in paragraphs,
including subparagraphs under those paragraphs, not identified 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 instructions identified as RC can
be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
Any substitutions or changes to instructions identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dat Le, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 516-
228-7317; 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 23, 2023.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0275,
dated December 10, 2021.

    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) For EASA AD 2021-0275, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (5) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 28, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-27399 Filed 12-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 24)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6659-6660]
[DOCID:fr05fe08-31]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-8523-8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Industrial Waste Control
Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing
a notice of intent to delete the Industrial Waste Control Superfund
Site located in Fort Smith, Arkansas from the National Priorities List
(NPL) and requests public comments on this notice of intent. The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is found at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions
under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance and five-year
reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude
future actions under Superfund.
    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' Section of this Federal Register,
we are publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Industrial
Waste Control Superfund Site without prior notice of intent to delete
because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no
adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the
direct final deletion. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on the
direct final notice of deletion, we will not take further action on
this notice of intent to delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we
will withdraw

the direct final notice of deletion, and it will not take effect. We
will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final
deletion notice based on this notice of intent to delete. We will not
institute a second comment period on this notice of intent to delete.
Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For
additional information see the direct final notice of deletion located
in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

DATES: Comments concerning this Site must be received by March 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002 Notice 4, by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov (Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments)
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: Donn Walters, Community Involvement, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-
TS), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-
533-3508.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002 Notice 4. EPA policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information,
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov
 Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which

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

e-mail address will automatically be captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the

information repositories.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Ghose M.S., P.E., Remedial
Project Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RA), 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(214) 665-6782 or 800-533-
3508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the Direct
Final Notice of Deletion located in the ``Rules'' section of this
Federal Register.
    Information Repositories: Repositories have been established to
provide detailed information concerning this decision at the following
locations: U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>, by appointment only Monday through
Friday 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; Fort Smith Public
Library, 3201 Rogers Avenue, Ft. Smith, AR 72903,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Friday, 10
a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday; Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 5301 Northshore Drive,
North Little Rock, Arkansas 72118,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday through
Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: September 28, 2007.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.

    Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register on January 30, 2008.
 [FR Doc. E8-1963 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P