highest recorded hourly emission rate from the previous 24 hours must
be used.
    (B) When data are not available for 48 or more hours, the maximum
daily emission rate based on the previous 30 days must be used.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (k) The owner or operator of each source subject to Sec.
63.1544(a) must operate a continuous monitoring system for the
measurement of lead compound concentrations in air.
    (1) The owner or operator must operate compliance monitors
sufficient in number, location, and frequency of sample collection to
detect expected maximum concentrations of lead compounds in air due to
emissions from the affected source(s) in accordance with a written plan
as described in (k)(2) of this paragraph and approved by the
Administrator. The plan must include descriptions of the sampling and
analytical methods used. The plan may take into consideration existing
monitoring being conducted under a state monitoring plan in accordance
with part 58 of this chapter.
    (2) The owner or operator must submit a written plan describing and
explaining the basis for the design and adequacy of the compliance
monitoring network, the sampling, analytical, and quality assurance
procedures, and any other related procedures, and the justification for
any seasonal, background, or other data adjustments within 45 days
after the effective date of this subpart.
    (3) The Administrator at any time may require changes in, or
expansion of, the monitoring program, including additional sampling and
analytical protocols and network design.
    (l) If all rolling three-month average concentrations of lead in
air measured by the compliance monitoring system are less than 50
percent of the lead concentration in air limit in Sec.  63.1544(a) for
three consecutive years, the owner or operator may submit a revised
plan to reduce the monitoring sampling and analysis frequency (e.g.,
from daily to weekly). For any subsequent period, if any rolling three-
month average lead concentration in air measured at any monitor in the
monitoring system exceeds 50 percent of the concentration limit in
Sec.  63.1544(a), the owner or operator must resume monitoring pursuant
to paragraph (k)(1) of this section at all monitors until another three
consecutive years of lead concentration in air measurements less than
50 percent of the lead concentration in air limit is demonstrated.
    9. Section 63.1548 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1548  Notification requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator of a primary lead processor must comply
with the notification requirements of Sec.  63.9 of subpart A, General
Provisions as specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
    (b) The owner or operator of a primary lead processor must submit
the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under
Sec.  63.1547(a) to the Administrator or delegated authority along with
a notification that the primary lead processor is seeking review and
approval of the manual and procedures. Owners or operators of existing
primary lead processors must submit this notification no later than
November 6, 2000. The owner or operator of a primary lead processor
that commences construction or reconstruction after April 17, 1998,
must submit this notification no later than 180 days before startup of
the constructed or reconstructed primary lead processor, but no sooner
than September 2, 1999.
    (c) The owner or operator of a primary lead processor must submit
the compliance monitoring network plan required under Sec.
63.1547(k)(2) to the Administrator or delegated authority along with a
notification that the primary lead processor is seeking review and
approval of the plan. Owners or operators of existing primary lead
processors must submit this notification no later than 45 days after
promulgation of this subpart. The owner or operator of a new,
reconstructed, or modified primary lead processor must submit this
notification no later than 180 days before startup of the constructed
or reconstructed primary lead processor.
    10. Section 63.1549 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1549  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator of a primary lead processor must comply
with the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.10 of subpart A,
General Provisions as specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
    (b) In addition to the general records required by paragraph (a) of
this section, each owner or operator of a primary lead processor must
maintain for a period of 5 years, records of the information listed in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) of this section.
    (1) Production records of the weight and lead content of lead
products, copper matte, and copper speiss.
    (2) Records of the bag leak detection system output.
    (3) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an
explanation of the actions taken, and the date and time the cause of
the alarm was corrected.
    (4) Any recordkeeping required as part of the requirements
described in the compliance monitoring system plan required under Sec.
63.1547(k)(2).
    (5) Any recordkeeping required as part of the practices described
in the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required
under Sec.  63.1547(a).
    (6) If an owner or operator chooses to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirement under Sec.
63.1543(d) by employing the method allowed in Sec.  63.1547(i)(1), the
records of the daily doorway in-draft checks, an

identification of the periods when there was not a positive in-draft,
and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (7) If an owner or operator chooses to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirement under Sec.
63.1543(d) by employing the method allowed in Sec.  63.1547(i)(2), the
records of the output from the continuous volumetric flow monitor(s),
an identification of the periods when the 15-minute volumetric flow
rate dropped below the minimum established during the most recent in-
draft determination, and an explanation of the corrective actions
taken.
    (8) If an owner or operator chooses to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirement under Sec.
63.1543(d) by employing the method allowed in Sec.  63.1547(i)(2), and
volumetric flow rate is monitored at the baghouse inlet, records of the
daily checks of damper positions, an identification of the days that
the damper positions were not in the positions established during the
most recent in-draft determination, and an explanation of the
corrective actions taken.
    (9) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment.
    (10) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. Sec.  63.1543(i) and
63.1544(e), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning
process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its
normal or usual manner of operation.
    (c) Records for the most recent 2 years of operation must be
maintained on site. Records for the previous 3 years may be maintained
off site.
    (d) The owner or operator of a primary lead processor must comply
with the reporting requirements of Sec.  63.10 of subpart A, General
Provisions as specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
    (e) In addition to the information required under Sec.  63.10 of
the General Provisions, the owner or operator must provide semi-annual
reports containing the information specified in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (e)(9) of this section to the Administrator or designated
authority.
    (1) The reports must include records of all alarms from the bag
leak detection system specified in Sec.  63.1547(e).
    (2) The reports must include a description of the actions taken
following each bag leak detection system alarm pursuant to Sec.
63.1547(f).
    (3) The reports must include a calculation of the percentage of
time the alarm on the bag leak detection system sounded during the
reporting period pursuant to Sec.  63.1547(g).
    (4) If an owner or operator chooses to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirement under Sec.
63.1543(d) by employing the method allowed in Sec.  63.1547(i)(1), the
reports must contain an identification of the periods when there was
not a positive in-draft, and an explanation of the corrective actions
taken.
    (5) If an owner or operator chooses to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirement under Sec.
63.1543(d) by employing the method allowed in Sec.  63.1547(i)(2), the
reports must contain an identification of the periods when the 15-
minute volumetric flow rate(s) dropped below the minimum established
during the most recent in-draft determination, and an explanation of
the corrective actions taken.
    (6) If an owner or operator chooses to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirement under Sec.
63.1543(d) by employing the method allowed in Sec.  63.1547(i)(2), and
volumetric flow rate is monitored at the baghouse inlet, the reports
must contain an identification of the days that the damper positions
were not in the positions established during the most recent in-draft
determination, and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (7) The reports must contain a summary of the records maintained as
part of the practices described in the standard operating procedures
manual for baghouses required under Sec.  63.1547(a), including an
explanation of the periods when the procedures were not followed and
the corrective actions taken.
    (8) The reports must contain a summary of the compliance monitoring
results for the required reporting period, including an explanation of
any periods when the procedures outlined in the compliance monitoring
system plan required by Sec.  63.1547(k)(2) were not followed and the
corrective actions taken.
    (9) If there was a malfunction during the reporting period, the
report shall also include the number, duration, and a brief description
for each type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period
and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission limitation
to be exceeded. The report must also include a description of actions
taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected
source to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. Sec.  63.1543(i)
and 63.1544(b), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
    11. Section 63.1550 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1550  Delegation of authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under section 112(1) of the Act, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section must be retained by the Administrator and
not transferred to a State.
    (b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: No
restrictions.
    12. Section 63.1551 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1551  Affirmative defense for exceedance of emission limit
during malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in this
subpart you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil
penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by
malfunction, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be
assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all the
requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall
not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
    (a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that:
    (1) The excess emissions:
    (i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable
failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs; and
    (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions; and

    (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, severe personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health; and
    (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible; and
    (7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared to determine,
correct and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the
excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The
analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and
engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the
result of the malfunction.
    (b) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within
30 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in
this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section.
    12. Table 1 to Subpart TTT of Part 63 is revised to read as
follows:

               Table 1 to Subpart TTT of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart TTT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Reference                  Applies to subpart TTT                      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1.......................  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.2.......................  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.3.......................  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.4.......................  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.5.......................  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.6(a), (b), (c)..........  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.6 (d)...................  No...........................  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..............  No...........................  See Sec.   63.1543(i) and Sec.   63.1544(b)
                                                                    for general duty requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).............  No.                            .............................................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)............  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.6(e)(2).................  No...........................  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).................  No.                            .............................................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).................  No.                            .............................................
Sec.   63.6(g)....................  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.6(h)....................  No...........................  No opacity limits in rule.
Sec.   63.6(i)....................  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.6(j)....................  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d)................  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).................  No...........................  See Sec.   63.1546(c).
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)..........  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.7(f), (g), (h)..........  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.8(a)-(b)................  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..............  No.                            .............................................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).............  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)............  No.                            .............................................
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2)..........  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.8(d)(3).................  Yes, except for last           .............................................
                                     sentence.
Sec.   63.8(e)-(g)................  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.9(a), (b), (c), (e),      Yes.                           .............................................
 (g), (h)(1) through (3), (h)(5)
 and (6), (i) and (j).
Sec.   63.9(f)....................  No.                            .............................................
Sec.   63.9(h)(4).................  No...........................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i).............  No.                            .............................................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)............  No...........................  See Sec.   63.1549(b)(9) and (10) for
                                                                    recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of
                                                                    malfunctions and recordkeeping of actions
                                                                    taken during malfunction.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)...........  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)..  No.                            .............................................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.(10)(b)(3)..............  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(9)............  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(11)..........  No...........................  See Sec.   63.1549(b)(9) and (10) for
                                                                    recordkeeping of malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14).......  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)...............  No.                            .............................................
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-(4)............  Yes.                           .............................................

Sec.   63.10(d)(5)................  No...........................  See Sec.   63.1549(e)(9) for reporting of
                                                                    malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(e)-((f)..............  Yes.                           .............................................
Sec.   63.11......................  No...........................  Flares will not be used to comply with the
                                                                    emission limits.
Sec.   63.12 through 63.15........  Yes.                           .............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-2866 Filed 2-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 29251-29252]
[DOCID:fr19jn09-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60102; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-50]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
by NYSE Arca, Inc. Implementing Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services by adding a Ratio Threshold Fee

June 11, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 1, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. On June 9, 2009, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange corrected a typographical
error that occurred on the cover sheet that accompanied the
Exchange's submission on Form 19b-4. Specifically, the Exchange
conformed its categorization of the statutory provision applicable
to the proposed rule change (i.e., Section 19(b)(3)(A) instead of
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act) to make the cover sheet consistent with
the text of the Form 19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services (``Schedule'') by adding a Ratio Threshold Fee. While
changes to the Schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective
upon filing, the proposed fee will become operative on June 1, 2009.
The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Ex.5 to the 19b-4
form. A copy of this filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes adding a Ratio Threshold Fee to its Fee
Schedule. The proposed Ratio Threshold Fee will be charged to OTP
Holders based on the number of orders entered compared to the number of
executions received in a calendar month. The fee will be assessed as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Monthly
               Monthly order to execution ratio                  charge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 10,000 and 14,999 to 1...............................     $5,000
Between 15,000 and 19,999 to 1...............................     10,000
Between 20,000 and 24,999 to 1...............................     20,000
25,000 to 1 and greater......................................     35,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This fee shall not apply to orders that improve the Exchange's
prevailing best bid-offer (BBO) market at the time the orders are
received.
    OTP Holders with order to execution ratios of 10,000 to 1 or
greater have the potential residual effect of exhausting system
resources, bandwidth, and capacity. Such order to execution ratios may,
in turn, create latency and impact other OTP Holders ability to receive
timely executions. Recognizing that orders and executions often occur
in large numbers, the purpose of this fee is to focus on activity that
is truly disproportionate while fairly allocating costs among members.
The proposed fee has multiple thresholds and is greater at higher order
to execution ratios because the potential impact on exchange systems,
bandwidth and capacity becomes greater with increased order to
execution ratios.
    The new Ratio Threshold Fee will become effective on June 1, 2009.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\5\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. Under this proposal,
all similarly situated members of NYSE Arca will be charged the same
reasonable dues, fees and other charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \8\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-50 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-NYSEArca-2009-50. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. 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-
NYSEArca-2009-50 and should be submitted on or before July 10, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14352 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Draft  Final Application Will Have Additional Formatting National Environmental Performance Track ( Performance Track) Outreach Award Application Award Description While Performance Track rewards all members for their commitment to improving their role in protecting the environment, we would like to offer a special award to current members/ partners who are educating the public and encouraging prospective facilities to join Performance Track.

Educating prospective facilities on the merits of joining the program helps build Performance Track, which in turn provides additional benefits as more and more facilities make commitments to continuous environmental improvement. Through the Outreach Award, we want to show our appreciation to facilities that continually work to strengthen Performance Track.

The Performance Track Outreach Award is sponsored by the US Environmental Protection Agency's Performance Track Program.

Eligibility All organizations participating in or officially working with the Performance Track Program during the calendar year are encouraged to apply for the Outreach Award. To be considered for the award, facilities/ organizations may self nominate or may be nominated by other facilities, states and local entities, or EPA Performance Track staff. Completed applications must be received by January 1 of the following year.

Application Process The application period is based on the calendar year activities by a facility or company, with applications due January 1 of the following year. In addition to the entry form, applicants should submit supporting documentation as necessary, such as photographs, video tapes, written materials ( i. e. panel/ event programs, invitations, etc.). A panel of EPA judges will consider all applications and support materials.

Notification and Presentation Recipients will be notified via phone and a mailed letter. Awards will be presented at the following year's Annual Member Event.

Corporate Logo Please provide both a color and black and white corporate logo in EPS, JPEG, or TIFF format that will allow for a printable resolution of 300 dpi at a size of 4 inches. Please provide the logo electronically on a diskette labeled " LOGO of [ Your Organization's name]". In the event that your organization is chosen for an award, this logo will be used in awards ceremony materials. Draft  Final Application Will Have Additional Formatting Section I: Company Description Contact information:

Please provide the following required information. Use this page as a cover sheet and attach a copy to the application submission.

Official Name of Organization ( as it should appear on the award)

Primary Contact Name Title E mail Address Street Address City State Zip code Phone ( area code + extension)

How did you hear about this award? Draft  Final Application Will Have Additional Formatting Section II Please describe any special efforts your facility/ organization has made to promote to the public the value of environmental performance and/ or your partnership in Performance Track. Include examples of how your organization has educated the public on the benefits of Performance Track. Please provide as much specific information as you can, including dates, names of companies you worked with, etc. Examples include, but are not limited to:

° Mentored other facilities interested in applying to Performance Track. ° Created or displayed advertisements for the program. ° Hosted Performance Track events. These may include, but are not limited to, recruitment events, application workshops, member events, etc. ° Gave Performance Track presentations at trade shows or conferences. ° Sent out mailings, made phone calls, or wrote articles in newsletters, especially during Performance Track recruitment periods. ° If possible, mention any measurable impact of your efforts to promote Performance Track ( new applications as a result of outreach efforts, inquiries into the program, etc.). ° Included information about Performance Track on web site. ° Invited Performance Track staff to speak to members at association conferences/ meetings. ° Other communication outreach to members or the public.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26850-26851]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10368]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 20a-1, SEC File No. 270-132, OMB Control No. 3235-0158

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Rule 20a-1 (17 CFR 270.20a-1) was adopted under Section 20(a) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``1940 Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a-20(a))
and concerns the solicitation of proxies, consents, and authorizations
with respect to securities issued by registered investment companies
(``Funds''). More specifically, rule 20a-1 under the 1940 Act (15
U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) requires that the solicitation of a proxy,
consent, or authorization with respect to a security issued by a Fund
be in compliance with Regulation 14A (17 CFR 240.14a-1 et seq.),
Schedule 14A (17 CFR 240.14a-101), and all other rules and regulations
adopted pursuant to section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``1934 Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78n(a)). It also requires, in certain
circumstances, a Fund's investment adviser or a prospective adviser,
and certain affiliates of the adviser or prospective adviser, to
transmit to the person making the solicitation the information
necessary to enable that person to comply with the rules and
regulations applicable to the solicitation. In addition, rule 20a-1
instructs Funds that have made a public offering of securities and that
hold security holder votes for which proxies, consents, or
authorizations are not being solicited, to refer to section 14(c) of
the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78n(c)) and the information statement
requirements set forth in the rules thereunder.
    The types of proposals voted upon by Fund shareholders include not
only the typical matters considered in proxy solicitations made by
operating companies, such as the election of directors, but also
include issues that are unique to Funds, such as the approval of an
investment advisory contract and the approval of changes in fundamental
investment policies of the Fund. Through rule 20a-1, any person making
a solicitation with respect to a security issued by a Fund must,
similar to operating company solicitations, comply with the rules and
regulations adopted pursuant to Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act. Some of
those Section 14(a) rules and regulations, however, include provisions
specifically related to Funds, including certain particularized
disclosure requirements set forth in Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the
1934 Act.
    Rule 20a-1 is intended to ensure that investors in Fund securities
are provided with appropriate information upon which to base informed
decisions regarding the actions for which Funds solicit proxies.
Without rule 20a-1, Fund issuers would not be required to comply with
the rules and regulations adopted under Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act,
which are applicable to non-Fund issuers, including the provisions
relating to the form of proxy and disclosure in proxy statements.
    The staff currently estimates that approximately 1,196 proxy
statements are filed by Funds annually. Based on staff estimates and
information from the industry, the staff estimates that the average
annual burden associated with the preparation and submission of proxy
statements is 85 hours per response, for a total annual burden of
101,660 hours (1,196 responses x 85 hours per response = 101,660). In
addition, the staff estimates the costs for purchased services, such as
outside legal counsel, proxy statement mailing, and proxy tabulation
services, to be approximately $30,000 per proxy solicitation.
    Rule 20a-1 does not involve any recordkeeping requirements.
Providing the information required by the rule is mandatory and
information provided under the rule will not be kept confidential.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: April 26, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10368 Filed 5-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80364-80365]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32323]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-4386]

Deviation Reporting for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and
Tissue-Based Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft document entitled ``Deviation Reporting for
Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products Regulated
Solely Under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and 21 CFR
part 1271; Draft Guidance for Industry.'' The draft guidance document
provides certain establishments that manufacture non-reproductive human
cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps),
regulated solely under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and
under FDA regulations, with recommendations and relevant examples for
complying with the requirements to report HCT/P deviations.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by March 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA- 2015-D-4386 for ``Deviation Reporting for Human Cells, Tissues,
and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products Regulated Solely Under Section
361 of the Public Health Service Act and 21 CFR part 1271; Draft
Guidance for Industry.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION''. The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both

copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your
name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can
provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.''
Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except
in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law.
For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets,
see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:
http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in
processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by
mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft
guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tami Belouin, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled
``Deviation Reporting for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue
Based Products Regulated Solely Under Section 361 of the Public Health
Service Act and 21 CFR part 1271; Draft Guidance for Industry.'' The
document provides certain establishments that manufacture HCT/Ps,
regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act and the regulations
under 21 CFR part 1271, with recommendations and relevant examples for
complying with the requirements under 21 CFR 1271.350(b) to report HCT/
P deviations. The examples provided in the draft guidance are intended
to illustrate those HCT/P deviations that have been most frequently
reported to FDA, CBER.
    The draft guidance does not apply to reproductive HCT/Ps or to HCT/
Ps regulated under 21 CFR part 1270 and recovered before May 25, 2005.
The draft guidance does not apply to health professionals who implant,
transplant, infuse, or transfer HCT/Ps into recipients. The draft
guidance also does not apply to HCT/Ps that are regulated as drugs,
devices, and/or biological products under section 351 of the PHS Act
and/or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, nor does it apply to
investigational HCT/Ps subject to an investigational new drug
application or an investigational device exemption.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on Deviation
Reporting for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue Based
Products Regulated Solely Under section 361 of the Public Health
Service Act and 21 CFR part 1271. It does not establish any rights for
any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an
alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 1271 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0543.

III. Other Issues for Consideration

    The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only
and is not intended for implementation at this time.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: December 18, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-32323 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49826-49827]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17386]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0838; FRL-10139-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Assessment of Environmental Performance
Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Procurement (Reinstatement)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted the
following information collection request (ICR) to

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): Assessment of
Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal
Procurement (EPA ICR Number 2516.04 and OMB Control Number 2070-0199).
This is a request to reinstate a previously approved ICR. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on March 1,
2022, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. The ICR, a copy of which is in
the docket and briefly summarized in this document, describes the
covered information collection activities, along with the Agency's
estimated burden and cost. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 12,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2014-0838, online using https://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Docket Center, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460. For additional delivery options and information about EPA's
dockets, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Sleasman, Regulatory Support
Branch, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7101M,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about accessing the EPA dockets, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR, which seeks to reinstate a previously approved
ICR, covers the information collection activities associated with the
Agency's evaluation of private sector standards and ecolabels under the
updated Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance
Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing. EPA's goal in
developing this Framework is to create a transparent, fair, and
consistent approach to evaluate product environmental performance
standards and ecolabels for inclusion in EPA's Recommendations of
Specifications, Standards, and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing
(``Recommendations''). The Recommendations help federal purchasers
identify and procure environmentally preferable products and services
which in turn, help to meet their sustainability goals and
requirements.
    Form Numbers: EPA Form No. 9600-038.
    Respondents/affected entities: Environmental performance standards
developers and ecolabels.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary. See 15 U.S.C. 3701
and 42 U.S.C. 13103(b)(11).
    Estimated number of respondents: 100 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 707 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $45,322 (per year), which includes an
estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and
operational costs.
    Changes in the estimates: This is a reinstatement, so there is
currently no approved burden and costs. As described in more detail in
the ICR, the program has been modified based on the previously approved
activities associated with the 2016 pilot, including changes to the
criteria/questions, Framework submission template, and the process for
respondents. With this ICR, EPA is requesting approval for the average
respondent burden that is estimated to be 8.5 hours per response, based
on an average 12 hours for respondents that did not previously
participate in the pilot and an average 5 hours for respondents that
did previously participate in pilot.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-17386 Filed 8-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22144-22146]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07871]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1017; Product Identifier AD-2021-00495-A]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; True Flight Holdings LLC Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that proposed to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all True
Flight Holdings LLC Model AA-1, AA-1A, AA-1B, AA-1C, AA-5, AA-5A, and
AA-5B airplanes. The NPRM was prompted by the report of an accident of
an airplane with bondline corrosion and delamination of the horizontal
stabilizers. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the wings,
fuselage,

and stabilizers for bondline separation, corrosion, and previous
repair. The NPRM also proposed to require repairing or replacing parts
and applying corrosion inhibitor as necessary. Since issuance of the
NPRM, the FAA has determined that there is not an unsafe condition, but
instead incorrectly followed maintenance procedures. Accordingly, the
NPRM is withdrawn.

DATES: As of April 14, 2022, the proposed rule, which published in the
Federal Register on December 1, 2021 (86 FR 68171), is withdrawn.

ADDRESSES:

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1017; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD action, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Caplan, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2021-14-12, Amendment 39-21639 (86 FR 36491, July
12, 2021) (AD 2021-14-12), for True Flight Holdings LLC Model AA-1, AA-
1A, AA-1B, AA-1C, and AA-5 airplanes. AD 2021-14-12 was prompted by an
accident involving a Model AA-5 airplane that occurred on January 19,
2021. During flight, the outboard elevator attach bracket on the
horizontal stabilizer detached, causing loss of elevator control and
significant damage to the airplane. An investigation identified
corrosion and delamination of the airplane skin bondlines around the
area of the horizontal stabilizer where the elevator attach bracket was
attached. Multiple field reports identified additional instances of
corrosion and delamination of skin bondlines around the horizontal
stabilizer and other primary structures.
    AD 2021-14-12 stated that Model AA-1, AA-1A, AA-1B, AA-1C, and AA-5
airplanes have horizontal stabilizers that are similar in design and
use the same metal-to-metal bonding process. While the bond adhesive
remains structurally sound throughout the aging process, factors such
as corrosion and freezing moisture may compromise the structural
integrity of some of the bond joints. This can lead to delamination of
the skin from the primary structure. The FAA determined that a more
thorough inspection was necessary to reliably identify corrosion and
delamination of bondlines in these critical areas, including the
horizontal stabilizer. As a result, AD 2021-14-12 requires a one-time
inspection of the horizontal stabilizers, paying particular attention
to the bondlines, for cracks, buckles, corrosion, delamination, rust,
or previous repair.
    The FAA issued an NPRM that proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by
adding an AD for all True Flight Holdings LLC Model AA-1, AA-1A, AA-1B,
AA-1C, AA-5, AA-5A, and AA-5B airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on December 1, 2021 (86 FR 68171). In the NPRM, the
FAA proposed to require a repetitive inspection of the wings,
stabilizers, and aft fuselage for bondline separation, corrosion, and
previous repair. While AD 2021-14-12 requires only inspecting the
bondlines on the horizontal stabilizers, in the NPRM, the FAA proposed
to require inspecting all of the bondlines on the airplane, including
the bondlines on the wings and aft fuselage. In the NPRM, the FAA also
proposed to add Model AA-5A and AA-5B airplanes to the applicability
due to the similar bonded construction of all models.
    The original decision to pursue corrective action was based upon
multiple field reports, including direct observation of two airplanes,
of issues related to inspection of bonded structure. The first was the
originating accident airplane, and the second was another same model
airplane located in the same hangar as the first airplane. Both of
these airplanes exhibited damage (bondline delamination) in an area
believed to be the source of the accident, at the attachment of the
elevator bearing to the horizontal stabilizer. The construction in this
area is similar among the applicable models in AD 2021-14-12. The issue
specific to this area was addressed in AD 2021-14-12.
    The FAA proposed the NPRM to address inspection for bondline
delamination on the entire airplane based on an understanding that
standard maintenance actions were insufficient to detect an issue.
Because more models than those covered by AD 2021-14-12 share a similar
bonded construction for the airplane as a whole, the NPRM proposed to
also apply to True Flight Holdings LLC Model AA-5A and AA-5B airplanes.

Comments

    The FAA received comments from 41 commenters. The commenters were
the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the Grumman Owners &
Pilots Association (GOPA), Fortnight Aviation Maintenance, and many
individual airplane owners and pilots.
    All commenters opposed the NPRM. Most commenters stated that the
actions proposed in the NPRM are already addressed by existing
maintenance practices or included in maintenance documents such as the
Grumman maintenance manual, the annual inspection checklist, service
bulletins, and AD 2021-14-12. The commenters noted that the January
2021 accident resulted from poor maintenance practices and failure to
adequately follow these existing procedures, not from any fault with
the procedures themselves. For this reason, some commenters requested
the FAA withdraw the NPRM due to lack of supporting data and issue a
special airworthiness information bulletin (SAIB) instead.
    Several commenters requested that the FAA remove Model AA-5, AA-5A,
and AA-5B airplanes from the applicability because these models have a
different design than the accident airplane. Many commenters noted that
the proposed AD is overly broad because the delamination issue is
limited to pre-1977 models manufactured with a ``purple glue'' for
adhesive. AOPA, GOPA, and a few individuals stated the proposed
requirement to tap test all bondlines on the airplane annually would
damage the paint and lead to corrosion. Lastly, AOPA, GOPA, and two
individuals requested the FAA increase its estimated labor rate of $85
per hour.
    The FAA agrees that the instructions in the airplane maintenance
manual are sufficient to detect the type of damage that is believed to
have led to the originating accident, as well as similar damage on the
rest of the airplane. The FAA further agrees that the original findings
were not indicative of an unsafe condition, but instead indicative of
incorrectly followed maintenance procedures. Based on this assessment,
the proposed inspection in the NPRM would exceed what is sufficient to
detect the main issue of bondline delamination. The FAA has determined
that additional AD action is not warranted and the proposal should be
withdrawn.

    The FAA acknowledges the comments unrelated to whether there is an
unsafe condition. However, because the FAA is withdrawing the NPRM,
those commenters' requests are no longer necessary.
    Withdrawal of the NPRM constitutes only such action and does not
preclude the FAA from further rulemaking on this issue, nor does it
commit the FAA to any course of action in the future.

Regulatory Findings

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed
AD nor a final rule. This action, therefore, is not covered under
Executive Order 12866 or the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. FAA-
2021-1017; Project Identifier AD-2021-00495-A, published in the Federal
Register on December 1, 2021 (86 FR 68171), is withdrawn.

    Issued on April 7, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-07871 Filed 4-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P