[Federal Register: June 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 117)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33692-33694]
[DOCID:fr19jn07-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-NC-0002-200538c; FRL-8328-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North
Carolina: Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas Second 10-
Year Maintenance Plan for the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air
Quality Standard; Clarification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; clarification.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is clarifying its approval of revisions to the North
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), published in the Federal
Register on March 24, 2006. Specifically, EPA is clarifying that its
March 24, 2006, approval of the North Carolina carbon monoxide (CO)
second 10-year maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem areas included final approval of the movement of the
oxygenated fuel program from the North Carolina Raleigh-Durham CO
maintenance plan to the contingency plan.

DATES: This action is effective June 19, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-NC-0002. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed

in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard

copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. EPA's Action

    In September 1995, EPA redesignated Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina
to attainment for the carbon monoxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (CO NAAQS) and approved the initial 10-year maintenance plan
for the area (60 FR 39258). The initial 10-year maintenance plan
included the use of a 2.0% oxygenated fuel program. Subsequently, on
October 19, 1995, North Carolina submitted a proposed SIP revision
requesting that the oxygenated fuel program for the Raleigh-Durham CO
maintenance area be moved from the maintenance plan to the contingency
measures portion of the plan. The request was based on a revised
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis which demonstrated that the

CO NAAQS could be maintained without the continued use of the
oxygenated fuel program. EPA analyzed this request and proposed to
approve the revision in 1995 (60 FR 56127, November 7, 1995). EPA
received no comments on its proposed action.
    As required by section 175A(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), North
Carolina submitted another SIP revision in March 2005 providing for the
second 10-year maintenance plan for CO for the Raleigh-Durham area, as
well as for the Charlotte and Winston-Salem CO maintenance areas. The
second 10-year maintenance plan included a new carbon monoxide emission
inventory for 2000 and also established new motor vehicle emission
budgets (MVEBs) for CO for 2015. The plan also provided for the
oxygenated fuel program for the Raleigh-Durham CO area as a contingency
measure rather than as a maintenance plan component. On March 24, 2006,
(71 FR 14817) EPA approved, through a direct final rulemaking, the
second 10-year CO maintenance plan for the Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte,
and Winston-Salem CO maintenance areas. EPA received no comments on the
March 2006 direct final rulemaking and it became effective in May 2006.
    The March 2006 direct final rulemaking, however, did not explicitly
reference any final action by EPA on the movement of the oxygenated
fuel program for the Raleigh-Durham area from the maintenance plan to
the contingency measures portion of the plan. While not explicitly
referenced, it was EPA's intent to take such final action in the March
2006 rulemaking. Therefore, today, EPA is clarifying that in its March
2006 approval of the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Raleigh-
Durham CO maintenance area, EPA intended to finalize its 1995 proposed
approval of the movement of the oxygenated fuel program for the
Raleigh-Durham area from the maintenance plan to the contingency
measures portion of the plan.
    EPA has determined that today's action falls under the ``good
cause'' exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes
agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and
comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest. Public notice and comment for this action are
unnecessary because today's clarification of EPA's March 24, 2006, rule
approving the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Raleigh-Durham CO
maintenance area has no substantive impact on that approval and the
clarification makes no substantive difference to EPA's analysis as set
out in that rule. In addition, EPA can identify no particular reason
why the public would be interested in being notified of this
clarification since the opportunity to comment on the action to move
the oxygenated fuel program for the Raleigh-Durham area from the
maintenance plan to the contingency measures portion of the plan was
previously provided and no comments were received.
    EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3)
for this clarification to become effective on the date of publication
of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date
less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the
agency for good cause found and published with the rule.'' (5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3)). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA
section 553(d)(3), is to give affected parties a reasonable time to
adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect.
Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements
such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule
takes effect. Rather, today's rule simply clarifies that in EPA's March
2006 approval of the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Raleigh-
Durham CO maintenance area, EPA intended to finalize its 1995 proposed
approval of the movement of the oxygenated fuel program for the
Raleigh-Durham area from the maintenance plan to the contingency
measures portion of the plan. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause
under APA section 553(d)(3), for this clarification to become effective
on the date of publication of this action.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely provides clarification that in EPA's March 24, 2006, approval of
the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Raleigh-Durham CO
maintenance area, EPA intended to finalize its 1995 proposed approval
of the movement of the oxygenated fuel program for the Raleigh-Durham
area from the maintenance plan to the contingency measures portion of
the plan. This clarification has no substantive impact on EPA's March
24, 2006, approval and it imposes no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,) Because this clarification does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This clarification also does not have tribal implications because
it will 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, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely clarifies an approved state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This action also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.,)
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 20, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Ozone.

    Dated: June 7, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52, is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. In Sec.  52.1770 (c), table 1 is amended under subchapter 2D by
revising the entries for ``Sect .1301'', ``Sect .1302'' and ``Sect
.1304'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                Table 1.--EPA Approved North Carolina Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
          State citation               Title/subject      effective     EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sect .1301.......................  Purpose.............     09/01/96  06/19/07 [Insert
                                                                       first page of
                                                                       publication].
Sect .1302.......................  Applicability.......     09/01/96  06/19/07 [Insert
                                                                       first page of
                                                                       publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sect .1304.......................  Oxygen Content           09/01/96  06/19/07 [Insert
                                    Standard.                          first page of
                                                                       publication].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-11776 Filed 6-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 40335]
[DOCID:fr14jy08-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-434-000]

Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

July 7, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 1, 2008, Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline,
LLC (Kinder Morgan), 3250 Lacy Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, Illinois
60515, filed in Docket No. CP08-434-000, an application pursuant to
sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.211, and 157.212 of the Commission's
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) as amended, to construct
and operate a bi-directional interconnection on Kinder Morgan's
pipeline in Acadia Parish, Louisiana, in order to deliver revaporized
natural gas to Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC's (Pine Prairie's)
storage facility and to subsequently receive natural gas from Pine
Prairie, under Kinder Morgan's blanket certificate issued in Docket No.
CP06-451-000,\1\ all as more fully set forth in the application which
is on file with the Commission and open to the public for inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 119 FERC ] 61,309 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kinder Morgan states that it proposes to construct and operate a
bi-directional interconnection and appurtenant facilities at
approximate Mile Post 109 on Kinder Morgan's pipeline in Acadia Parish
in order to deliver up to 600 MMcf/day of revaporized natural gas to
Pine Prairie's storage facility and to subsequently receive natural gas
from Pine Prairie. Kinder Morgan also states that the proposed
interconnection would provide shippers on Kinder Morgan's pipeline
system access to Pine Prairie's storage development. Kinder Morgan
further states that the proposed interconnection facilities would cost
approximately $3,200,000 to construct and would be placed in service
during December 2008.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Norman
Watson, Director, Business Development, Kinder Morgan Louisiana
Pipeline LLC, 500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002,
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Bruce Newsome, Vice President, 3250
Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515, telephone at
(630) 725-3070.
    This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments, protests and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15878 Filed 7-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44388-44390]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16033]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78206; File No. SR-FICC-2016-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Suspend the Interbank Service
of the GCF Repo[supreg] Service

June 30, 2016.
    On May 5, 2016, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'' or
the ``Corporation'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-FICC-2016-002 pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on May 20, 2016.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposed rule change. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77840 (May 16, 2016),
81 FR 31996 (May 20, 2016) (SR-FICC-2016-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    FICC seeks the Commission's approval to suspend the interbank
service of the GCF Repo[supreg] service, as described more fully below.
The suspension does not require changes to the text of the Government
Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (the ``GSD Rules''), however,
the suspension requires changes to FICC's Real-Time Trade Matching
(``RTTM[supreg]'') system.

A. The GCF Repo Service

    The GCF Repo service allows dealer members of FICC's Government
Services Division to trade general collateral finance repos (``GCF
Repos'') \4\ throughout the day without requiring intraday, trade-for-
trade settlement on a delivery-versus-payment basis.\5\ The service
allows dealers to trade GCF Repos, based on rate and term, with inter-
dealer broker netting members on a blind basis. Standardized, generic
CUSIP numbers have been established exclusively for GCF Repo
processing, and are used to specify the type of underlying security
that is eligible to serve as collateral for GCF Repos. Only Fedwire
eligible, book-entry securities may serve as collateral for GCF Repos.
Acceptable collateral for GCF Repos include most U.S. Treasury
securities, non-mortgage-backed federal agency securities, fixed and
adjustable rate mortgage-backed securities, Treasury Inflation-
Protected Securities and separate trading of registered interest and
principal securities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A GCF Repo is one in which the lender of funds is willing to
accept any of a class of U.S. Treasuries, U.S. government agency
securities, and certain mortgage-backed securities as collateral for
the repurchase obligation. This is in contrast to a specific
collateral repo.
    \5\ Delivery-versus-payment is a settlement procedure in which
the buyer's cash payment for the securities it has purchased is due
at the time the securities are delivered.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-58696 (September
30, 2008), 73 FR 58698, 58699 (October 7, 2008) (SR-FICC-2008-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GCF Repo service has operated on both an ``interbank'' and
``intrabank'' basis. ``Interbank'' means that the two GCF Repo
Participants which have been matched in a GCF Repo transaction each
clear at a different clearing bank. ``Intrabank'' means that the two
GCF Repo Participants which have been matched in a GCF Repo transaction
clear at the same clearing bank.

B. Suspension of the Interbank Service of the GCF Repo Service

    Since 2011, FICC has made several changes to its GCF Repo service
in order to comply with recommendations made by the Tri-Party Repo
Infrastructure Reform Task Force (``TPR''), an industry group formed
and sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The main purpose
of the TPR was to develop recommendations to address the risk presented
by triparty repo transactions due to the morning reversal (commonly
referred to as the ``unwind'') process, by replacing it with a process
by which transactions are collateralized all day. The GCF Repo service
was originally designed to have transactions ``unwind'' every morning
in order to mirror the transactions in the triparty repo market. Prior
to Triparty Reform, transactions submitted on ``Day 1'' unwound on the
morning of ``Day 2.'' To ``unwind'' means that the securities are
returned to the lender of securities in the transaction and the cash is
returned to the borrower of securities. Because of certain changes to
the way in which the Triparty Reform effort was to proceed

and the impact of such changes on the interbank service of the GCF Repo
service as further described below, FICC seeks to suspend the interbank
service of the GCF Repo service. FICC's proposal seeks no changes to
the intrabank service.
    All collateral that is settled via the interbank service is unwound
the next morning to FICC's account at the pledging Clearing Bank in
order to make the collateral available for collateral substitutions. In
order to facilitate this intraday collateral substitution process, the
Clearing Banks currently extend credit each business day to FICC at no
charge. This uncapped and uncommitted credit extension to FICC
facilitates the GCF Repo settlement process for both the intra-day and
end of day settlement. The final changes related to the Triparty Reform
effort would have eliminated the need for uncapped and uncommitted
credit (a TPR goal) by including the development of interactive
messages for the collateral substitution process (this was referred to
as the ``Sub Hub''), which would have eliminated the need for the
current morning unwind of interbank GCF Repos, and would have allowed
for substitution of collateral across the Clearing Banks with minimal
intra-day credit required. The last change was also going to include a
streamlined end of day GCF Repo settlement process to reduce the amount
of cash and collateral needed in order to complete settlement. This
change would have incorporated the concept of a ``cap'' on FICC credit
from the Clearing Banks, and an automated solution would have been
developed to process the interbank GCF Repo settlement without
breaching the defined and agreed to caps. As a result, the amount of
credit that FICC would have needed from the Clearing Banks would have
been managed to a minimal amount.
    Plans to implement the Sub Hub have not come to fruition.
Therefore, to continue providing the interbank service, FICC would need
a capped line of credit (without the benefits of any re-design to
manage the amounts of needed credit). In other words, the capped line
of credit would be applied to the interbank service as the service
currently operates, and not in the re-designed fashion that was
contemplated by the Triparty Reform effort, which would have allowed
for smaller settlement amounts. FICC states that there would be
prohibitive operational constraints in attempting to trade and settle
GCF Repos while attempting to implement a cap on interbank GCF Repo
trading and settlement. Specifically, FICC states that inter-dealer
brokers would need to be integrated as a group from a technological
perspective in order to be able to track the GCF Repo Participants'
real-time netted positions, from an intrabank and interbank
perspective, to ensure that the cap is not breached. FICC states that
this would require an integrated pre-trade check across each inter-
dealer broker's platform and FICC to ensure conformity to the cap,
which is not feasible.
    FICC seeks to suspend the interbank service of the GCF Repo service
because: (1) FICC cannot operate the current interbank service within a
capped credit amount; and (2) it is not feasible to institute a pre-
trade validation system. FICC seeks to suspend the interbank service of
the GCF Repo service after July 15, 2016 (the ``Suspension Date''),
which is approximately six (6) weeks prior to the date that one of the
Clearing Banks has stated it will begin to impose the capped line of
credit (September 1, 2016 or the ``Capped Charges Date''). According to
FICC's proposal, subsequent to the Suspension Date, inter-dealer
brokers would only be permitted to execute transactions among GCF Repo
Participants within the same Clearing Bank. Inter-dealer brokers would
establish two markets for GCF Repo trading--one for each Clearing Bank.
This is the same approach that FICC utilized when it previously
suspended the interbank service between 2003 and 2008. In addition, GSD
would only accept and process transactions among GCF Repo Participants
that settle within the same Clearing Bank. As a result, the
RTTM[supreg] system would not accept and process transactions among GCF
Repo Participants who settle at different Clearing Banks. FICC states
that it will continue to explore whether there are other ways to re-
introduce the interbank service in the future.

II. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \7\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \8\
requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions. The Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with section 17A of the Act \9\ and the rules
thereunder applicable to FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, Triparty Reform efforts have sought to
eliminate the need for Clearing Banks to provide FICC with uncapped and
uncommitted credit within the settlement process. Specifically, the Sub
Hub project described above, if approved and implemented, would have
eliminated the need for the current morning unwind of interbank GCF
Repos, and would have allowed for substitution of collateral across the
Clearing Banks with minimal intra-day credit required. A streamlined
end of day GCF Repo settlement process would have reduced the amount of
cash and collateral needed in order to complete settlement, in which
circumstances, there would have been a cap on the line of credit from
the Clearing Banks to FICC, with an automated solution to process the
interbank GCF Repo settlement within the cap. As a result, the amount
of credit that FICC would have needed from the Clearing Banks would
have been managed to a minimal amount.
    However, in the Sub Hub's absence, according to FICC, a capped line
of credit without the benefits of any re-design to manage the amounts
of needed credit would present prohibitive operational constraints in
attempting to trade and settle GCF Repos on an interbank basis.
Specifically, inter-dealer brokers would need to be integrated as a
group from a technological perspective in order to be able to track the
GCF Repo Participants' real-time netted positions to ensure that the
cap is not breached. This would require an integrated pre-trade check
across each inter-dealer broker's platform and FICC to ensure
conformity to the cap, which, FICC states, is not feasible.
Accordingly, suspension of the interbank service will enable FICC to
avoid accepting GCF Repo trades for clearing in an amount exceeding a
Clearing Bank's capped line of credit, while allowing FICC to continue
to clear GCF Repo transactions on an intrabank basis, thereby promoting
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, consistent with section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
particularly those set forth in section 17A,\10\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

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

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FICC-2016-002) be, and
hereby is, approved.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \12\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16033 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 84 (Thursday, April 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23931-23933]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0359; Airspace Docket No. 15-AAL-5]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Sleetmute AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sleetmute Airport, Sleetmute
AK, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the
airport. This action would ensure the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace
System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0359; Airspace Docket No. 15-AAL-5, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit

comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, 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 Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; 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 would establish Class E airspace to support new RNAV procedures
at Sleetmute Airport, Sleetmute, AK.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0359;
Airspace Docket No. 15-AAL-05''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth within a 6-mile
radius of Sleetmute Airport, Sleetmute, AK, and that airspace 2 miles
each side of the 166[deg] bearing from the 6-mile radius to 19 miles
south of the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 14 CFR 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 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Sleetmute, AK [New]

Sleetmute Airport, AK
    (Lat. 61[deg]42'02'' N, long. 157[deg]09'57'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 6 miles of the Sleetmute Airport, Sleetmute Alaska; and that
airspace 2 miles each side of the 166[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6-mile radius to 19 miles south of the Sleetmute
Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 23, 2020.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-09111 Filed 4-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 20879-20881]
[DOCID:fr21ap10-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0047; Notice 1]

Tireco, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance

    Tireco, Inc., (Tireco), has determined that approximately 6,170 of
its ``GEO-Trac'' brand P235/75R15 passenger car tires, manufactured
between June 12, 2009 and August 20, 2009 by the fabricating
manufacturer, the Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd., and imported into
the United States by Tireco, do not comply with paragraph S5.5(c) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New pneumatic
radial tires for light vehicles. Tireco has filed an appropriate report
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Tireco has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of Tireco's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of

judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 6,170 tires imported into the United
States by Tireco who identified the tires as ``Geo-Trac'' brand P235/
75R15 passenger car replacement tires.
    In consultation with the fabricating manufacturer, the Shandong
Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd., Tireco has determined that all of the
noncompliant tires were manufactured between June 12, 2009 (Serial Week
24) and August 20, 2009 (Serial Week 34). Tireco stated that it has
already retrieved almost half of the 6,170 noncompliant tires from its
distributors and dealers and estimates that there are only 3,370
noncompliant tires in the field that would be covered by the requested
exemption.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tireco's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt Tireco as importer from the
notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for
3,370 of the 6,170 affected tires. However, the agency cannot
relieve Tireco's distributors of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control
after Tireco recognized that the subject noncompliance existed.
Those tires must be brought into conformance, exported, or
destroyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph S5.5(c) (and paragraph S5.5.4 as incorporated by
reference) of FMVSS No. 139 requires in pertinent part:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section
width falls within that area, those markings must appear between the
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder
of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings must be in
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches. * *
*
    (c) The maximum permissible inflation pressure, subject to the
limitations of S5.5.4 through S5.5.6 of this standard; * * *
    S5.5.4 For passenger car tires, if the maximum inflation
pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, 340, or 350 kPa, then:
    (a) Each marking of that inflation pressure pursuant to S5.5(c)
must be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent psi, rounded to
the next higher whole number; * * *

    Tireco indicated that the noncompliance is that the markings on the
non-compliant tires specifying the maximum inflation pressure in kPa
and in psi are reversed from the order required by paragraph S5.5.5(c).
The Company said that the maximum inflation pressure should have been
marked as ``300 kPa (44 psi)'' but were ``inadvertently'' marked on
both sidewalls with a maximum inflation pressure of ``44 kPa (300
psi).'' Tireco reported that this noncompliance was brought to their
attention on August 19, 2009 by one of the company's distributor
customers.
    Tireco argues that no vehicle operator would ever inflate the tires
to the incorrect pressures that appear on the sidewalls of the subject
tires, and specifically stated that ``it would be virtually impossible
to do so.'' Tireco supports this conclusion with the following
statements:

     With respect to the erroneous psi marking, no
commercially available air compressor used in tire retail stores, at
gas stations, or for home use has the capacity to inflate tires to
300 psi, and consumers would immediately be aware from their past
experience that a pressure of 300 psi could not be correct.
     With respect to the erroneous kPa marking, it [is]
extremely unlikely that a consumer would attempt to inflate the
tires to 44 kPa, since (1) drivers in the United States almost
always utilize the psi parameter rather than kPa value when they
inflate their tires; and (2) any driver who used the kPa parameter
would know that the 44 kPa value was not correct, since all
passenger car tires have a maximum inflation pressure of at least
240 kPa. Moreover, even if a consumer were to attempt to inflate the
tires to 44 kPa (which is equivalent to approximately 7 psi), he or
she would immediately be aware that the tires were drastically
underinflated, and would not be in a drivable state.

    Tireco concludes that the subject non-compliance ``cannot result in
the tires being overloaded, or any other adverse safety consequence to
the tires or to the vehicles on which they are mounted.'' Additionally,
Tireco cites three cases which it believes support its conclusion that
NHTSA has previously granted tires companies inconsequentiality
exemptions relating to errors in the marking of maximum inflation
pressure. (See Michelin North America, Inc., 70 FR 10161 (March 2,
2005); Kumho Tire Co., Inc., 71 FR 6129 (February 6, 2006); and
Michelin North America, Inc., 74 FR 10805 (March 12, 2009)).
    Furthermore, Tireco points out three other substantive factors that
support its petition:

     The subject tires meet or exceed all of the substantive
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 139.
     There have been no complaints regarding this issue from
vehicle owners (the incorrect markings were brought to Tireco's
attention by one of its distributors).
     The manufacturer of these tires, Shandong Linglong Tyre
Co., Ltd., has corrected the molds at its factory, so that this
noncompliance will not be repeated in current or future production.

    Supported by all of the above stated reasons, Tireco believes that
the described noncompliance of its tires to meet the requirements of
FMVSS No. 139 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: May 21, 2010.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8

    Issued on: April 15, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-9162 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 114 (Thursday, June 15, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27408-27411]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12170]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9571; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-139-AD;
Amendment 39-18925; AD 2017-12-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a full scale fatigue test campaign
on these airplanes in the context of the extended service goal. This AD
requires inspections of the affected frame locations, and repair if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 20, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 20,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9571.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9571; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-

5527) is Docket Management Facility, 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A321
series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
February 21, 2017 (82 FR 11162). The NPRM was prompted by a full scale
fatigue test campaign on these airplanes in the context of the extended
service goal. The NPRM proposed to require inspections of the affected
frame locations, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracking of the fastener holes at certain frame
locations, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
fuselage.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0146, dated July 20, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following the results of a new full scale fatigue test campaign
on the A321 airframe in the context of the A321 extended service
goal, it was identified that cracks could develop on the fastener
holes of frame (FR) 35.1, FR 35.2, and FR 35.3 between stringers
(STR) 29 and STR 32 and at the FR 35.2 to Slidebox junction (Triform
fitting), both left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) sides.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the
structural integrity of the fuselage. Prompted by these findings,
Airbus developed an inspection programme, published in Service
Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1308, SB A320-53-1309, SB A320-53-1310, SB
A320-53-1311, SB A320-53-1312 and SB A320-53-1313, each containing
instructions for a different location. For the reasons described
above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive special detailed
(rototest) inspections (SDI) of the affected frame locations and,
depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.
    This [EASA] AD is considered an interim action, pending the
development of a permanent solution.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9571.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received. Attiya Jaura supported the
NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus issued the following service information. This service
information describes procedures for repetitive rototest inspections
for cracking of the affected frame locations, and contacting Airbus for
repair instructions. These service bulletins are distinct because they
apply to different frame locations.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1308, dated November 4,
2015.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1309, dated November 4,
2015.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1310, dated November 4,
2015.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1311, dated November 4,
2015.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1312, dated November 4,
2015.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1313, dated November 4,
2015.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 176 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.....................  54 work-hours x $85     $1,070 per         $5,660 per         $996,160 per
                                  per hour = $4,590 per   inspection cycle.  inspection cycle.  inspection
                                  inspection cycle.                                             cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have no way to estimate the costs to do any necessary repairs
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
repairs.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;

    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2017-12-10 Airbus: Amendment 39-18925; Docket No. FAA-2016-9571;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-139-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 20, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -
212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a full scale fatigue test campaign on
Airbus Model A321 series airplanes in the context of the extended
service goal. It was determined that cracks could develop on the
fastener holes of certain frames on the left-hand (LH) and right-
hand (RH) sides of the affected airplanes. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracking of the fastener holes at certain frame
locations, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
fuselage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections of the Frames, Stringers, and Slidebox
Junctions

    At the applicable time specified in table 1 to the introductory
text of paragraph (g) of this AD, do a rototest inspection for
cracking at frame (FR) 35.1, FR 35.2, and FR 35.3 on the LH and RH
sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2),
(g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), and (g)(6) of this AD. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,300 flight cycles.

Table 1 to the Introductory Text of Paragraph (g) of This AD--Inspection
                                Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Airplane accumulated total flight
cycles at the effective date of this AD          Compliance time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For airplanes with 18,300 total flight   Before exceeding 18,300 total
 cycles or less.                          flight cycles, or within 5,300
                                          flight cycles after the
                                          effective date of this AD,
                                          whichever occurs later.
For airplanes with more than 18,300      Before exceeding 23,600 total
 total flight cycles.                     flight cycles, or within 2,100
                                          flight cycles after the
                                          effective date of this AD,
                                          whichever occurs later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1308, dated November 4, 2015
(FR 35.1 LH side).
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1309, dated November 4, 2015
(FR 35.1 RH side).
    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1310, dated November 4, 2015
(FR 35.2 LH side).
    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1311, dated November 4, 2015
(FR 35.2 RH side).
    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1312, dated November 4, 2015
(FR 35.3 LH side).
    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1313, dated November 4, 2015
(FR 35.3 RH side).

(h) Corrective Action

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by the
introductory text to paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further
flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). Although the service information
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus
for repair instructions, and specifies that action as ``RC''
(Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair as specified in
this paragraph. Repair of an airplane as required by this paragraph
does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by the introductory text to paragraph (g) of
this AD for that airplane, unless specified otherwise in the repair
instructions approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA;
or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: If any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are 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 procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0146, dated July 20, 2016,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9571.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) 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.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1308, dated November 4,
2015.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1309, dated November 4,
2015.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1310, dated November 4,
2015.
    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1311, dated November 4,
2015.
    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1312, dated November 4,
2015.
    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1313, dated November 4,
2015.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 2, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12170 Filed 6-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 46936]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18663]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1103-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: ACA Filing 2013 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130725-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1104-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: ACA Filing 2013 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130725-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1105-000.
    Applicants: Energy West Development, Inc.
    Description: Order No. 587-V Compliance Filing to be effective 12/
1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130725-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1106-000.
    Applicants: TC Offshore LLC.
    Description: ACA Filing 2013 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130725-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1107-000.
    Applicants: Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: ACA Filing 2013 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130725-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1108-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Negotiated Rate Agreement--WGL 6800 & 7599 to be
effective 7/26/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130725-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1109-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: ACA Surcharge Filing--2013 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130726-5016.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1110-000.
    Applicants: Southern LNG Company, L.L.C.
    Description: ACA Surcharge--2013 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130726-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1111-000.
    Applicants: Elba Express Company, L.L.C.
    Description: ACA Surcharge--2013 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130726-5018.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1112-000.
    Applicants: American Midstream (AlaTenn), LLC.
    Description: AlaTenn Order No. 776 Compliance Filing to be
effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130726-5026.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1113-000.
    Applicants: American Midstream (Midla), LLC.
    Description: Midla Order No. 776 Compliance Filing to be effective
10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130726-5027.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1114-000
    Applicants: High Point Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: High Point Order No. 776 Compliance Filing to be
effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130726-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/13.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1097-001.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Storage Tracker Filin--November 1, 2012 to be
effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130726-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1097-002.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Storage Tracker Filin--March 1, 2013 to be effective
3/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130726-5028.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-366-001.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Storage Tracker Filing--April 1, 2013 to be effective
7/26/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130726-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/13.
    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 29, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18663 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P