[Federal Register: October 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 62159-62160]
[DOCID:fr07oc10-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63021; File No. SR-C2-2010-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt Certain Rule Language Contained in CBOE Rules

September 30, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 22, 2010, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt certain rules in place at the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''). The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.sec.gov.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, C2 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
    In 2009, C2 was registered as a national securities exchange under
Section 6 of the Exchange Act.\5\ C2 has yet to commence trading
options, however a launch is anticipated in October 2010. The purpose
of this filing is to modify certain C2 rules to match changes that have
been made to corresponding CBOE rules, and to also adopt certain
provisions from CBOE Rules 3.1 and 8.3 regarding trading permits and
market maker appointments, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 61152 (Dec. 10, 2009), 74 FR
66699 (Dec. 16, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1.1 to adopt the definitions of
the terms ``Professional'' and ``Voluntary Professional'' in a
substantially similar manner as they have recently been adopted for use
on CBOE. Thus, C2 will allow users that fall into the customer range to
elect to have orders treated, for purposes of certain C2 rules, as
broker dealers. Further, when a person or entity that is not a broker-
dealer places more than 390 orders per day on average during a calendar
month for its own beneficial account(s), such person will be deemed a
``Professional'' under the Rules and will be treated in the same manner
as a broker-dealer for purposes of certain designated C2 rules.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 3.1 to allow C2 to establish
different types and terms of trading permits, and to establish
guidelines and standards governing the Exchange's authority regarding
these trading permits. The proposed changes merely adopt certain
language contained in CBOE Rule 3.1.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Interpretation .03 to Rule 3.5
to expand the ability of the Exchange to waive the requirement to
conduct a hearing under Rule 3.5 if the Exchange intends to grant a
Permit Holder's application to continue holding a Trading Permit or an
associated person's application for continued association with a Permit
Holder.
    The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 6.10 regarding order
types to (i) make clear that the Exchange has the flexibility to make
order types available on a class-by-class basis (this language is
identical to language contained in CBOE Rule 6.53); (ii) add the
Intermarket Sweep Order (identical to the CBOE version); add the AIM
Sweep Order (identical to the CBOE version); add the Sweep and AIM
Order (identical to the CBOE version); and add the C2-Only Order
(identical to the CBOE version except it is called C2-Only instead of
CBOE-Only).
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 6.32 regarding trading
pauses to conform Rule 6.32 to comparable rules on CBOE and other
exchanges.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 8.2 to adopt language from
CBOE Rule 8.3 (Appointment of Market-Makers) to provide a structure for
C2 Market-Makers to register in option classes. As proposed, approved
C2 Market-Makers will receive an option class registration credit of
1.0. Like on CBOE, a Market-Maker can use that credit to register in
option classes (each class will have a designated registration cost).
For now, C2 is designating every option traded on C2, except SPX, VIX,
OEX, DJX, and XSP, to have a registration cost of .001 (with that cost
structure, C2 Market-Makers should be able to register in every option
class anticipated to be listed on C2, except for the specific classes
listed above, with the registration credit of 1.0). If C2 determines to
commence trading of SPX, VIX, OEX, DJX, and XSP options, it will file a
proposed rule change to adopt registration costs for those products.
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend C2 Chapter 24 to clarify
that CBOE Rule 24.20 (SPX Combination Orders) shall not apply to C2.
CBOE Rule 24.20 relates to open-outcry trading of SPX combos on CBOE
and is therefore not applicable to C2.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \6\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder and, in particular, the requirements of Section
6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements
that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Updating the C2 rules to keep them
in line with those of CBOE provides for consistency in rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). [sic]
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

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

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. C2 has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive
the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\
which would make the rule change effective and operative upon filing.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\12\ The Commission notes the proposal is substantively
identical to SRO rules that were approved by the Commission, and does
not raise any new regulatory issues. For these reasons, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-C2-2010-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2010-004. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2010-004 and should be
submitted on or before October 28, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25247 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69469-69470]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27641]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Petition No. IX-2013-1; FRL-9919-46-Region 9]

Petition on Clean Air Act Title V Permit; Gateway Generating
Station; Antioch, CA

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 505(b) and 40 CFR
70.8(d), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator signed an Order, dated October 15, 2014, denying a
petition to object to a CAA title V operating permit proposed by the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for the Gateway
Generating Station, LLC facility in Antioch, California (Gateway). The
Order constitutes a final action on the petition submitted by the Wild
Equity Institute (Petitioner) dated September 3, 2013 requesting that
the EPA Administrator object to the proposed title V permit for
Gateway. Pursuant to section 505(b) of the CAA, a petitioner may seek
judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit of those portions of the petition that EPA denied.
Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date
this notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 307 of
the CAA.

DATES: The EPA Administrator signed an Order, dated October 15, 2014,
denying a petition to object to the CAA title V operating permit
proposed by the BAAQMD for Gateway. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), judicial review of this final
permit decision, to the extent it is available, may be sought by filing
a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit within 60 days of November 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Order, the petition, and all pertinent
information relating thereto are on file at the following location: EPA
Region 9, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of
the final Order, petition, and other supporting information. You may
view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays. If you wish to examine these documents, you
should make an appointment at least 48 hours before the visiting day.
The final Order is also available electronically at the following Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/title5/petitiondb/petitiondb.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerardo Rios, Air Permits Office, EPA
Region 9, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to
review and, as appropriate, object to operating permits proposed by
state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-
7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any
person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V
operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-
day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative.
Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were
raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period
provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was
impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the
grounds for the issues arose after this period.
    The Petitioner submitted a petition regarding Gateway dated
September 3,

2013, requesting that the EPA object to the proposed CAA title V
operating permit for Gateway issued by the BAAQMD, identified as Major
Facility Review Permit, Facility #B8143. The Petitioner alleged that
the permit was not consistent with CAA title V requirements because the
EPA failed to obtain incidental take authorization and take other
actions under the Endangered Species Act for ``listed species affected
by'' the facility. The BAAQMD issued a final title V permit for Gateway
on October 30, 2013.
    On October 15, 2014, the EPA Administrator issued an Order denying
the title V petition for Gateway. The Order explains EPA's rationale
for denying the petition.

    Dated: October 29, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-27641 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


37780 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices Tennessee Feasibility Study, Flood Control and Drainage Improvements, Marshall, Benton and Tippah Counties, MS and Shelby, Fayette and Harderman, TN, Due: July 31, 2000, Contact: Richard Hite ( 901) 544   0706. EIS No. 000185, DRAFT EIS, AFS, WV, Fernow Experimental Forest, Implementation of New Research Studies, Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Tucker County, WV, Due: July 31, 2000, Contact: Mary Beth Adams ( 304) 478   2000. EIS No. 000186, REVISED DRAFT EIS, COE, CA, Delta Wetlands Project, Construction and Operation Revised Information for the Water Storage Project on Four Islands in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, Approval of Permits, San Joaquin and Contra Costa Counties, CA, Due: July 31, 2000, Contact: Mike Finan ( 916) 557   5324. EIS No. 000187, FINAL SUPPLEMENT, NOA, Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks, Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, Due: July 17, 2000, Contact: Rebecca Lent ( 202) 482   5181. EIS No. 000188, FINAL EIS, NPS, WA, Whitman Mission National Historic Site, General Management Plan, Development Concept Plan, Implementation, Walla Walla County, WA, Due: July 17, 2000, Contact: Francis T. Darby ( 509) 522   6360.

Dated: June 13, 2000 Ken Mittelholtz, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities. [ FR Doc. 00   15303 Filed 6   15   00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   U ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   6708   9]

Regulatory Reinvention ( XL) Pilot Projects AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability of the Project XL Proposed Final Project Agreement: International Business Machines Corporation Copper Metallization Project.

SUMMARY: EPA is requesting comments on a proposed Project XL Final Project Agreement ( FPA) for the International Business Machines Corporation, ( hereafter `` IBM'') semiconductor manufacturing facility in Essex Junction, VT. The FPA is a voluntary agreement developed collaboratively by IBM, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, EPA and interested stakeholders. Project XL, announced in the Federal Register on May 23, 1995 ( 60 FR 27282), gives regulated entities the flexibility to develop alternative strategies that will replace or modify specific regulatory or procedural requirements on the condition that they produce greater environmental benefits. EPA has set a goal of implementing fifty XL projects undertaken in full partnership with the states. In the draft FPA, IBM proposes to determine whether the wastewater treatment sludge resulting from a new, innovative copper metallization process should continue to be designated a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) hazardous waste ( F006). IBM's innovative copper metallization process is used to create electrical interconnections between device levels for new semiconductor technologies and replaces the Aluminum Chemical Vapor Deposition process used in previous generation semiconductor device technologies. Under current RCRA regulations, sludges or solids created from the treatment of wastewaters which include rinsewaters generated from an electroplating process carry the F006 listing ( 40 CFR 261.31). This process results in the generation of copper plating rinsewaters, which when introduced to the other process wastewaters generated at the facility, generates sludge that is regulated under RCRA as F006 hazardous waste. EPA currently considers IBM's process a traditional `` electroplating'' process for purposes of RCRA and therefore subject to its regulations. It appears that this classification artificially inflates IBM's figures for hazardous waste generation, while at the same time not providing any additional environmental protection, and adding paperwork and reporting requirements. In addition, it appears that the source documents for the F006 listing focused on much different industrial processes than IBM's copper metallization process. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the chemicals used in IBM's process do not contain the heavy metals or cyanides listed in appendix VII of 40 CFR part 261 which are the focus of the original F006 listing. IBM has also conducted Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure ( TCLP) analysis of the rinsewater sludge that demonstrates that the sludge is not hazardous per the RCRA toxicity characteristic requirements ( see 40 CFR 261.24). IBM has proposed that EPA exempt this copper metallization process for semiconductor manufacture from the F006 definition through a site specific rulemaking and that this be done through the Project XL process. EPA is proposing the site specific rule for the IBM semiconductor manufacturing facility in Essex Junction, VT in this issue of the Federal Register. Project XL was chosen as the vehicle for this project because IBM is asking EPA to review its entire copper metallization process and not just analyze the resultant wastewater sludge. This novel approach will possibly provide the Agency with a new methodology for evaluating the applicability of its regulations to specific activities. This paradigm shift will allow the Agency appropriate flexibility to ensure that necessary environmental standards continue to be met while providing a means to adapt their regulatory framework to a changing industrial landscape. DATES: The period for submission of comments ends on July 17, 2000. ADDRESSEES: All comments on the proposed Final Project Agreement should be sent to: John Moskal, EPA New England, 1 Congress Street ( SPP), Boston, MA 02114, or Chad Carbone, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room 1027WT ( 1802), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be faxed to Mr. Moskal ( 617) 918   1810, or Mr. Carbone ( 202) 260   1812. Comments may also be received via electronic mail sent to: moskal. john@ epa. gov or carbone. chad@ epa. gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain a copy of the proposed Final Project Agreement, Test Plan or Fact Sheet, contact: John Moskal, EPA New England, 1 Congress Street ( SPP), Boston, MA 02114 or Chad Carbone, Room 1027WT ( 1802) U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. The FPA and related documents are also available via the Internet at the following location: http:/ / www. epa. gov/ ProjectXL. Questions to EPA regarding the documents can be directed to John Moskal at ( 617) 918   1826 or Chad Carbone at ( 202) 260   4296. For information on all other aspects of the XL Program contact Christopher Knopes at the following address: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room 1029WT ( Mail Code 1802), Washington, DC 20460. Additional information on Project XL, including documents referenced in this notice, other EPA policy documents related to Project XL, regional XL contacts, application VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 18 Jun 15, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JNN1. SGM pfrm08 PsN: 16JNN1 37781 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices information, and descriptions of existing XL projects and proposals, is available via the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ projectxl/ inter/ page1. htm.

Dated: May 23, 2000. Elizabeth A. Shaw, Deputy Associate Administrator,, Office of Policy and Reinvention. [ FR Doc. 00   15155 Filed 6   15   00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   6718   3]

Notice of Public Meeting of the National Environmental Education Advisory Council Notice is hereby given that the National Environmental Education Advisory Council, established under section 9 of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 ( the Act), will hold a public meeting on June 29 and 30, 2000. The meeting will take place at the Mansion on O Street, 2020 O Street, NW, Washington, DC from 9 am to 5 pm on Thursday, June 29 and Friday, June 30. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the Council with an opportunity to advise EPA's Office of Communications, Education and Media Relations ( OCEMR) and the Office of Environmental Education ( OEE) on its implementation of the Act. Members of the public are invited to attend and to submit written comments to EPA following the meeting. For additional information regarding the Council's upcoming meeting, please contact Ginger Keho, Office of Environmental Education ( 1704), Office of Communications, Education and Media Relations, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 or call ( 202) 260   4129.

Dated: May 15, 2000. Ginger Keho, Designated Federal Official, National Environmental Education Advisory Council. [ FR Doc. 00   15301 Filed 6   15   00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OPP   00665; FRL   6593   3 State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group ( SFIREG); Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group ( SFIREG) will hold a 2   day meeting, beginning on June 26, 2000 and ending on June 27, 2000. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, June 26 from 8: 30 a. m. to 5 p. m. and: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 from 8: 30 a. m. to 12: 00 noon. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington,   Crystal City, VA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip H. Gray, SFIREG Executive Secretary, P. O. Box 1249, Hardwick, VT 05843   1249; ( 802) 472   6956; fax: ( 802) 472   6957; e mail address: aapco@ plainfield. bypass. com or Georgia A. McDuffie, Field and External Affairs Division ( 7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20405: ( 703) 605   0195; fax number: ( 703) 308   1850; e mail address: McDuffie. Georgia@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general, but all parties interested in SFIREG's information exchange relationship with EPA regarding important issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into the EPA's decision making process are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate.

II. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of This Document and Other Related Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// www. epa. gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select `` Laws and Regulations'' and then look up the entry for this document under the `` Federal Register   Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. You may also obtain electronic copies of the minutes, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically from the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials ( AAPCO) Internet Home Page at http: aapco. ceris. purdue. edu/ doc/ index. html. To access this document, on the Home Page select `` SFIREG'' Meetings. 2. By mail. Philip H. Gray, SFIREG Executive Secretary, P. O. Box 1249, Hardwick, VT 05843   1249.

III. Purpose of Meeting Tentative Agenda:

1. Reregistration comments on approach to 15 year reregistration cycle. 2. Phosphine labeling initiative. 3. Prescription pesticide use is this a new direction for reregistration decisions? 4. Mandatory versus Advisory label language PR Notice describe responses to comments. 5. Update on Inspector Credentials Initiative. 6. CTAG   activities and workshops. 7. Worker Protection Standard: agency activities. 8. Keep out of Reach of Children. 9. Regional reports. 10. Committee reports and introduction of issue papers. 11. LifeLine presentation. 12. SFIREG issue paper status report. 13. Other topics as appropriate.

List of Subjects Environmental protection.

Dated: June 12, 2000. Jay Ellenberger, Director, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 00   15379 Filed 6   14   00; 1: 17 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   F ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   6714   9]

Proposed Prospective Purchaser Agreement Under CERCLA for the Solar Paints & Varnishes Superfund Site AGENCY: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (`` USEPA''). ACTION: Proposal of CERCLA Prospective Purchaser Agreement for the Solar Paints & Varnishes Superfund Site.

SUMMARY: USEPA is proposing to execute a Prospective Purchaser Agreement (`` PPA'') under authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (`` CERCLA''), 42 U. S. C. 9601 et seq., as amended, and under the inherent authority of the Attorney General of the United States to compromise and settle claims of the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 18 Jun 15, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JNN1. SGM pfrm08 PsN: 16JNN1


[Federal Register: May 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 101)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29471-29474]
[DOCID:fr26my10-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0302; Notice No. 10-08]
RIN 2120-AJ75

The New York North Shore Helicopter Route

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This proposed action would require helicopter operators to use
the New York North Shore Route when operating in that area of Long
Island, New York. The North Shore Route was added to the New York
Helicopter Route

Chart in 2008 and the use of that route is currently voluntary. New
York public officials have continued to receive complaints regarding
the adverse impact of helicopter noise on their communities. The
intended effect of this proposal is to maximize utilization of the
existing route flown by helicopter traffic along the north shore of
Long Island and reduce the noise impact on nearby communities.

DATES: Send your comments on or before June 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0302 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of
our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment
(or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you
may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-
140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this proposed rule contact Ellen Crum, Airspace and Rules Group, AJR-
33, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal questions
concerning this proposed rule contact Lorelei Peter, AGC-220, Office of
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Later in this preamble under the Additional Information section, we
discuss how you can comment on this proposal and how we will handle
your comments. Included in this discussion is related information about
the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential
business information. We also discuss how you can get a copy of related
rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA has broad authority and responsibility to regulate the
operation of aircraft and the use of the navigable airspace and to
establish safety standards for and regulate the certification of
airmen, aircraft, and air carriers. (49 U.S.C. 40104 et seq., Sec.
40103(b). The FAA's authority for this proposed rule is contained in 49
U.S.C. 40103 and 44715. Under Sec.  40103, the Administrator of the FAA
has authority to ``prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of
aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for * * * (B)
protecting individuals and property on the ground. (49 U.S.C.
40103(b)(2)). In addition, Sec.  44715(a), provides that to ``relieve
and protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise,'' the
Administrator of the FAA, ``as he deems necessary, shall prescribe * *
* (ii) regulations to control and abate aircraft noise * * *''

Background

    In response to numerous complaints regarding helicopter noise
received by New York public officials, including Senator Schumer and
former Senator Clinton, the FAA began working with stakeholders and
industry groups to address the issue. Senator Charles Schumer and
Representative Tim Bishop conducted a meeting in October 2007 with the
FAA, local helicopter operators and the airport proprietors to
specifically address the noise complaints stemming from the north shore
of Long Island. As a result of this meeting, a visual flight rules
(VFR) helicopter route, the North Shore route, was designed for
helicopters to use when transiting the area in order to lessen the
noise impact on populated areas by remaining offshore and over the
water. As this route was developed for VFR flight, use of it is
voluntary. The route was published on the Helicopter Route Chart for
New York, effective May 8, 2008.
    The Helicopter Route Chart program was established by the FAA to
enhance helicopter access into, egress from, and operation within high
density traffic areas by depicting discrete and/or common use
helicopter routes. Guidance and procedures for this program are
contained in FAA Order 7210.3, Facility Operation and Administration,
Chapter 11. The use of these routes is voluntary, unless air traffic
control assigns the charted routes to pilots for purposes of addressing
traffic density or safety.
    New York elected officials have advised the FAA the noise
complaints continue in this area notwithstanding the North Shore route.
The local FAA Flight Standards Division has also received the same
complaints.
    The New York Long Island airspace, like many other areas in the
U.S., presents competing interests. The geographic area is not vast but
supports a highly congested populated area that is surrounded by
traffic operating into and out of LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy
International Airport, Republic Airport and a multitude of both public
and private heliports.
    This proposed action would require civil helicopters along Long
Island, New York's northern shoreline to follow the published New York
North Shore Route between the fixed waypoint VPLYD and Orient Point.
The FAA is aware that several conditions may exist for which helicopter
operators would need to deviate from the route. Therefore, provisions
are included that take into consideration the wide variety of
helicopters, their associated performance and mission profiles, the
dynamic weather environment along the route, and the pilot's
responsibility to maintain safe operations at all times.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the

maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no
ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these
proposed regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
    This proposed action is not expected to result in additional costs
on the affected helicopters because those operators that cannot comply
with the route as published due to operational limitations, performance
factors, weather conditions or safety considerations are allowed to
deviate from the provisions of Subpart H.
    FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine
whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    This proposed rule would impact several small entities. For
aircraft operators these include all firms with less than 1,500
employees. There are 5 small entities in the New York market for part
135 sightseeing helicopter tours. However, the rule does not require
the purchase of additional equipment and allows pilots to deviate from
the proposed provisions if necessary, due to operational limitations of
the helicopter, performance factors, weather conditions or safety
considerations. Therefore the rule imposes only minimal operating cost.
    Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.

International Trade Impact Analysis

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of
standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
commerce of the United States, so long as the standards have a
legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety and do
not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective.
The statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. As the
proposed rule would have only a domestic impact, the Trade Agreement
Act does not apply.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action would 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, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    Under regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality,
federal agencies are required to establish procedures that, among other
things, identify agency actions that are categorically excluded from
the requirement for an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 because
they do not have a significant effect on the human environment. See 40
CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(ii), 1508.4. The required agency procedures must also

``provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded
action may have a significant environmental effect.'' 40 CFR 1508.4.
For FAA actions, these ``categorical exclusions'' and ``extraordinary
circumstances'' are listed in Chapter 3 of FAA Order 1050.1E,
``Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.''
    The FAA has determined that this proposed rulemaking action
qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f of
FAA Order 1050.1E. That categorical exclusion applies to
``[r]egulations, standards, and exemptions (excluding those which if
implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment).''
The existing New York North Shore Route is a visual flight rules (VFR)
route, use of which is voluntary. Additionally, the route is located
entirely over water and away from noise-sensitive locations. Therefore,
implementation of this proposed rule is not expected to result in
significant adverse impacts to the human environment. Moreover,
implementation of the proposed rule would not involve any of the
extraordinary circumstances listed in Section 304 of FAA Order 1050.1E.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments
only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in
paragraph (1).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93

    Air traffic control, Airspace, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES

    1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,
44514, 44701, 44719, 46301.
    2. Amend part 93 by adding subpart H to read as follows:

Subpart H--Mandatory Use of the New York North Shore Helicopter
Route

Sec.  93.101  Applicability.

Sec.  93.103  Helicopter operations.

Subpart H--Mandatory Use of the New York North Shore Helicopter
Route

Sec.  93.101  Applicability.

    This subpart prescribes a special air traffic rule for civil
helicopters operating VFR along the North Shore, Long Island, New York.

Sec.  93.103  Helicopter operations.

    (a) Unless otherwise authorized, each person piloting a helicopter
along Long Island, New York's northern shoreline between the VPLYD
waypoint and Orient Point, shall utilize the North Shore Helicopter
route, as published.
    (b) Pilots may deviate from the requirements of paragraph (a) when
required for safety, weather conditions or transitioning to or from a
destination or point of landing.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2010.
Edie Parish,
Acting Director, Systems Operations, Airspace and Aeronautical
Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-12606 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41582-41583]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14822]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA R08-OW-2019-0404; FRL--10012-05-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Filter Adoption Survey (New)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Filter Adoption Survey (EPA ICR
Number 2615.01, OMB Control Number 2008-New) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a request for approval of a new
collection. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal
Register on March 12, 2020 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. 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 August 10,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-R08-
OW-2019-0404, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460. 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: Angelique Diaz, Ph.D., P.E., Section
Chief, Drinking Water Section B, Water Division, 8WD-SDB, Environmental
Protection Agency Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
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 EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Denver Water is a public water system which must comply
with applicable requirements of the lead and copper rule (LCR). On
September 6, 2019 Denver Water submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 8 office a request for a Variance from the
optimal corrosion control treatment requirements under the Safe
Drinking Water Act's LCR. The request included a multi-pronged approach
to result in at least as efficient lead removal to orthophosphate, the
designated optimal corrosion control treatment. Three of those prongs
of the variance request are: PH and alkalinity adjustments to reduce
corrosivity of the water; accelerated lead service line removal; and a
filter program where Denver Water will distribute pitcher filters to
consumers with known, suspected, and possible lead service

lines. Under section 1415(a)(3) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, on
December 16, 2019, the U.S. EPA granted Denver Water a variance from
the definition of ``optimal corrosion control treatment'' in 40 CFR
141.2. The Variance contains requirements to determine the efficacy the
filter program. EPA will use the survey results that Denver Water
annually distributes to determine the consumer filter adoption rate,
and to confirm whether customers are using and maintaining the filters
correctly, and per manufacturer's instructions. Each year, the filter
adoption survey will be sent by Denver Water via postal mail to as many
as 20,000 consumers that have known, suspected, and possible lead
service lines. Surveys will be sent via direct mailings and will
include an online completion option (the survey questions are included
below). Direct mailings will be sent with a unique QR code to track
which addresses responses have been received from. Surveys will be sent
out in both English and Spanish. Additionally, Denver Water will
annually conduct, in person surveys at a minimum of 50 locations in use
by customers enrolled in the filter program. Information being
collected is information on if, and how, consumers use the filter
(e.g., for drinking, cooking, or making infant-fed formula), whether
the customers are using and maintain the filters correctly (e.g.,
washing, replacing the filters per manufacturer's instructions), as
well as demographic information to inform filter adoption rate by
neighborhood or demographic group so Denver Water's health equity and
environmental justice principles set forth in their variance request
can be evaluated.
    Form Numbers: 6700-009.
    Respondents/affected entities: Customers of Denver Water or of
other integrated systems that have either known or suspected lead
service lines (LSLs).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 20,001 (per year).
    Frequency of response: Annually for three years.
    Total estimated burden: 1,270 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $100,262 per year, includes $1,000 annualized
capital or operations & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: This is a new collection and therefore
there are no changes in burden.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-14822 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24427-24433]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0454; Product Identifier 2017-NM-056-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Airbus Model A330-200
and -300 series airplanes, and Airbus Model A340-200 and -300 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracked slat
tracks at the location of the front stop attachment to the track. This
proposed AD would require a detailed inspection, repetitive special
detailed inspections, and corrective actions if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93
45 80; email: [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

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-2018-
0454; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0454;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-056-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0060, dated April 7, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series
airplanes; Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Airbus
Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Several cases of cracked slat tracks at the location of front
stop attachment to track have been reported by operators. Analysis
of the affected slat tracks (Airbus pre-modification (mod) 45967
design) revealed that induced torque loads during normal
installation of the front stop, in combination with an incorrect
shaft length of the attachment bolts and geometry of the front stop,
are the root cause.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, would affect the
structural integrity of the slat surface, which could lead to
detachment of an outer or inner slat surface, possibly resulting in
reduced control of the aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the
ground.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A330-57-3123 and SB A340-57-4130, to provide
inspection instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time detailed inspection (DET) of the front stop lateral and aft
surfaces [for marks (dents or scratches),] and repetitive special
detailed inspections (SDI) of the front stop attachment areas, of
slat tracks number (No.) 5 to No. 16 inclusive, both left hand (LH)
and right hand (RH) wings [for cracks], and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [corrective
actions include rework, repair, and slat rigging].
    This [EASA] AD also includes reference to an optional
modification (Airbus mod 205378) of the affected slat tracks, for
which the associated SBs (SB A330-57-3126 and SB A340-57-4133, as
applicable) are expected to become available in July 2017, which
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections
required by this [EASA] AD.

    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-2018-
0454.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01,
including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017; and Service
Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03,
dated September 27, 2017. This service information describes procedures
for a detailed inspection of the front stop lateral and aft surfaces
for marks (dents or scratches), repetitive special detailed inspections
of the front stop attachment areas, of slat track numbers 5 to 16
inclusive, both LH and RH wings for cracks, and corrective actions.
These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane
models.
    Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A330-57-3126, including
Appendixes 02 and 03, dated December 21, 2017; and Service Bulletin
A340-57-4133, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated December 21, 2017.
This service information describes procedures for modification of all
affected slat tracks on an airplane. These documents are distinct since
they apply to different airplane models.
    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.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    Although the MCAI specifies to continue repetitive inspections if
certain cracks that do not exceed specified damage limits are found,
this proposed AD would require repairing before further flight in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03,
dated September 27, 2017; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130,
Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017;
or obtaining corrective action instructions approved by the Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA), and accomplishing
them within the compliance time specified therein.
    Although the MCAI specifies accomplishing the proposed actions in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, dated June 14,
2016, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, dated June 14, 2016,
this proposed AD would require using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-
3123, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27,
2017, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, including
Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017. For airplanes on which
the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, dated
June 14, 2016, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, dated June 14,
2016, have been done, this proposed AD provides credit for those
actions provided that the additional work identified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03,
dated September 27, 2017, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130,
Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017,
is done. The additional work

includes inspecting for certain part numbers and for those affected
parts, doing a detailed inspection, and corrective actions if
necessary. We have coordinated this difference with EASA.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 101 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts                              Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost          cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed Inspection...............  25 work-hours x $85           $0  $2,125 per            $214,625 per
                                     per hour = $2,125                 inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                     per inspection cycle.
Special Detailed Inspection.......  25 work-hours x $85            0  $2,125 per            $214,625 per
                                     per hour = $2,125                 inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                     per inspection cycle.
Reporting.........................  1 work-hour x $85 per          0  $85 per inspection    $8,585 per
                                     hour = $85 per                    cycle.                inspection cycle.
                                     inspection cycle.
Modification......................  49 work-hour x $85         8,150  $12,315.............  $1,243,815.
                                     per hour = $4,165.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this NPRM is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this NPRM has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this NPRM is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0454; Product Identifier 2017-NM-056-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 13, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) of this AD, certificated
in any category, all certificated models, all manufacturer serial
numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -
342, and -343 airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213 airplanes.
    (5) Airbus Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracked slat tracks at the
location of the front stop attachment to the track. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct cracked slat tracks which could affect
the structural

integrity of the slat surface, possibly leading to detachment of an
outer or inner slat surface, and resulting in reduced control of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, ``affected slat track'' is
defined as a pre-modification 45967 slat track, located at the wing
positions as indicated in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, and
having a part number specified in figure 2 to paragraph (g) of this
AD. In case the part number identification (ID) plate is missing or
cannot be read, the slat track can be identified by the ink marking.
If the operator cannot determine the part number, then that airplane
is in Group 1.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD: Group 1 airplanes are those
that, on the effective date of this AD, have an affected slat track
installed. Group 2 airplanes are those that, on the effective date
of this AD, do not have any affected slat track installed.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MY18.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MY18.002

(h) One-Time Detailed Inspection and Repetitive Special Detailed
Inspections

    For Group 1 airplanes: At the applicable times specified in
figure 3 to paragraph (h) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of
the front stop lateral and aft surfaces, and do a special detailed
inspection of the front stop attachment areas of each affected slat
track, both right hand (RH) and left hand (LH) wings, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A330-57-3123, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated
September 27, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130,
Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27,
2017; as applicable. Thereafter, repeat the special detailed

inspection for the front stop attachment areas of each affected slat
track, both RH and LH wings, at intervals not to exceed the
applicable compliance times specified in figure 4 to paragraph (h)
of this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MY18.003

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(i) Corrective Actions

    (1) If, during any special detailed inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, any crack is detected at the front stop
attachment area of an affected slat track: Before further flight,
obtain corrective action instructions approved by the Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA), and accomplish them within the
compliance time specified therein. If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this
AD, marks (dents or scratches) are found on the front stop lateral
or aft surfaces of an affected slat track; provided that no crack is
detected; before further flight, rework the affected lateral front
stop surface of that slat track, and accomplish slat rigging, as
applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01, including
Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017; or Airbus Service
Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03,
dated September 27, 2017. Accomplishment of rework or slat rigging
on an airplane, as required by this paragraph, does not constitute
terminating action for the repetitive special detailed inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (3) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this
AD, marks (dents or scratches) are found on the front stop lateral
or aft surfaces of an affected slat track, and any crack is detected
at the front stop attachment area of that slat track: Before further
flight, obtain corrective action instructions approved by the
Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or
EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA, and accomplish them within the
compliance time specified therein. If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2)
of this AD: Report the results of the inspections required by
paragraph (h) of this AD to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online
Application on Airbus World (https://w3.airbus.com/), or submit the
results to Airbus in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01, including
Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017, or Airbus Service
Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03,
dated September 27, 2017. The report must include the inspection
results (including no findings), a description of any discrepancies
found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and
flight hours on the airplane.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after each inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(k) Optional Terminating Actions

    (1) Replacement of an affected slat track at any position with a
post-modification 45967 slat track, if accomplished as part of the
corrective actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(3) of this
AD, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h)
of this AD, for that slat track position.
    (2) Modification of all affected slat tracks on an airplane in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-57-3126, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated
December 21, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4133,
including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated December 21, 2017; as
applicable, terminates the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane, provided that, prior to
modification, the affected slat tracks pass an inspection (crack
free) in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A330-57-3123, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated
September 27, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130,
Revision 01,

including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017; as
applicable.

(l) Parts Installation Limitations

    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD: For
Group 1 airplanes, after the effective date of this AD, an affected
slat track may be installed, provided the installation is
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (2) After modification of a Group 1 airplane as specified in
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, no person may install an affected slat
track on that airplane.
    (3) For Group 2 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD,
no person may install an affected slat track on any Group 2
airplane.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-57-3123, dated June 14, 2016, or Airbus Service
Bulletin A340-57-4130, dated June 14, 2016, provided that within 12
months after the effective date of this AD, the additional work
identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01,
including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017, or Airbus
Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02
and 03, dated September 27, 2017, as applicable, has been completed
in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision
01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017, or
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, including
Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017, as applicable.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (o)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the 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
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.
    (4) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i) 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.

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0060, dated April 7, 2017, 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-2018-0454.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 21, 2018.
James Cashdollar,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11415 Filed 5-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P