[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76411-76414]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31193]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-1077]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; 25th Annual North American International Auto
Show, Detroit River, Detroit, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone on
the Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan. This security zone is intended to
restrict vessels from a portion of the Detroit River in order to ensure
the safety and security of participants, visitors, and public officials
at the 25th Annual North American International Auto Show (NAIAS),
which is being held at Cobo Hall in downtown Detroit, MI. Vessels in
close proximity to the security zone will be subject to increased
monitoring and boarding during the enforcement of the security zone.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 8:00 a.m. on January
13, 2013 until 12:00 a.m. on January 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-1077. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, type the docket
number in the ``SEARCH'' box, and click ``Search.'' You may visit the
Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, call or email LT Adrian Palomeque, Prevention
Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable,
unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The final details
regarding the security measures associated with this year's event were
not known to the Coast Guard with sufficient time for the Coast Guard
to solicit public comments before the start of the event. Thus, waiting
for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable and
contrary to

the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard from
protecting the participants, visitors, and public officials at this
year's NAIAS.
    It is also unnecessary to solicit public comments because the NAIAS
event has taken place annually under the same name since 1989, has been
recognized as one of the premier international car shows in the world
for more than twenty-five years, and has been at the same location
since 1965. In light of the long history of this event and the prior
years that it has been regulated by the Coast Guard, public awareness
in the affected area is high, making it unnecessary to wait for a
comment period to run before enforcing this security zone for the
January 2013 NAIAS event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding two paragraphs, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The 25th Annual North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) will
be held at Cobo Hall in downtown Detroit, MI. The NAIAS is the prime
venue for introducing the world's most anticipated vehicles. The public
showing days of the NAIAS begin January 19 and extend through January
27. Prior to the public showing, there will also be multiple high
profile events; including the press preview days (January 14-15, 2013),
industry preview days (January 16-17, 2013), and the charity preview
event (January 18, 2013). In 2011, the NAIAS attendance for the public
showing was over 735,000 people and press preview days attracted over
5,000 journalists representing 55 countries. Attendance and
participation at the 2013 NAIAS is anticipated to rival the 2011 show's
attendance and will likely remain as one of the largest media events in
North America.
    NAIAS has attracted numerous protesters from various organizations.
Due to the current state of the economy, the recent number of layoffs,
the closures of several thousand automotive dealerships around the
country, and the likely presence of high profile visitors, it is
possible that protests may continue to occur at this year's event.
Consequently, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that it is
necessary to establish a temporary security zone to protect
participants, visitors, and public officials attending the event from
any potential unrest and conflict that might arise from mass protests.

C. Discussion of Rule

    To safeguard portions of the Detroit River during this year's
event, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that a temporary
security zone is necessary. This security zone will ensure the safety
of the participants in and visitors of the 25th Annual North American
International Auto Show being held at Cobo Hall in downtown Detroit,
MI. The security zone will be in effect from 8:00 a.m. on January 13,
2013 until 12:00 a.m. on January 28, 2013. The zone will only be
enforced from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. daily for the duration of the
event.
    The security zone will encompass an area of the Detroit River
beginning at a point of origin on land adjacent to the west end of Joe
Lewis Arena at 42[deg] 19.44' N., 083[deg] 03.11' W.; then extending
offshore approximately 150 yards to 42[deg] 19.39' N., 083[deg] 03.07'
W.; then proceeding upriver approximately 2000 yards to a point at
42[deg] 19.72' N., 083[deg] 01.88' W.; then proceeding onshore to a
point on land adjacent the Tricentennial State Park at 42[deg] 19.79'
N., 083[deg] 01.90' W.; then proceeding downriver along the shoreline
to connect back to the point of origin. Vessels in close proximity to
the security zone will be subject to increased monitoring and boarding.
All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, including below the surface of the water,
or anchoring within the security zones is prohibited unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit, or his designated on-scene
representative. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port
will be aboard a Coast Guard or Local Law Enforcement vessel. The
Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be
contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    The security zone created by this rule does not inhibit members of
the public from assembling on shore or expressing from locations on
shore their points of view to those attending the NAIAS.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have a minimal impact on the
economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely
alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise
any novel legal or policy issues. The security zone on the Detroit
River will be relatively small and exist for only a minimal time. Thus,
restrictions on vessel movement within any particular area of the
Detroit River are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions,
vessels may still transit through the security zone when permitted by
the Captain of the Port. Moreover, vessels may still transit freely in
Canadian waters adjacent to the security zone.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the temporary security zone
established by this rule between 8:00 a.m. on January 13, 2013 until
12:00 a.m. on January 28, 2013.
    This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
security zone will not obstruct the regular flow of commercial traffic
and will allow vessel traffic to pass around the security zone. In the
event that this temporary security zone affects shipping, commercial
vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit to
transit through the security

zone. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. The
Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners
that the regulation is in effect.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule to that they can better evaluate
its effects on them. If this rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
The security zone created by this rule does not inhibit members of the
public from assembling on shore or expressing from locations on shore
their points of view to those attending the NAIAS. Nonetheless,
protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves the establishment of a security zone and, therefore it is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.
    An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination
and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-1077 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-1077  Security Zone; 25th Annual North American
International Auto Show, Detroit River, Detroit, MI

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary security zone: an
area of the Detroit River beginning at a point of origin on land
adjacent to the west end of Joe Lewis Arena at 42[deg] 19.44' N.,
083[deg] 03.11' W.; then extending offshore approximately 150 yards to
42[deg] 19.39' N., 083[deg] 03.07' W.; then proceeding upriver
approximately 2000 yards to a point at 42[deg] 19.72' N., 083[deg]
01.88' W.; then proceeding onshore to a point on land adjacent to the
Tricentennial State Park at 42[deg] 19.79' N., 083[deg] 01.90' W.; then
proceeding downriver along the shoreline to connect back to the point
of

origin on land adjacent to the west end of the Joe Louis Arena. All
geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This regulation is effective
from 8:00 a.m. on January 13, 2013 until 12:00 a.m. on January 28,
2013. However, the security zone will only be enforced from 8:00 a.m.
to 12:00 a.m. daily from January 13, 2013 through January 28, 2013.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This security zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as
may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated
on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit to
act on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
security zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or
his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain
of the Port, Sector Detroit or his on-scene representative may be
contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the security zones must comply with
all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Sector
Detroit, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: December 17, 2012.
J. E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2012-31193 Filed 12-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44429-44432]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0765; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-028-AD;
Amendment 39-17130; AD 2012-15-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various Aircraft Equipped With Rotax
Aircraft Engines 912 A Series Engine

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for various
aircraft equipped with Rotax Aircraft Engines 912 A series engine. This
AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as a deviation in the manufacturing process of
fuel hoses installed on the pressure side of part number 893114 fuel
pumps. The fuel hoses may not be fuel resistant, which could lead to
detachment of particles from the fuel hose and cause irregularities in
the carburetor function and possibly result in rough engine operation,
engine misfire, in-flight engine shutdown, and forced landing. We are
issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 14, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 14,
2012.
    We must receive comments on this AD by September 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact BRP-
Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG, Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen,
Austria; phone: +43 7246 601 0; fax: +43 7246 601 9130; Internet:
http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2012-0097R1, dated June 1, 2012 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Reports from the field confirmed a non-compliance of pressure
side fuel hoses installed on certain P/N 893114 fuel pumps, which
may have resulted in a latent defect on a limited number of engines.
The affected fuel hoses may not be fuel resistant in accordance with
the specification.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to detachment of
particles from the fuel hose and irregularities in the carburettor
function, possibly resulting in in-flight engine shutdown and forced
landing, damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued
Emergency AD 2012-0093-E to require the replacement of the pressure
side fuel hose on certain fuel pumps, identified by P/N 893114. That
AD also prohibited installation of an affected engine on an
aeroplane, unless the fuel pump installation of that engine had been
corrected as required by the AD.
    Since that AD was issued, the relevant BRP-Powertrain Alert
Service Bulletin (ASB) ASB-912-061 has been revised (R1) to correct
the list of affected P/N 893114 fuel pumps, identified by s/n. As
some of these pumps (including potentially defective hoses) have
been delivered as spares, they could also be installed on other
engines than those specified by s/n in BRP-Powertrain ASB-912-061R1.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of EASA Emergency AD 2012-0093-E, which is superseded,
expands the Applicability to all Rotax 912 series engines and
corrects Table 1--Affected P/N 893114 fuel pumps. In addition, 2
aeroplane types have been removed from the Applicability of this AD:
Aeromot AMT 300 Turbo Super Ximango and Stemme S10 VT have a Rotax
914 engine installed, not a Rotax 912.
    This AD has been revised to correct Table 1 of the Required
Action(s) and Compliance Times(s) section, which did not contain all
affected s/n fuel pumps.

This AD requires replacement of the pressure side fuel hose on the part
number (P/N) 893114 fuel pump. This AD also prohibits the installation
of an affected engine unless the pressure side fuel hose on the P/N
893114 fuel pump has been replaced. You may obtain further information
by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP has issued Alert Service Bulletin ASB-
912-061R1, dated May 31, 2012. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
detachment of particles from the fuel hose on the pressure side of the
fuel pump could cause engine damage and result in in-flight engine
shutdown. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0765; Directorate
Identifier 2012-CE-028-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the

overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 50 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $300 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $27,750, or $555 per product.

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 AD:

2012-15-01 Various Aircraft: Amendment 39-17130; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0765; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-028-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August 14,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all serial numbers of the airplanes listed in
table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, that are:
    (1) Equipped with a Rotax Aircraft Engines 912 A series engine,
with a part number (P/N) 893114 fuel pump installed; and
    (2) certificated in any category.

              Table 1 to Paragraph (c)--Affected Airplanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Type certificate holder           Aircraft model       Engine model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromot-Ind[uacute]stria         AMT-200................          912 A2
 Mec[acirc]nico-
 Metal[uacute]rgica Ltda.
Diamond Aircraft Industries....  HK 36 R ``SUPER                   912 A
                                  DIMONA''.
DIAMOND AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES      HK 36 TS and HK 36 TC..          912 A3
 GmbH.
Diamond Aircraft Industries      DA20-A1................          912 A3
 Inc..
HOAC-Austria...................  DV 20 KATANA...........          912 A3
Iniziative Industriali Italiane  Sky Arrow 650 TC.......          912 A2
 S.p.A..
SCHEIBE-Flugzeugbau GmbH.......  SF 25C.................          912 A2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 73: Engine Fuel
and Control.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a deviation in
the manufacturing process of fuel hoses installed on the pressure
side of P/N 893114 fuel pumps. The fuel hoses may not be fuel
resistant, which could lead to detachment of particles from the fuel
hose and cause irregularities in the carburetor function. We are
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel hose on the pressure
side of the P/N 893114 fuel pump, which could result in rough engine
operation, engine misfire, in-flight engine shutdown, and forced
landing.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in accordance with
Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-061R1,
dated May 31, 2012.
    (1) Before further flight after August 14, 2012 (the effective
date of this AD), replace the pressure side fuel hose on the P/N
893114 fuel pump.
    (2) As of August 14, 2012 (the effective date of this AD), do
not install a P/N 893114 fuel pump on any engine, unless the
pressure side fuel hose of that fuel pump has been replaced as
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (3) As of August 14, 2012 (the effective date of this AD), do
not install on any airplane a Rotax 912 A series engine, unless the
fuel pump installation of that engine has been corrected as required
in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace

Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816)
329-4090; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, 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 5 minutes 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.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2012-0097R1, dated June 1, 2012; and Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP
Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-061R1, dated May 31, 2012, for
related information.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service
Bulletin ASB-912-061R1, dated May 31, 2012, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference
(IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact BRP-
Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG, Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen,
Austria; phone: +43 7246 601 0; fax: +43 7246 601 9130; Internet:
http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 17, 2012.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-18149 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21772-21773]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09785]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9977-65-OAR]

Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New
Unit Set-Asides for 2018 Control Periods

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice
of the availability of data on emission allowance allocations to
certain units under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading
programs. EPA has completed preliminary calculations for the first
round of allocations of allowances from the CSAPR new unit set-asides
(NUSAs) for the 2018 control periods and has posted spreadsheets
containing the calculations on EPA's website. EPA will consider timely
objections to the preliminary calculations (including objections
concerning the identification of units eligible for allocations) before
determining the final amounts of the first-round allocations.

DATES: Objections to the information referenced in this notice must be
received on or before June 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your objections via email to [email protected].
Include ``2018 NUSA allocations'' in the email subject line and include
your name, title, affiliation, address, phone number, and email address
in the body of the email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this action
should be addressed to Kenon Smith at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected] or Jason Kuhns at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under each CSAPR trading program where EPA
is responsible for determining emission allowance allocations, a
portion of each state's emissions budget for the program for each
control period is reserved in a NUSA (and in an additional Indian
country NUSA in the case of states with Indian country within their
borders) for allocation to certain units that would not otherwise
receive allowance allocations. The procedures for identifying the
eligible units for each control period and for allocating allowances
from the NUSAs and Indian country NUSAs to these units are set forth in
the CSAPR trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.411(b) and 97.412
(NOX Annual), 97.511(b) and 97.512 (NOX Ozone
Season Group 1), 97.611(b) and 97.612 (SO2 Group 1),
97.711(b) and 97.712 (SO2 Group 2), and 97.811(b) and 97.812
(NOX Ozone Season Group 2). Each NUSA allowance allocation
process involves up to two rounds of allocations to eligible units,
termed ``new'' units, followed by the allocation to ``existing'' units
of any allowances not allocated to new units.
    This notice concerns preliminary calculations for the first round
of NUSA allowance allocations for the 2018 control periods. Generally,
the allocation procedures call for each eligible unit to receive a
first-round 2018 NUSA allocation equal to its 2017 emissions as
reported under 40 CFR part 75 unless the total of such allocations to
all eligible units would exceed the amount of allowances in the NUSA,
in which case the allocations are reduced on a pro-rata basis.
    The detailed unit-by-unit data and preliminary allowance allocation
calculations are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled
``CSAPR_NUSA_2018_NOX_Annual_1st_Round_Prelim_Data'',
``CSAPR_NUSA_2018_NOX_OS_1st_Round_Prelim_Data'', and
``CSAPR_NUSA_2018_SO2_1st_Round_Prelim_Data,'' available on EPA's
website at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/new-unit-set-aside-notices-data-availability-nusa-noda-cross-state-air-pollution-rule. Each of the
spreadsheets contains a separate worksheet for each state covered by
that program showing, for each unit identified as eligible for a first-
round NUSA allocation, (1) the unit's emissions in the 2017 control
period (annual or ozone season as applicable), (2) the maximum first-
round 2018 NUSA allowance allocation for which the unit is eligible
(typically the unit's emissions in the 2017 control period), (3)
various adjustments to the unit's maximum allocation, many of which are
necessary only if the NUSA pool is oversubscribed, and (4) the
preliminary calculation of the unit's first-round 2018 NUSA allowance
allocation.
    Each state worksheet also contains a summary showing (1) the
quantity of allowances initially available in that state's 2018 NUSA,
(2) the sum of the first-round 2018 NUSA allowance allocations that
will be made to new units in that state, assuming there are no
corrections to the data, and (3) the quantity of allowances that would
remain in the 2018 NUSA for use in second-round allocations to new
units (or ultimately for allocation to existing units), again assuming
there are no corrections to the data.
    Objections should be strictly limited to the data and calculations
upon which the NUSA allowance allocations are based and should be
emailed to the address identified in ADDRESSES. Objections must
include: (1) Precise identification of the specific data and/or
calculations the commenter believes are inaccurate, (2) new proposed
data and/or calculations upon which the commenter believes EPA should
rely instead to determine allowance allocations, and (3) the reasons
why EPA should rely on the commenter's

proposed data and/or calculations and not the data referenced in this
notice.
    EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to
a given unit does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or
does not apply to the unit. EPA also notes that under 40 CFR 97.411(c),
97.511(c), 97.611(c), 97.711(c), and 97.811(c), allocations are subject
to potential correction if a unit to which allowances have been
allocated for a given control period is not actually an affected unit
as of the start of that control period.

(Authority: 40 CFR 97.411(b), 97.511(b), 97.611(b), 97.711(b), and
97.811(b).)

    Dated: April 30, 2018.
Reid P. Harvey,
Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs,
Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2018-09785 Filed 5-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF

									AIR AND RADIATION

August 2, 2016

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Tractor-Trailer Cost per Ton Values

FROM:	Angela Cullen, Engineer, Assessment and Standards Division

Jessica Brakora, Engineer, Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO:	Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Dockets
NHTSA-2014-0132 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

The agencies are adopting separate standards for the tractors and
trailers, rather than combining emission standards for tractors and
trailers into a single numerical standard, because these industries have
drastically different business sizes, manufacturing practices,
resources, and experience with EPA regulations.  Additionally, we are
not aware of any manufacturers that produce both tractors and trailers.
We also evaluated technology and compliance costs for each individual
vehicle sector, because these costs would be distributed among the
manufacturers within a given sector.  However, the overall program
benefits and costs were calculated considering how the vehicles are
actually used in the real world.  Thus, tractors and trailers were
evaluated as combined tractor-trailer vehicles.

The agencies modeled the tractor-trailer vehicles in MOVES by combining
the aerodynamic, tire, and energy improvements from tractors and
trailers to determine the emissions impact of the combined
tractor-trailer portion of the Phase 2 rule.,  The agencies used the
emission impacts, along with the total costs, to determine the cost per
ton of CO2eq reduced, as shown in RIA Chapter 7.2.5. The total CO2
reductions in calendar year (CY) 2030 from the combined tractor-trailer
program is projected to be 64 MMT CO2eq (of which 47.6 MMT CO2eq are due
to downstream reductions and 16.8 MMT CO2eq are due to upstream
reductions).  The total technology, compliance, research and
development, and maintenance cost for the tractor-trailers is projected
to be $2.3 billion.  Also, as noted in Chapter 7.2.5 of the RIA, the
agencies estimate the cost per metric ton of CO2eq reduction without
considering fuel savings to be $36 for tractor-trailers in 2030.  This
value compares favorably with the levels of cost effectiveness that the
agencies found reasonable for light duty trucks (see 77 FR 62922).

It was of interest to also develop a simple estimate of the cost
effectiveness of tractors and trailers separately.  To estimate
separated reductions, we used MOVES to calculate the downstream CO2
reduction for trailers in CY 2030 by only considering the aerodynamic,
tire and energy improvements from trailers; tractors were assumed to
remain at Phase 1 levels of performance.  This reduction was found to be
8.0 MMT CO2eq.  If we apply the same ratio of upstream reductions to
downstream reductions found for the combined tractor-trailers, the
upstream reductions from trailers (again, for CY 2030) would be about
2.8 MMT CO2eq, for a total emission reduction of 10.8 MMT CO2eq for the
trailer program.  We also project that the trailer program will cost
$200 million of the $2.3 billion cost of the combined tractor-trailer
program (without accounting for fuel savings).  Using these projections,
an estimate of the cost effectiveness of the trailer program in 2030 is
approximately $21 per ton of CO2eq reduced.  Moreover, as with all other
standards in the Phase 2 rule, the associated lifetime fuel savings are
greater than the total costs, so that there is no net cost to the
standards.  In other words, they pay for themselves.  Thus, the $21 per
ton understates the cost-effectiveness of the trailer standards.

We did not perform a similar separate MOVES analysis for
tractor-specific reductions.  Instead, we assume the same total
reductions of 64.4 MMT CO2eq from the combined tractor-trailer program
and subtracted the 10.8 MMT CO2eq attributable to trailers, to project
that 53.6 MMT CO2eq emission reductions are attributable to tractors.
We also project that the tractor program would cost $2.1 billion of the
$2.3 billion cost of the combined tractor-trailer program (without
accounting for fuel savings).  A resulting estimate of the cost
effectiveness of the tractor program for 2030 is approximately $39 per
ton of CO2eq reduced.  Based on these results we are confident that the
trailer program is more cost effective than the tractor program, even
though the analysis makes some simplifying approximations. Considered
separately, both the tractor and trailer standards are cost-effective in
this analysis, comparing favorably to the cost effectiveness of CO2
reductions from light duty trucks. There is no question the trailer and
tractor standards are cost-effective and provide significant net
benefits.

This analysis was performed for a single calendar year and from it we
can qualitatively project that trailers would be more cost effective
throughout the timeframe of this rulemaking.  However, within MOVES,
tractors and trailers are modeled as a unit. As a result, their
individual contributions to inventories and inventory reductions cannot
simply be gleaned from the normal MOVES output data. MOVES works this
way because that is how combination tractors and trailers actually
operate – trailers do not operate without tractors and the
overwhelming majority of miles driven by tractors are driven with a
trailer attached. Even with the numbers we have generated, which split
tractor and trailer results, they cannot be considered as independent of
one another.

Notice that the combined GHG impact CY 2030 from the combined
tractor-trailer program of 64 MMT CO2eq is identical to that shown for
the combined program in our overall impacts tables in RIA Chapter 7.2.5.
If we were to generate truly separate tractor and trailer results, along
with the desired combined tractor-trailer result, we would have to do
three times the number of MOVES runs and analyses rather than the single
MOVES analysis done to support this rule. One analysis would look at the
tractor program independent of the trailer program. Another, the trailer
program independent of the tractor program. The summation of which would
be different than the third analysis (i.e., the analysis we have done)
which considers synergies of the two programs together. The same would
then have to be done for upstream emissions impacts once the MOVES
modeling was completed.

Therefore, the unique tractor and trailer results presented here are
really an approximate division of the full program’s impacts split
between tractor and trailer based on a single calendar year of modeling
in MOVES. As such, they do not represent the tractor versus trailer
results truly independent of one another but rather tractor versus
trailer results in combination with one another.  The results shown here
can also be considered to be an analysis of how cost-effective the
trailer standards would be if we had adopted them without also adopting
new tractor standards, and vice versa for the tractor standards.

.  .

 See RIA Chapter <IP_ADDRESS>.1.1.

 Note that the agencies considered the additional weight of aerodynamic
technologies, expressed as negative weight reductions, in the trailer
input values.  See our input file in the Docket:  “FRM –
Tractor-Trailer Inputs to MOVES.xlsx” EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.

Tractor-Trailer Cost per ton Values, Page   PAGE  3  of   NUMPAGES   3


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 119-120]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28499]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2022-0002]

National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health
(NACOSH); Request for Nominations

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for nominations.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA invites interested persons to submit nominations for
membership on the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety
and Health (NACOSH).

DATES: Nominations for NACOSH membership must be submitted (postmarked,
sent, transmitted, or received) by February 2, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit nominations, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the online instructions for making
submissions.
    OSHA will post submissions in response to this Federal Register
notice, including personal information, in the public docket, which
will be available online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties
about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers
and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the public
docket are listed in the index; however, some documents (e.g.,
copyrighted material) are not publicly available to read or download
through www.regulations.gov. All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>)
for assistance in locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General information and technical inquiries: Ms. Lisa Long, Acting
Deputy Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary of Labor (Labor Secretary)
invites interested individuals to submit nominations for membership on
NACOSH.

I. Background

    The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C.
651, 656) established NACOSH to advise, consult with, and make
recommendations to the Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS Secretary) on matters relating to the administration of
the OSH Act. NACOSH is a continuing advisory committee of indefinite
duration.
    NACOSH operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), implementing regulations (41 CFR part
102-3), the OSH Act, and OSHA's regulations on NACOSH (29 CFR part
1912a).
    The Committee meets at least two times a year (29 U.S.C.
656(a)(2)). Committee members serve without compensation, but OSHA
provides travel and per diem expenses. NACOSH members serve staggered
terms, unless the member becomes unable to serve, resigns, ceases to be
qualified to serve, or is removed by the Labor Secretary. The terms of
two Health and Human Services-designated NACOSH members expire on June
16, 2023, and four Department of Labor-designated NACOSH members expire
on July 31, 2023.

II. NACOSH Membership

    NACOSH is comprised of 12 members appointed by the Secretary of
Labor, four of which are designated by the HHS Secretary. Accordingly,
the Labor Secretary seeks committed members to serve a two-year term.
If a vacancy occurs before a term expires, the Labor Secretary may
appoint a new member who represents the same interest as the
predecessor to serve the remainder of the unexpired term. The U.S.
Department of Labor is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace
and seeks a broad-based and diverse NACOSH membership.
    Nominations of new members, or resubmissions of current or former
members, will be accepted in five categories of membership. Interested
persons may nominate themselves or submit the name of another person
whom they believe to be interested in and qualified to serve on NACOSH.
Nominations may also be submitted by organizations from one of the
categories listed.
    OSHA invites nominations for the following NACOSH positions:
     Two (2) public representatives (one for OSHA, one for
HHS);
     One (1) management representative (OSHA);
     One (1) labor representative (OSHA);
     One (1) occupational safety professional representative
(OSHA); and
     One (1) occupational health professional representative
(HHS).

III. Submission Requirements

    Any individual or organization may nominate one or more qualified
persons for membership on NACOSH. Nominations must include the
following information:
    1. The nominee's name, contact information, and current employment
or position;
    2. The nominee's resume or curriculum vitae, including prior
membership on NACOSH and other relevant organizations and associations;
    3. The categories that the nominee is qualified to represent;
    4. A summary of the background, experience, and qualifications that
address the nominee's suitability for membership;
    5. A list of articles or other documents the nominee has authored
that indicates the nominee's experience in worker safety and health;
and
    6. A statement that the nominee is aware of the nomination, is
willing to regularly attend and participate in NACOSH meetings, and has
no conflicts of interest that would preclude membership on NACOSH.
    OSHA will conduct a basic background check of candidates before
their appointment to NACOSH. The background check will involve
accessing publicly available, internet-based sources.

IV. Member Appointment

    The Labor Secretary will appoint six NACOSH members, two of which
will be designated by the HHS Secretary, based on their experience,
knowledge, and competence in the field of occupational safety and
health (29 CFR 1912a.2). Information received through this nomination
process, in addition to other relevant sources of information, will
assist the Labor Secretary in appointing members to NACOSH. In
selecting NACOSH members, the Labor Secretary will consider individuals
nominated in response to this Federal Register notice, as well as other
qualified individuals. OSHA will publish a list of newly appointed
NACOSH members in the Federal Register.

Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 656, 5 U.S.C. App. 2,
29 CFR parts 1912 and 1912a; 41 CFR part 102-3; and Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 12, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-28499 Filed 12-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51685-51686]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21082]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17Ab2-2, SEC File No. 270-617, OMB Control No. 3235-0728

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17Ab2-2 (17 CFR
240.17Ab2-2) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Exchange Act Rule 17Ab2-2 establishes procedures for the Commission
to make a determination, either of its own initiative or upon
application by any clearing agency or member of a clearing agency,
whether a covered clearing agency is systemically important in multiple
jurisdictions and procedures to determine, if the Commission deems
appropriate, whether any of the activities of a clearing agency
providing central counterparty services, in addition to clearing
agencies registered with the Commission for the purpose of clearing
security-based swaps, have a more complex risk profile. In addition,
Exchange Act Rule 17Ab2-2 provides a procedure for the Commission to
determine whether to rescind any such determinations previously made by
the Commission.
    Because determinations made by the Commission pursuant to Exchange
Act Rule 17Ab2-2 may be made upon the request of a clearing agency,
respondent clearing agencies have the burden of preparing such requests
for submission to the Commission.
    Commission staff estimates that Rule 17Ab2-2 imposes a PRA burden
on registered clearing agencies that seek a determination from the
Commission regarding the covered clearing agency's status as
systemically important in multiple jurisdictions. Commission staff
estimates that two registered clearing agencies or their members on
their behalf will apply for a Commission determination, or may be
subject to a Commission-initiated determination, regarding whether a
registered clearing

agency is involved in activities with a more complex risk profile or
whether a covered clearing agency is systemically important in multiple
jurisdictions.
    Commission staff estimates that each respondent clearing agency
incurs a one-time burden of 10 hours and a one-time cost of $2,000 to
draft and review a determination request submitted to the Commission,
for a total of 20 hours and $4,000 for all respondents. The total
annualized burden and cost for all respondents are 6.66 hours and
$1,333.33.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission staff's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
the ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions
submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 24, 2019.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21082 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 8911-8912]
[DOCID:fr15fe08-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 12d3-1; SEC File No. 270-504; OMB Control No. 3235-0561.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Section 12(d)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80a) generally prohibits registered investment companies (``funds''),
and companies controlled by funds, from purchasing securities issued by
a registered investment adviser, broker, dealer, or underwriter
(``securities-related businesses''). Rule 12d3-1 ``Exemption of
acquisitions of securities issued by persons engaged in securities
related businesses'' (17 CFR 270.12d3-1) permits a fund to invest up to
five percent of its assets in securities of an issuer deriving more
than fifteen percent of its gross revenues from securities-related
businesses, but a fund may not rely on rule 12d3-1 to acquire
securities of its own investment adviser or any affiliated person of
its own investment adviser.
    A fund may, however, rely on an exemption in rule 12d3-1 to acquire
securities issued by its subadvisers in circumstances in which the
subadviser would have little ability to take advantage of the fund,
because it is not in a position to direct the fund's securities
purchases. The exemption in rule 12d3-1(c)(3) is available if (i) the
subadviser is not, and is not an affiliated person of, an investment
adviser that provides advice with respect to the portion of the fund
that is acquiring the securities, and (ii) the advisory contracts of
the subadviser, and any subadviser that is advising the purchasing
portion of the fund, prohibit them from consulting with each other
concerning securities transactions of the fund, and limit their
responsibility in providing advice with respect to discrete portions of
the fund's portfolio.
    The Commission staff estimates that 3583 portfolios of
approximately 649 fund complexes use the services of one or more
subadvisers. Based on discussions with industry representatives, the
staff estimates that it requires approximately 6 hours to draft and
execute revised subadvisory contracts allowing funds and subadvisers to
rely on the exemptions in rule 17a-10.\1\ The staff assumes that all
existing funds amended their advisory contracts following the adoption
of rule 17a-10 in 2002 that conditioned certain exemptions upon these
contractual alterations, and therefore there is no continuing burden
for those funds.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rules 12d3-1, 10f-3, 17a-10, and 17e-1 require virtually
identical modifications to fund advisory contracts. The Commission
staff assumes that funds would rely equally on the exemptions in
these rules, and therefore the burden hours associated with the
required contract modifications should be apportioned equally among
the four rules.
    \2\ We assume that funds formed after 2002 that intended to rely
on rule 17a-10 would have included the contract provision in their
initial subadvisory contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that
approximately 600 fund portfolios enter into subadvisory agreements
each year.\3\ Based on discussions with industry representatives, the
staff estimates that it will require approximately 3 attorney hours \4\
to draft and execute additional

clauses in new subadvisory contracts in order for funds and subadvisers
to be able to rely on the exemptions in rule 17a-10. Because these
additional clauses are identical to the clauses that a fund would need
to insert in their subadvisory contracts to rely on rules 10f-3, 12d3-
1, and 17e-1, and because we believe that funds that use one such rule
generally use all of these rules, we apportion this 3 hour time burden
equally to all four rules. Therefore, we estimate that the burden
allocated to rule 17a-10 for this contract change would be 0.75
hours.\5\ Assuming that all 600 funds that enter into new subadvisory
contracts each year make the modification to their contract required by
the rule, we estimate that the rule's contract modification requirement
will result in 450 burden hours annually, with an associated cost of
approximately $131,400.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The use of subadvisers has grown rapidly over the last
several years, with approximately 600 portfolios that use
subadvisers registering between December 2005 and December 2006.
Based on information in Commission filings, we estimate that 31
percent of funds are advised by subadvisers.
    \4\ The Commission staff's estimates concerning the wage rates
for attorney time are based on salary information for the securities
industry compiled by the Securities Industry Association. The $292
per hour figure for an attorney is from the SIA Report on Management
& Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2006, modified to
account for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account
for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead.
    \5\ This estimate is based on the following calculation (3 hours
/ 4 rules = .75 hours).
    \6\ These estimates are based on the following calculations:
(0.75 hours x 600 portfolios = 450 burden hours); ($292 per hour x
450 hours = $131,400 total cost).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 7, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-2873 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54147-54149]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19319]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78514; File No. SR-BOX-2016-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') Options Facility

August 9, 2016.
    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 July 29, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
adjust certain fees in Section I.B. of the BOX Fee Schedule on the BOX
Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. While changes to the fee
schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the
changes will become operative on August 1, 2016. The text of the
proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to adjust certain fees in Section I.B. of the BOX Fee Schedule.
Exchange Fees
Primary Improvement Order
    Under the tiered fee schedule for Primary Improvement Orders, the
Exchange assesses a per contract execution fee to all Primary
Improvement Order executions initiated by the particular Initiating
Participant. Percentage thresholds are calculated on a monthly basis by
totaling the Initiating Participant's Primary Improvement Order volume
submitted to BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in
multiply-listed options classes. The Exchange proposes to adjust the
fee assessed in Tier 5. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to reduce
the fee to $0.02 from $0.05. The Exchange notes that it is not
proposing any changes to the percentage thresholds and the quantity
submitted will continue to be calculated on a monthly basis by totaling
the Initiating Participant's Primary Improvement Order volume submitted
to BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-
listed options classes.
BOX Volume Rebate (``BVR'')
    Next, the Exchange proposes to adjust a rebate within the BVR.
Under the BVR, the Exchange offers a tiered per contract rebate for all
PIP Orders and COPIP orders of 100 contracts and under. Percentage
thresholds are calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the
Participant's PIP and COPIP volume submitted to BOX, relative to the
total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes. The
Exchange proposes to increase the rebate in Tier 5 for PIP Orders to
$0.12 from $0.10. The Exchange notes that it is not proposing any
changes to the percentage thresholds and the quantity submitted will
continue to be calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the
Participant's PIP and COPIP volume submitted to BOX, relative to the
total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that reducing the Primary Improvement Order
fee to $0.02 for Initiating Participants who reach Tier 5 is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The reduced fee
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is available to all
BOX Options Participants that initiate Auction Transactions, and they
may choose whether or not to take advantage of the discounted fees. The
Exchange believes that the proposed fee remains reasonable and
competitive when compared to the auction transaction fees on other
exchanges.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Comparative fees at other exchanges range from $0.05 to
$0.20. See Section IV of the Phlx Pricing Schedule entitled ``PIXL
Pricing''; International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') Schedule of
Fees, Section I. Regular Order Fees and Rebates ``Select Symbols.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed change to the BVR in
Section I.B. of the BOX Fee Schedule is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The BVR was adopted to attract Public Customer
order flow to the Exchange by offering these Participants incentives to
submit their PIP and COPIP Orders to the Exchange and the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to now amend a specific rebate within the
BVR. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to amend the BVR, as all Participants have the ability
to qualify for a rebate, and rebates are provided equally to qualifying
Participants at each tier. Finally, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable and appropriate to continue to provide incentives for Public
Customers, which will result in greater liquidity and ultimately
benefit all Participants trading on the Exchange. Other exchanges
employ similar incentive programs;\7\ and the Exchange believes that
the proposed change is reasonable and competitive when compared to
incentive fees at other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Section B of the PHLX Pricing Schedule entitled
``Customer Rebate Program;'' ISE Gemini's Qualifying Tier Thresholds
(page 6 of the ISE Gemini Fee Schedule); and CBOE's Volume Incentive
Program (VIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is simply
proposing to amend certain fees and rebates for Auction Transactions
within the BOX Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes that the volume
based rebates and fees increase intermarket and intramarket competition
by incenting Participants to direct their order flow to the exchange,
which benefits all participants by providing more trading opportunities
and improves competition on the Exchange.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \8\ and

Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\9\ because it establishes or changes a
due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2016-38 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2016-38. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 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-BOX-2016-38, and should be
submitted on or before September 6, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19319 Filed 8-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 177 (Monday, September 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55077]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23072]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R06-RCRA 2015-0070; FRL-9933-78-Region 6]

Louisiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Louisiana has applied to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for Final authorization of the changes to its
hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant Final authorization to the State of
Louisiana. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by direct final rule. EPA did
not make a proposal prior to the direct final rule because we believe
this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose
it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in the
preamble to the direct final rule. Unless we get written comments which
oppose this authorization during the comment period, the direct final
rule will become effective 60 days after publication and we will not
take further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that
oppose this action, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will
not take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later
final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity
for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at
this time.

DATES: Send your written comments by October 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
RCRA-2015-0070, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization
Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Alima
Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal
Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,
EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or email. Direct your
comment to Docket No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2015-0070. The Federal
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to the EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. You can view and
copy Louisiana's application and associated publicly available
materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday at the
following locations: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 602
N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2178, phone number (225)
219-3559 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,
phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two
weeks in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O),
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>) and Email address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the
direct final published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register.

    Dated: August 21, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-23072 Filed 9-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P