[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31159-31163]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10526]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1044; Project Identifier AD-2023-00593-T;
Amendment 39-22436; AD 2023-09-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-18-
09, which applied to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes;
and Model C-130A, HP-C-130A, EC-130Q, C-130B, and C-130H airplanes. AD
2019-18-09 required a visual inspection of the center wing upper and
lower rainbow fittings for cracks, an eddy current inspection of the
center wing

lower rainbow fittings for cracks, and replacement if necessary. This
AD was prompted by an analysis of reported cracks showing repetitive
inspections are needed to adequately address cracked inner tangs of the
center wing lower rainbow fittings. This AD requires repetitive
inspections of the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings for
cracks and replacement if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 31, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 31,
2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
October 11, 2019 (84 FR 50730, September 26, 2019).
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by June 30, 2023.

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 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.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-1044; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S
Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 770-494-
5445; email [email protected].
     You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-1044.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Caplan, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, East Certification Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2019-18-09, Amendment 39-19736 (84 FR 50730,
September 26, 2019) (AD 2019-18-09), for all Lockheed Martin
Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (Lockheed) Model 382,
382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes; and Model C-130A, HP-C-130A, EC-
130Q, and C-130B airplanes. AD 2019-18-09 required a visual inspection
of the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings for cracks, an eddy
current inspection of the center wing lower rainbow fittings for
cracks, and replacement if necessary. AD 2019-18-09 was prompted by
reports of cracked inner tangs of the center wing lower rainbow
fittings. The FAA issued AD 2019-18-09 to address such cracks, which
could result in failure of the center wing lower rainbow fittings, wing
separation, and loss of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2019-18-09 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2019-18-09, Lockheed Martin Corporation/
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company has notified the FAA of cracks
found on military airplanes of similar type design to the affected
airplanes of AD 2019-18-09. The FAA reviewed Lockheed's analysis of
these reported cracks and concurs with Lockheed's finding that
repetitive inspections are needed for the airplanes identified in AD
2019-18-09 in order to adequately address cracked inner tangs of the
center wing lower rainbow fittings. Each tang (node) contains a single
attachment bolt to the outer wing. If tangs fail, the rainbow fitting
may not be able to carry limit load and the rainbow fitting may fail.
This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the center
wing lower rainbow fittings, wing separation, and loss of the airplane.
    Also, since the FAA issued AD 2019-18-09, the FAA has determined
that Model C-130H airplanes are also affected by this unsafe condition.
Therefore, that airplane model has been added to applicability in
paragraph (c)(2)(viii) of this AD.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in
other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Alert Service
Bulletin A382-57-98, Revision 2, dated February 14, 2023. This service
information specifies procedures for repetitive visual inspections of
the left and right center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings for
cracks, repetitive eddy current inspections of the center wing lower
rainbow fittings for cracks, and replacement if necessary.
    This AD also requires Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Alert
Service Bulletin A382-57-98, Revision 1, dated August 16, 2019, which
the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by
reference as of October 11, 2019 (84 FR 50730, September 26, 2019).
    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.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information already described, except as discussed under ``Differences
Between this AD and the Service Information.''

Explanation of Change To Type Certificate Holder Name

    The FAA has revised the reference to the type certificate holder's
name specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this AD to identify the type
certificate holder's name as published in the most recent type
certificate data sheet for the affected models.

Impact on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    In light of the heavy reliance on aviation for intrastate
transportation in Alaska, the FAA fully considered the effects of this
AD (including costs to be borne by affected operators) from the
earliest possible stages of AD development. This AD is based on those
considerations, and was developed with regard to minimizing the
economic impact on operators to the extent possible, consistent with
the safety objectives of this AD. In any event, the Federal Aviation
Regulations require operators to correct an unsafe condition identified
on an airplane to ensure operation of that airplane in an airworthy
condition. The FAA has

determined in this case that the requirements are necessary and the
indirect costs would be outweighed by the safety benefits of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Alert Service Bulletin A382-57-
98, Revision 1, dated August 16, 2019; and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company Alert Service Bulletin A382-57-98, Revision 2, dated February
14, 2023; specify that, for certain airplanes, Service Bulletin 382-57-
97, or the results of a Lockheed Martin Operational Usage Evaluation
(OUE) should be used to determine the number of flight hours on the
center wing lower rainbow fittings. This AD does not allow the use of
Service Bulletin 382-57-97 or the OUE to determine the number of flight
hours because they have not been approved by the FAA. If operators are
unable to determine the number of flight hours on the center wing lower
rainbow fittings, they must do the actions required by this AD within
30 days as specified in paragraphs (h) and (j) of this AD.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because cracked inner tangs of the center wing lower rainbow fittings
could result in failure of the center wing lower rainbow fittings, wing
separation, and loss of the airplane. Further, based upon the age of
the fleet, it is likely that some airplanes may be beyond the
thresholds specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Thus, the compliance
time for the required action is shorter than the time necessary for the
public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly,
notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and
contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and
comment.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1044 and Project Identifier
AD-2023-00593-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Fred
Caplan, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, East Certification
Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-
474-5507; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA
receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment,
RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 36 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections (retained actions      16 work-hours x $85              $0  $1,360 per           $48,960 per
 from AD 2019-18-09).               per hour = $1,360                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
Repetitive Inspections (new        16 work-hours x $85               0  1,360 per            48,960 per
 proposed action).                  per hour = $1,360                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacement that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...................................  740 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $15,000         $77,900
                                                 $62,900.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-18-09, Amendment 39-19736
(84 FR 50730, September 26, 2019); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2023-09-13 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company: Amendment 39-22436; Docket No. FAA-2023-1044; Project
Identifier AD-2023-00593-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 31, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2019-18-09, Amendment 39-19736 (84 FR 50730,
September 26, 2019) (AD 2019-18-09).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes.
    (2) The airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (x)
of this AD, type certificated in the restricted category.
    (i) LeSEA Model C-130A airplanes, Type Certificate Data Sheet
(TCDS) A34SO, Revision 1.
    (ii) T.B.M., Inc., (transferred from Central Air Services, Inc.)
Model C-130A airplanes, TCDS A39CE, Revision 3.
    (iii) Western International Aviation, Inc., Model C-130A
airplanes, TCDS A33NM.
    (iv) USDA Forest Service Model C-130A airplanes, TCDS A15NM,
Revision 4.
    (v) Snow Aviation International, Inc., Model C-130A airplanes,
TCDS TQ3CH, Revision 1.
    (vi) International Air Response (transferred from Rogers
Helicopters, Inc., and Heavylift Helicopters, Inc.) Model C-130A
airplanes, TCDS A31NM, Revision 3.
    (vii) Hawkins & Powers Aviation, Inc., Model HP-C-130A
airplanes, TCDS A30NM, Revision 1.
    (viii) Coulson Aviation (USA), Inc., Model EC-130Q airplanes and
Model C-130H airplanes, TCDS T00019LA, Revision 4.
    (ix) Lockheed-Georgia Company Model 282-44A-05 (C-130B)
airplanes, TCDS A5SO.
    (x) Surplus Model C-130A airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an analysis of reported cracks showing
repetitive inspections are needed to adequately address cracked
inner tangs of the center wing lower rainbow fittings. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address such cracks. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in failure of the center wing lower rainbow
fittings, wing separation, and loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspections With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2019-18-09, with revised service information. Except as specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD: Before the accumulation of 15,000 flight
hours on the lower center wing rainbow fitting, or within 30 days
after October 11, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-18-09),
whichever occurs later, do the inspections required by paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Alert Service
Bulletin A382-57-98, Revision 1, dated August 16, 2019; or Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Alert Service Bulletin A382-57-98,
Revision 2, dated February 14, 2023. If any cracks are found during
any inspection required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD,
replace the rainbow fitting before further flight.
    (1) Do a visual inspection of the center wing upper and lower
rainbow fittings for any cracks.
    (2) Do an eddy current inspection of the center wing lower
rainbow fittings for any cracks.

(h) Retained Compliance Time Exception for Paragraph (g) of This AD
With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the exception specified in paragraph (h)
of AD 2019-18-09, with no changes. For any airplane on which the
number of flight hours on the lower rainbow fitting cannot be
determined for paragraph (g) of this AD: Do the inspections required
by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD within 30 days after October
11, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-18-09).

(i) New Repetitive Inspections

    Except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD: Within 5,000
flight hours after accomplishing the inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the inspections specified in
paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this AD, in

accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company Alert Service Bulletin A382-57-98, Revision 2,
dated February 14, 2023. Repeat the inspections thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight hours. If any crack is found
during any inspection required by paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of this
AD, replace the rainbow fitting before further flight.
    (1) Do a visual inspection of the left and right center wing
upper and lower rainbow fittings for any crack.
    (2) Do an eddy current inspection of the left and right center
wing lower rainbow fittings for any crack.

(j) Compliance Time Exception for Paragraph (i) of This AD

    For any airplane on which the number of flight hours on the
lower rainbow fitting cannot be determined for paragraph (i) of this
AD: Do the inspections required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this
AD within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(k) No Report

    Although Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Alert Service
Bulletin A382-57-98, Revision 1, dated August 16, 2019; and Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Alert Service Bulletin A382-57-98,
Revision 2, dated February 14, 2023; specify to report inspection
findings, this AD does not require any report.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
October 11, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-18-09) using
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Alert Service Bulletin A382-57-
98, dated August 9, 2019.

(m) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the airplane to a location where the
airplane can be modified, provided no more than two tangs (nodes)
are found cracked during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or
(i) of this AD.

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (o)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by a Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company Designated Engineering Representative (DER) that
has been authorized by the Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, to make
those findings. To be approved, the repair, modification deviation,
or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (k) of this AD, if any service information contains steps
that are identified as RC, those steps, including substeps under an
RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to
comply with this AD; any steps that are not identified as RC are
recommended. Those steps 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 steps and tests identified as RC
can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps, including substeps
under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step,
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(o) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Fred Caplan,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, East Certification Branch,
FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-
5507; email: [email protected].
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (p)(5) and (6) of this AD.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
May 31, 2023.
    (i) Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Alert Service Bulletin
A382-57-98, Revision 2, dated February 14, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 11, 2019 (84 FR 50730, September 26, 2019).
    (i) Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Alert Service Bulletin
A382-57-98, Revision 1, dated August 16, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S Cobb
Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 9, 2023.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-10526 Filed 5-12-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30215-30216]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12069]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72190; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Commentary .02
to NYSE Amex Options Rule 960NY in Order to Extend the Penny Pilot in
Options Classes in Certain Issues Through December 31, 2014

May 20, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on May 14, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .02 to NYSE Amex Options
Rule 960NY in order to extend the Penny Pilot in options classes in
certain issues (``Pilot Program'') previously approved by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') through December
31, 2014. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange hereby proposes to amend Commentary .02 to Exchange
Rule 960NY to extend the time period of the Pilot Program,\4\ which is
currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2014, through December 31,
2014. The Exchange also proposes that the dates to replace issues in
the Pilot Program that have been delisted be revised to the second
trading day following July 1, 2014.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71163 (December 20,
2013), 78 FR 79049 (December 27, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-104).
    \5\ The month immediately preceding a replacement class's
addition to the Pilot Program (i.e., June) would not be used for
purposes of the analysis for determining the replacement class.
Thus, a replacement class to be added on the second trading day
following July 1, 2014 would be identified based on The Option
Clearing Corporation's trading volume data from December 1, 2013
through May 31, 2014. The Exchange will announce the replacement
issues to the Exchange's membership through a Trader Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Pilot
Program: all classes currently participating will remain the same and
all minimum increments will remain unchanged. The Exchange believes the
benefits to public customers and other market participants who will be
able to express their true prices to buy and sell options have been
demonstrated to outweigh the increase in quote traffic.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \6\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system. The

Exchange believes that the Pilot Program promotes just and equitable
principles of trade by enabling public customers and other market
participants to express their true prices to buy and sell options. The
proposal to extend the Pilot Program is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system, by allowing the Exchange and the
Commission additional time to analyze the impact of the Pilot Program
while also allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow
with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot
Program and a determination of how the Program should be structured in
the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. The Pilot Program
is an industry wide initiative supported by all other option exchanges.
The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot Program will allow for
continued competition between NYSE Amex Options market participants
trading similar products as their counterparts on other exchanges,
while at the same time allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for
order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the
Pilot Program.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, 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 \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.\12\
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the 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. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \14\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEMKT-2014-47 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-NYSEMKT-2014-47. 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 Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549 on business days between the hours of 10 a.m.
and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection
and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its Internet Web site
at www.nyse.com. 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-
NYSEMKT-2014-47 and should be submitted on or before June 17, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12069 Filed 5-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 63167-63168]
[DOCID:fr14oc10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-95-244; Docket No. EL00-98-228]

San Diego Gas and Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and
Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent
System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange;
Investigation of Practices of the California Independent System
Operator and the California Power Exchange Corporation; Notice of
Filing

October 6, 2010.
    Take notice that on October 6, 2010, the California Power Exchange
Corporation filed supplemental information to its May 4, 2010 refund
compliance report, which was filed pursuant to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's November 20, 2008 Order on Rehearing and
Motions for Clarification and Accounting, 125 FERC ] 61,214.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 27, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25795 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 185 (Thursday, September 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57564-57566]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 924

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1200

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2014-0032]

Retrospective Regulatory Review--State Safety Plan Development
and Reporting

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of regulatory review.

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

SUMMARY: Consistent with Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review, and in particular its emphasis on burden-
reduction and on retrospective analysis of existing rules, a Request
for Comments was published on November 28, 2014, to solicit input on
State highway safety plan development and reporting requirements, which
specifically refers to the development of the State Highway Safety Plan
(HSP) and Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), and the reporting
requirements of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and HSP.
Thirty-eight unique letters were received and this document provides a
summary of the input from these letters. Given the lack of support for
any significant changes in the highway safety plan development and
reporting requirements, neither the FHWA nor NHTSA will change the HSP
or SHSP development requirements nor change the HSIP or HSP reporting
requirements at this time. However, the FHWA and NHTSA will consider
the valuable information offered in the responses to inform the
agencies' decisions on their respective highway safety programs.

DATES: September 24, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the program
discussed herein, contact Melonie Barrington, FHWA Office of Safety,
(202) 366-8029, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Barbara
Sauers, NHTSA Office of Regional Operations and Program Delivery, (202)
366-0144, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions,
please contact Mr. William Winne, Attorney-Advisor, FHWA Office of the
Chief Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or Jin H. Kim, Attorney-Advisor, NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel,
(202) 366-1834, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    This document, all comments, and the request for comments notice
may be viewed on line through the Federal eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. The docket identification number is FHWA-2014-
0032. The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, or labor union). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19476), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Request for Comments

    On November 28, 2014, FHWA and NHTSA published a Request for
Comments at 79 FR 70914 soliciting input on actions FHWA and NHTSA
could take to address potentially duplicative State highway safety
planning and reporting requirements in order to streamline and
harmonize these programs, to the extent possible, in view of the
separate statutory authority and focus of the two programs.
    The FHWA's HSIP and NHTSA's State Highway Safety Grant Programs
share a common goal--to save lives on our Nation's roadways--and have
three common performance measures. These programs have complementary
but distinctly different focus areas and administrative and operational
procedures and requirements. The FHWA's HSIP primarily addresses
infrastructure-related projects and strategies. The NHTSA's State
Highway Safety Grant Programs primarily focus on driver behavior
projects and strategies. One notable distinction is that the statute
governing the NHTSA grant program requires State highway safety
activities to be under the direct auspices of the Governor. In contrast
to the NHTSA grant program, the HSIP is administered by the State
Department of Transportation.
    Both the HSIP projects and the HSP must be coordinated with the
SHSP and both programs contribute to the goals and objectives of the
SHSP, but they do so in different ways based on different statutory
authority.
    The funding for individual project and strategy implementation is
contained in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program for the
HSIP and the annual HSP for NHTSA's State Highway Safety Grant
Programs. Following the implementation period, the State then reports
on progress to implement the projects and strategies and the extent to
which they contribute to achieving the State's safety goals and
targets. The HSIP report is submitted to FHWA by August 31st each year,
while the HSP report is submitted to NHTSA by the end of each calendar
year.

Summary of Responses

    The FHWA received comments from 28 State DOT representatives, 7
State Offices of Highway Safety (or similar-named agencies), and 5
associations. The following sections indicate the specific question as
stated in the Request for Comments and provide a summary of the
associated docket comments.

How do State offices currently collect and report data to FHWA and
NHTSA? Are any elements of those information collections or reports
duplicative? If yes, what are those duplicative requirements and are
there ways to streamline them?

    The responses indicated that the means for collecting and reporting
data are unique and often tailored by each State. Several States use a
combination of national reporting databases, such as the Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS), and their own database(s)
specifically developed for their State. According to the Governor's
Highway Safety Association (GHSA), most States have created
comprehensive, tailored, complex programs that capture the most
reliable, relevant data for their own requirements. Many States
indicated that data was collected by various departments, yet was
available to other

State agencies as part of the coordination efforts to use the same data
for reporting efforts. Michigan DOT, for example, stated that the
departments responsible for data collection and reporting have
structured themselves so efforts for FHWA and NHTSA are not
duplicative. Ten State DOTs (Arizona, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin) and
the GHSA acknowledged that there is some duplication between the base
data and crash trend analysis requirements for HSIP and HSP reporting
purposes, yet they indicated that it was not significant and therefore
was not a reason to change the reporting requirements.
    Connecticut, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island DOTs, as well as
the Minnesota and Washington State Highway Safety Offices stated that
reporting on three safety performance measures (number and rate of
fatalities, number of severe injuries) was potentially duplicative.
Those three performance measures are currently part of the HSP and are
proposed for inclusion in the HSIP as noted in NPRM RIN 2125-AF56.
Though there is some duplication in reporting, several States,
including Missouri and Oregon DOTs, the Arizona Governor's Office of
Highway Safety, the California Office of Traffic Safety, and the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) indicated that each report serves a different purpose, and
therefore should remain separate. While each report focuses on the
efforts of its program, these reports support the overall safety
efforts described in the SHSP.
    Alaska and Washington State DOTs indicated that behavioral
questions on the HSIP online reporting tool are duplicative of HSP
reporting requirements. The FHWA would like to clarify that only funds
programed and obligated for HSIP projects should be reported in the
HSIP online reporting tool.
    Regarding streamlining, Delaware, Kentucky, Montana, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin DOT as well as the GHSA specifically stated
that streamlining efforts should not be pursued, because duplication is
minimal and efforts to change the reporting process would likely
increase costs and administrative burden. Some States did offer
suggestions for streamlining; the AASHTO, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode
Island, and Texas DOTs suggested aligning the reporting periods and
submission deadlines for HSIP and HSP reports. The HSP is by statute
due to NHTSA by July 1 of each year and a report due December 31. The
HSIP annual report is, by regulation, due August 31. The Connecticut
DOT, Utah Highway Safety Office, and Washington Traffic Safety
Commission suggested that there be a common performance measure
reporting tool for both agencies.
    As indicated by the responses, data collection is unique to each
State. States have developed partnerships and working agreements that
allow the collection of data necessary for State highway safety
planning. Although a few States indicate there is some repetition in
reporting, the majority believe the reports should remain separate.
Changes to this process would not provide efficiencies or improve the
current practices.

Are there any changes FHWA and NHTSA should make to the HSIP and the
HSP reporting processes to reduce burdens from duplicative reporting
requirements, improve safety outcomes, and promote greater coordination
among State agencies responsible for highway safety, consistent with
the underlying statutory authority of these two grant programs?

    Fourteen State DOTs, four State Offices of Highway Safety, and one
association suggested that the existing processes remain unchanged.
Only Vermont DOT supported consolidating the HSP for NHTSA and the HSIP
for FHWA into a single report. Although Vermont DOT's comment does not
specify, FHWA and NHTSA assume that Vermont is referring to the HSP
report and the HSIP report. The remainder of the comments on this
question suggested minor modifications to the existing processes. New
York's State DOT and Governor's Traffic Safety Committee suggested that
the plans be combined, yet the reporting remains separate. Eight
commenters, including AASHTO, GHSA, Connecticut, Montana, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania DOTs suggested that the reports
be submitted biannually (every 2 years) rather than annually. Alaska,
Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas DOTs suggested that the reporting
periods and deadlines be aligned between the two reports to reduce
burdens and conserve resources.
    Rhode Island DOT further suggested that the submission requirements
for the HSIP report, HSP and HSP report be the same and that the HSP
and HSP report be consolidated. Wisconsin DOT also suggested
eliminating duplicate information between the previous fiscal year
report and the upcoming fiscal year application for the HSP and HSP
report. Rhode Island and Texas DOT suggested improvements related to
the HSIP online reporting tools, and creating an online reporting tool
for the HSP. Pennsylvania recommended a uniform online reporting format
for common performance measures.
    To ensure that the HSIP and HSP are being implemented as intended
and their programs are achieving their purpose, FHWA and NHTSA will
continue to require yearly reporting. However, due to the limited
interest in aligning the deadlines of these two reports, the FHWA and
NHTSA will not pursue that action. The FHWA and NHTSA will continue to
identify opportunities to streamline the reporting and planning process
and explore providing additional guidance to assist States in
coordinating their safety plans. The FHWA realizes the importance of
the online reporting tool and will continue to solicit input on system
enhancements from users. The NHTSA is considering developing an online
tool for the HSP and HSP report in the future.

Would States prefer to combine plans and reports for the HSIP and HSP
into a single report for FHWA and NHTSA? Would States find a single
report useful for these complementary but distinctly different
programs?

    Only Vermont suggested combining the HSIP and HSP reports. Twenty-
five State DOTs, five State offices of Highway Safety, and three
associations (92 percent of the responders) expressed disagreement with
combining the plans and reports for HSIP and HSP into a single report.
Commenters indicated that combining the reports would lead to
increasing the burdens on the States due to more layers of review and
approval, thus increasing cost and additional time requirements for
coordination above and beyond what is needed. Some States indicated
that a combined document would be more difficult to interpret by the
intended audiences and that it would also likely increase the review
time by FHWA and NHTSA thus potentially delaying program funding and
implementation. Based on the overwhelming response against combining
the plans and reports, the current planning and reporting structure
will be maintained.

Are there any State legal or organizational barriers to combining plans
and reports for the HSIP and HSP to FHWA and NHTSA? To what extent does
the location of the State recipient of the Federal funds from FHWA and
NHTSA, within the State's organizational structure, add to or reduce
the burdens of consolidated plan development or reporting?

    While there was quite strong opposition to combining the HSIP and
HSP reports, only eight commenters (Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington
State DOTs and California, Minnesota, and Washington Offices of Highway
Safety, AASHTO and GHSA) indicated that there were organizational
barriers to combining the plans and reports. Washington Traffic Safety
Commission indicated that combining more reports with Washington State
DOT would be an additional burden due to the differences in
organizational structure between the two independent agencies.
California Office of Traffic Safety indicated that California's
organizational structure would make it difficult to combine the plans.
Five State DOTs and three State offices of Highway Safety did not
specifically state that there were legal or organizational barriers,
yet some provided comments indicating how the agencies within the State
already work together or comments against combining the plans due to
the additional coordination/approval process that would be required
beyond what is already being done. Wisconsin DOT stated that ``efforts
to combine reporting would be cumbersome, time-consuming, disruptive,
and costly.'' Fourteen State DOTs and one State Office of Highway
Safety specifically indicated that there were no legal or
organizational barriers to combining the plans and reports. However,
several commenters, including Alaska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and
Missouri DOTs acknowledged combining plans or reports would be
burdensome and not add any efficiencies or improvements to the process.
Furthermore, combining plans would also be unproductive as the SHSP is
the State's comprehensive highway safety plan and already coordinates
highway safety efforts and builds consensus on safety goals and
strategies. These efforts are then implemented though the HSIP and HSP.
The responses on organizational or State legal barriers to combining
plans or reports further indicates there is not support or a strong
desire for a change to the current processes.

Are there SHSP requirements with higher costs than benefits? If so,
what are those requirements and are there ways to improve them or
should they be eliminated?

    Nineteen State DOTs and 4 State Offices of Highway Safety indicated
that the SHSP costs do not outweigh the benefits. Responding to ways to
improve or eliminate requirements, the Arizona Governor's Office of
Highway Safety indicated that requirements related to data collection
in general have higher costs than benefits which can essentially reduce
the State's ability to satisfy other requirements under MAP-21.
    Oregon DOT suggested that FHWA consider eliminating the individual
strategy evaluation requirement, and instead focus on data collection
to evaluate overall performance on key transportation safety metrics
such as fatal and injury crashes over an extended period. The FHWA
would like to clarify that evaluation of individual SHSP strategies is
not an SHSP requirement; rather State's should assess whether the
strategies are being implemented as planned, and review their progress
in meeting SHSP goals and objectives, such as reductions in the number
of fatalities and serious injuries. Both AASHTO, through its
discussions with member States, and GHSA indicated that over time the
SHSP principles and process have been embraced and integrated by the
State DOTs and Highway Safety Offices, resulting in a safety culture
through the planning and programming processes. The AASHTO cautioned
against the promulgation of additional guidance on reporting that could
disrupt the existing working arrangements and reporting systems
currently in place. Similarly, GHSA indicated that because the SHSP
process has been incorporated into the planning process already, there
were not likely to be improvements that would greatly reduce costs.

Are there changes FHWA should make to the SHSP guidance to promote
coordination among State agencies responsible for highway safety?

    Very few commenters provided input related to changes that FHWA
should make to the SHSP guidance to promote coordination among State
agencies responsible for highway safety. The AASHTO indicated that it
would not object to guidance that may encourage State agencies to
collaborate and coordinate in the further development of their safety
plans, but that any additional mandates to require the collaboration
and coordination is unwarranted. Iowa DOT suggested FHWA provide a
template for a memorandum of understanding or other type of agreement
to institutionalize the collaborative process which outlines the shared
and separate responsibilities included in the development of a State's
SHSP. Oregon DOT indicated that the current requirements are
sufficient, yet there is no enforcement mechanism in place requiring
all parties to participate with the FHWA and NHTSA funded State
agencies, which are compelled by financing to work together. Rhode
Island DOT suggested that FHWA mandate States to designate a full-time
employee as the State's SHSP Program Coordinator. The FHWA in
coordination with NHTSA will promote noteworthy practices on
collaboration and coordination of safety stakeholders in the
development and implementation of the SHSP. The FHWA will continue to
endorse flexibility in how the States choose to develop their SHSP and
HSIP in accordance with MAP-21.

Conclusion

    Given the lack of support from State DOTs and Offices of Highway
Safety for significant change in the highway safety plan development
and reporting requirements process, FHWA and NHTSA will retain the
current State highway safety plan development and reporting
requirements. The DOT will use the valuable information offered in the
responses to streamline and harmonize FHWA and NHTSA highway safety
programs.

    Issued on: September 8, 2015.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-24154 Filed 9-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-22-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30661-30662]
[FR Doc No: E9-15108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending June 6, 2009

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2004-17315.
    Date Filed: June 1, 2009.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: June 22, 2009.
    Description: Application of Cargojet Airways, Ltd. (``Cargojet'')
requesting the Department amend and renew its exemption authority, and
issue it a foreign air carrier permit, authorizing it to engage in: (1)
Foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons,

property and mail from points behind Canada, via Canada and
intermediate points, to a point or points in the United States and
beyond; (2) foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of
property and mail between any point or points in the United States and
any other point or points; and (3) other charter operations. Cargojet
also requests a statement of authorization to conduct intermodal cargo
service between any U.S. point and any other U.S. point.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Alternate Federal
Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E9-15108 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42493-42494]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17627]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9699-9]

Proposed Consent Decree Relating to the New Source Performance
Standards for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with of the Clean Air Act, as amended (``Act''),
notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to settle an action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Environmental Defense Fund v. Jackson, Case No. 11 Civ. 04492
(KBF) ECF Case) alleging that EPA failed to perform its obligations
under the Act as they relate to the new source performance standards
(``NSPS'') for municipal solid waste landfills (``MSW Landfills''). The
Act requires EPA to review, and if appropriate, revise NSPS not later
than 8 years after their promulgation unless EPA determines that such
review is not appropriate in light of readily available information on
the efficacy of the standard. Under the terms of the proposed consent
decree, EPA agrees that: (1) By May 1, 2013, EPA shall: (i) Perform an
appropriate review and sign for publication one or a combination of the
following: (A) a proposed rule containing revisions to the MSW
Landfills NSPS; or (B) a proposed determination not to revise the MSW
Landfills NSPS; or (ii) sign for publication a determination that
review is not appropriate; and, (2) if EPA signs a proposed rule or a
proposed determination, then no later than May 1, 2014, sign one or a
combination of the following: (i) A final rule containing revisions to
the MSW Landfills NSPS, based on appropriate review; or, (ii) a final
determination not to revise the MSW Landfills NSPS, based on an
appropriate review.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by August 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2012-0490, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket

Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in
Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form
of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard H. Vetter, Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, at Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
Policies and Program Division (D205-01) 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
(919) 541-4991; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    This proposed consent decree would potentially resolve a law suit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
by the Environmental Defense Fund EDF). EDF alleges that EPA failed to
perform its obligations under section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 42
U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B), as they relate to the new source performance
standards (``NSPS'') for municipal solid waste landfills (``MSW
Landfills''), 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.750--60.759).
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires EPA to review, and if
appropriate, revise NSPS not later than 8 years after their
promulgation unless EPA determines that such review is not appropriate
in light of readily available information on the efficacy of the
standard. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA agrees
that: (1) By May 1, 2013, EPA shall: (i) Perform an appropriate review
and sign for publication one or a combination of the following: (A) a
proposed rule containing revisions to NSPS Subpart WWW; or (B) a
proposed determination not to revise NSPS Subpart WWW; or (ii) sign for
publication a determination that review is not appropriate; and, (2) if
EPA signs a proposed rule or a proposed determination, then no later
than May 1, 2014, sign one or a combination of the following: (i) A
final rule containing revisions to NSPS Subpart WWW, based on
appropriate review; or, (ii) a final determination not to revise
Subpart WWW, based on an appropriate review.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines, based on any comment submitted, that consent to
this proposed consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the
consent decree will be affirmed and the consent decree will be
submitted for entry by the court.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0490) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: July 5, 2012.
Patricia A. Embrey,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-17627 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P