1 Small entities are defined as small businesses, small governments, and non profits that are not dominant in their field. Summary Overview for Docket ID No. OPPT 2003 0015 Section 610 Review of the Requirements for Lead Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child Occupied Facilities April 29, 2003 ° What is a Section 610 Review?

The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) generally requires agencies to examine the impact of their proposed and final regulations on small entities. 1 Section 610 of the RFA requires that within ten years of promulgation, the Agency review rules that have or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ( SISNOSE).

° Did EPA certify the Requirements for Lead Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child Occupied Facilities as having a SISNOSE?

No. For EPA rules on which work started after April 9, 1992 and which were issued before February 5, 1997, EPA was operating under a policy which did not require it to designate whether a rule had a SISNOSE and did not use the common certification statement SISNOSE. EPA performed an analysis of the potential impacts on small entities and determined that " this action is likely to have a modest adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." ( August 29, 1996, 61 FR 45778)

° What is the purpose of a Section 610 Review?

The purpose of this review is to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded to lessen any significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. In reviewing rules under section 610 the Agency shall consider, ( 1) the continued need for the rule; ( 2) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public; ( 3) the complexity of the rule; ( 4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules, and to the extent feasible, with State and local Governmental rules; and, ( 5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.

° What do the Requirements for Lead Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child Occupied Facilities state?

In August, 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) promulgated regulations under section 402 of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) to ensure that individuals conducting lead based paint ( LBP) activities in target housing and child occupied facilities are properly trained and certified, that training programs providing instruction in such activities are accredited and that these activities are conducted according to reliable, effective and safe work practice standards. EPA also finalized a Federal regulation under section 404 of Page 2 of 4 TSCA that allows States and Indian Tribes to seek authorization to administer and enforce the regulations developed under section 402 for the training and certification of individuals conducting LBP activities and the accreditation of training programs for LBP activities in 1996 ( August 29, 1996, 61 FR 45778). The TSCA section 404 regulations became effective August 29, 1998. The final rule then provided for an additional phase in period for the requirements for training program accreditation, individual and firm certification, and work practice standards. Regulations for accreditation of training programs became effective on March 1, 1999. Regulations for certification of individuals and firms became fully effective on March 1, 2000.

° How do I obtain more information about the Requirements for Lead Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child Occupied Facilities?

For the Requirements for Lead Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child Occupied Facilities and other rules related to Lead Based Paint, go to http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ lead/ regulation. htm and information on other Lead related information go to http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ lead/ resources. htm.

° How can I submit comments or suggestions for lessening the burden on small entities?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier using one of the following methods. For this action, please DO NOT submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute.

1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. 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. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and 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.

i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select " quick search," and then key in Docket ID No. OPPT 2003 0015. The system is an " anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By Mail. Send your comments to: Document Control Office, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 7407M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OPPT 2003 0015.

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office ( DCO) in EPA East Building Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC., Attention Docket ID No. OPPT 2003 0015. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation. The DCO is open from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is ( 202) 564  8930.

° How can I access other comments or suggestions that have been submitted?

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPPT 2003 0015. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, ( EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1742, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is ( 202) 566 0280.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA

s electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket 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, select " search," then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA

s electronic public docket. EPA

s policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA

s electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA

s electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA

s electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified above. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA

s electronic public docket. Page 4 of 4 For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA

s policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA

s electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA

s electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA

s electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA

s electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA

s electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

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. For this action, please DO NOT submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute.


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

              OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

                                                            PC Code No.: 124871
                                                            DP Barcode:  387358
                                                           Date: April 11, 2011

MEMORANDUM

Subject: 	EFED Risk Assessment for the Proposed IR-4 Use of the Spirodiclofen Product ENVIDOR(R) as an Insecticide on Tropical Fruits

To:	Rita Kumar, RM Reviewer
		John Hebert, RM 07
            Registration Division

From:	Joseph DeCant, Ecologist
		Larry Liu, Ph.D., Chemist
            Environmental Risk Branch V
            Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

Through:	Mah Shamim, Ph.D., Branch Chief
            Environmental Risk Branch V
            Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

The current IR-4 registration requested for the use of the spirodiclofen product ENVIDOR(R) on certain tropical fruits has been reviewed by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED).  The tropical fruits covered under this registration request include acerola, atemoya, biriba, cherimoya, custard apple, feijoa, jaboticaba, guava, ilama, longan, lychee, passionfruit, persimmon, pulasan, rambutan, soursop, Spanish lime, starfruit, sugar apple, wax jambu.  The registrant is seeking a new use of spirodiclofen as an insecticide to control broad mite, carmine spider mite, flat mite, persea mite, sixspotted mite, Texas citrus mite, and twospotted spider mite on these crop areas.  The uses and relevant application information are summarized in Table 1.

The previous assessment for spirodiclofen (DP barcode 300903, 293789, 284995, 309421; completed 3/9/05) and subsequent update memo (DP barcode 317317; completed 8/15/05) can be used in place of a new assessment for the currently proposed rate for the specified tropical fruits.  The previous assessment for tropical fruits (D361042) also relied on this assessment due to lower maximum seasonal application rates for tropical fruits relative to the uses under D300903+.

Table 1. Use information for the proposed use of spirodiclofen as an insectide.  The use in bold represents the new use, whereas the other specified use has been previously assessed.

                                     Uses
                       Single application rate (lb ai/A)
                     Maximum application number per season
         Maximum application rate per season or year (lb ai/A/season)
                              Application methods
Tropical Fruit
(including avocado, black Sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, papaya, sapodilla, star apple)
                                  0.28 - 0.31
                                       1
                                     0.31
                           Airblast, Aerial, Ground
Tropical Fruit
(including acerola, atemoya, biriba, cherimoya, custard apple, feijoa, jaboticaba, guava, ilama, longan, lychee, passionfruit, persimmon, pulasan, rambutan, soursop, Spanish lime, starfruit, sugar apple, wax jambu)
                                  0.28 - 0.31
                                       1
                                     0.31
                           Airblast, Aerial, Ground


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19256-19257]
[FR Doc No: E9-9558]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59804; File No. SR-BX-2009-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Market Maker Obligations

April 21, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 8, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Chapter VI,
Section 6 (Market Maker Quotations) of the BOX Rules to amend certain
Market Maker obligations. 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://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.

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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Chapter VI,
Section 6 (Market Maker Quotations) of the BOX Rules to amend certain
Market Maker obligations. As proposed, the Exchange will amend the
obligations of a Market Maker regarding the Request for Quote (``RFQ'')
process. The new language found in section 6(b) clarifies that within
three seconds of receiving an RFQ that a Market Maker must continuously
maintain, without interruption, a valid two-sided quote for at least
thirty seconds. However, if during that thirty second time span, the
quote becomes invalid,\3\ the Market Maker must as soon as practicable,
but within five seconds, post a valid two sided quote. In addition,
current section 6(d)(ii), which provided for a Market Maker to submit a
quote in the interests of a fair and orderly market when called upon by
Options Official will be removed. Instead, as proposed, section
6(b)(iv) will be used for circumstances where an Options Official
determines, that a Market Maker should be called upon to quote in the
interests of a fair and orderly market. Specifically, this new section
will provide that an Options Official may, whenever on the judgment of
such official, in the interest of a fair and orderly market, call upon
Market Makers to post a quote in the

same manner as if an RFQ was issued by an Options Participant. Options
Participants will receive the message in the same manner whether the
request is issued by a Participant or an Options Official. Similarly, a
Market Maker is required to continuously maintain, without
interruption, a valid two-sided quote for at least thirty seconds.
However, if during that thirty second time span, the quote becomes
invalid, the Market Maker must, as soon as practicable, but within five
seconds post a valid two sided quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ One example of such a circumstance is an execution resulting
from that quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as proposed, section 6(d) will establish quoting
standards based upon a percentage of time measurement. The proposal
will clarify that this section entitled ``continuous quoting'' reflects
quoting parameters based on a daily time measurement. The proposal also
seeks to remove references to series and replace them with class.
Consequently, under the proposal, Market Makers will be required to
submit valid quotes on a daily basis for at least 80% of the time that
a class is open in 90% of their appointed classes. In addition, on a
daily basis, a Market Maker shall post valid quotes at least sixty
percent (60%) of the time in each of its appointed classes during the
time that the class is open for trading. Thus, allowing a Market Maker
to focus their strategy on the entire class to which it was appointed,
rather than implementing a strategy utilizing each series within a
class. This allows a Market Maker, if it chooses, to bring more
liquidity to the more actively traded series, rather than focusing on
series with less activity.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ 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, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Specifically, the proposal will
simplify the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 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
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2009-020 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2009-020. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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 No. SR-BX-2009-020 and should be
submitted on or before May 19, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9558 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22397]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09067]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0269]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Snohomish River and Steamboat
Slough, Everett and Marysville, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the SR 529 Bridges across the Snohomish
River, mile 3.6 near Everett, WA, and the SR 529 Bridges across
Steamboat Slough, mile 1.1, near Marysville, WA. This deviation is
necessary to accommodate the Total Health Events Heroes Half Marathon.
This deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed position to
allow safe movement of event participants.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on
April 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0269] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 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 deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) has requested that the SR 529 Bridges across the
Snohomish River and Steamboat Slough remain closed to vessel traffic to
facilitate safe, uninterrupted roadway passage of participants of the
Total Health Events Heroes Half Marathon. The SR 529 Bridges over the
Snohomish River at mile 3.6 provide 38 feet of vertical clearance above
mean high water elevation while in the closed position. Under normal
conditions these bridges operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1059(c),
which requires advance notification of one-hour when a bridge opening
is needed.
    The SR 529 Bridges over Steamboat Slough at mile 1.1 provide 10
feet of vertical clearance above mean high water elevation while in the
closed position. Under normal conditions these bridges operate in
accordance with 33 CFR 117.1059(g), which requires advance notification
of four hours when a bridge opening is needed. This deviation period is
from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. April 27, 2014. The deviation allows the
SR 529 Bridges crossing the Snohomish River and Steamboat Slough, to
remain in the closed position and not open for maritime traffic from
8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. April 27, 2014. Vessels that do not require a
bridge opening may continue to transit beneath the bridges during this
closure period. The bridges shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR
117.1059 at all other times. Waterway usage on the Snohomish River and
Steamboat Slough includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge
to small pleasure craft. Mariners will be notified and kept informed of
the bridges' operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners
publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate. The
bridges will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in
emergency response operations during this closure period.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to
their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the
designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations
is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 10, 2014.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-09067 Filed 4-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29209-29212]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11094]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6431; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-182-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A318-112 airplanes, A319-111, -112, -115, -132,
and -133 airplanes, A320-214, -232, and -233 airplanes, and A321-211, -
212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a
quality control review on the final assembly line, which determined
that aluminum alloy with inadequate heat treatment had been delivered
and used on several structural parts. This proposed AD would require a
one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin, cargo
compartment, and frame structural parts to determine if aluminum alloy
with inadequate heat treatment was used, and replacement if necessary.
We are proposing this AD to detect and replace structural parts made of
aluminum alloy with inadequate heat treatment. This condition could
result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93
44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6431; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-6431;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-182-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0219, dated November 3, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A318-112 airplanes, A319-111, -112, -115, -132, and -133 airplanes,
A320-214, -232, and -233 airplanes, and A321-211, -212, -213, -231, and
-232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following an Airbus quality control review on the final assembly
line, it was discovered that aluminum alloy with inadequate heat
treatment were delivered by a supplier for several structural parts.
The results of the investigations highlighted that 1% of the stock
could be impacted by this wrong material.
    Structural investigations demonstrated the capability to sustain
the static limits loads, and sufficient fatigue life up to a certain
inspection threshold.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the
aeroplane structural integrity following fatigue load.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1292, SB A320-53-1293, and SB A320-53-
1294 to provide inspection instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time Special Detailed Inspection (SDI) [i.e., eddy current
conductivity measurement] of certain cabin, cargo compartment and
frame parts [for material identification] and, depending on
findings, replacement with serviceable parts.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6431.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information:
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1292, dated July 23, 2015;
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated July 23, 2015.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1293, dated July 30, 2015;
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated July 30, 2015.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1294, dated July 23, 2015;
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated July 23, 2015.
    The service information describes procedures for a one-time eddy
current conductivity measurement of certain cabin, cargo compartment,
and frame structural parts to determine if aluminum alloy with
inadequate heat treatment was used, and replacement of any affected
part with a serviceable part. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 46 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $23,460, or $510
per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-6431; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-
182-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 27, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category;
manufacturer serial numbers 4895, 4903, 4911, 4919, 4929, 4938,
4942, 4944, 4946, 4948, and 4951, 4956 through 5541 inclusive, 5544,
5547, 5550, 5551, 5553, 5556, 5559, 5561, 5562, 5563, 5565, 5566,
5570, 5572, 5576, and 5578.
    (1) Airbus Model A318-112 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -115, -132, and -133 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A320-214, -232, and -233 airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A321-211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a quality control review on the final
assembly line, which determined that aluminum alloy with inadequate
heat treatment had been delivered and used on several structural
parts. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace structural parts
made of aluminum alloy with inadequate heat treatment. This
condition could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) One-time Measurement

    Within 6 years since the date of issuance of the original
certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness: Do a one-time eddy current
conductivity measurement of the cabin, cargo compartment, and frame
structural parts identified in the ``Affected P/N (part number)''
column of tables 1, 2, and 3 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to
determine if aluminum alloy with inadequate heat treatment was used,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and
(g)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For cabin structural parts: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-
1292, dated July 23, 2015; including Appendices 01 and 02, dated
July 23, 2015.
    (2) For cargo compartment structural parts: Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-53-1293, dated July 30, 2015; including Appendices 01
and 02, dated July 30, 2015.
    (3) For frame structural parts: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-
1294, dated July 23, 2015; including Appendices 01 and 02, dated
July 23, 2015.

  Table 1 to Paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD--Parts to be Inspected/
                                Installed
                 [Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1292]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Acceptable
         Affected P/N              replacement P/N            Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D2127245500000................  D2127245500000.......  Cabin
D2127247600200................  D2127247600200.......  Cabin

D2127247600300................  D2127247600300.......  Cabin
D2127399900200................  D2127399900200.......  Cabin
D2127399900300................  D2127399900300.......  Cabin
D2127698900800................  D2127698900800.......  Cabin
D2127698902400................  D2127698902400.......  Cabin
D2527075131200................  D2527075131251.......  Cabin
D2527075131300................  D2527075131351.......  Cabin
D2527075138000................  D2527075138000.......  Cabin
D2527075138100................  D2527075138100.......  Cabin
D2527075138200................  D2527075138200.......  Cabin
D2527075138300................  D2527075138300.......  Cabin
D2527075138600................  D2527075138651.......  Cabin
D2527075138800................  D2527075138851.......  Cabin
D2527240220600................  D2527240220651.......  Cabin
D2527240220700................  D2527240220751.......  Cabin
D2527240220800................  D2527240220851.......  Cabin
D9249591201000................  D9249591201000.......  Cabin
D9249591201800................  D9249591201800.......  Cabin
D9249591227800................  D9249591227851.......  Cabin
D9249591227900................  D9249591227951.......  Cabin
D9249591228000................  D9249591228051.......  Cabin
D9249591228100................  D9249591228151.......  Cabin
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 2 to Paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD--Parts to be Inspected/
                                Installed
                 [Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1293]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Acceptable
         Affected P/N              replacement P/N            Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D2707033520000................  D2707033520000.......  Cargo
D2827027120000................  D2827027120000.......  Cargo
D2827093500400................  D2827093500400.......  Cargo
D2907013701200................  D2907013701251.......  Cargo
D2907013800400................  D2907013800451.......  Cargo
D3247012900000................  D3247012900051.......  Cargo
D3817003820000................  D3817003820000.......  Cargo
D3817012320200................  D3817012320251.......  Cargo
D3837021201600................  D3837021201600.......  Cargo
D3837033300400................  D3837033300400.......  Cargo
D4918518320200................  D4918518320200.......  Cargo
D5347043420400................  D5347043420451.......  Cargo
D9248511000000................  D9248511000051.......  Cargo
D9249254100200................  D9249254100251.......  Cargo
D9249282300000................  D9249282300000.......  Cargo
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 3 to Paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD--Parts to be Inspected/
                                Installed
                 [Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1294]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Acceptable
         Affected P/N              replacement P/N            Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D2827098326800................  D2827098326851.......  Frame
D5347051620600................  D5347051620651.......  Frame
D5347051720600................  D5347051720651.......  Frame
D5347057120000................  D5347057120051.......  Frame
D5347067520600................  D5347067520651.......  Frame
D5347067521400................  D5347067521451.......  Frame
D5347067520800................  D5347067520851.......  Frame
D5347067521000................  D5347067521051.......  Frame
D5347067521600................  D5347067521651.......  Frame
D5347067620600................  D5347067620600.......  Frame
D5347067720200................  D5347067720251.......  Frame
D5347067720400................  D5347067720451.......  Frame
D5347986520200................  D5347986520251.......  Frame
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) Replacement

    If during the measurement required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any affected P/N specified in table 1, 2, or 3 to paragraphs (g) and
(h) of this AD is found to have a measured value greater than that
specified in Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 01, ``Inspection Flowchart,'' of
the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the
affected part with the corresponding acceptable replacement part
specified in table 1, 2, or 3 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and
(g)(3) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA;
or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0219, dated November 3, 2015, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2016-6431.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33
5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 4, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11094 Filed 5-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA Form 5900-188
The government estimates the average time needed to fill out this form is 0.33 hours and welcomes suggestions for reducing this effort. Send comments (referencing OMB Control Number) to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

OMB Control No. 2060-0586


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13592-13593]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05287]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121, 135, and 142

[AC 120-UPRT and AC 120-109A]

Advisory Circular for Upset Prevention and Recovery Training and
Advisory Circular for Stall Prevention and Recovery Training

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

ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed Advisory Circular for Upset
Prevention and Recovery Training and proposed revision to Advisory
Circular for Stall Prevention and Recovery Training, request for
comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is announcing the
availability of proposed Advisory Circulars (AC) 120-UPRT and 120-109A.
AC 120-UPRT provides recommended practices and guidance for academic
and flight simulation training device (FSTD) training for pilots to
prevent developing upset conditions and ensure correct and consistent
recovery responses to upsets. AC 120-109A provides guidance and best
practices for training, testing, and checking for pilots to ensure
correct responses to impending and full stalls.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by AC 120-UPRT or AC 120-109A using
any of the following methods:
     Aviation Safety Draft Document Open for Comment Web site:
Go to http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/afs_ac/ and follow the
online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to 1625 K Street NW., Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20006.
     Fax: Fax comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attn: Susan Hill.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the 1625 K Street NW.,
Suite 300, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robyn LaPorte, Air Transportation
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-
8166; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Background

    These draft ACs provide guidance regarding the new training
requirements contained in the Qualification, Service, and Use of
Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule published November 12,
2013 (FAA Docket FAA-2008-0677).

Advisory Circular 120-UPRT

    The primary goal of this proposed AC is to provide recommended
practices and guidance for academic and flight simulation training
device (FSTD) training for pilots to prevent developing upset
conditions and ensure correct and consistent recovery responses to
upsets. This AC was developed based on a review of recommended
practices developed by major airplane manufacturers, labor
organizations, air carriers, training organizations, simulator
manufacturers, and industry representative organizations. This AC
provides guidance to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part
121 air carriers implementing the regulatory requirements of Sec.
Sec.  121.419, 121.423, 121.424, and 121.427. Core principles of this
AC include:
     Enhanced instructor training on the limitations of
simulation.
     Comprehensive pilot academic training on aerodynamics.
     Early recognition of divergence from intended flight path.
     Upset prevention through improvements in manual handling
skills.
     Progressive intervention strategies for the pilot
monitoring.

Advisory Circular 120-109A

    The primary goal of this proposed AC revision is to provide
guidance and best practices for training, testing, and checking for
pilots to ensure correct responses to impending and full stalls. This
AC was developed based on a review of recommended practices developed
by major airplane manufacturers, labor organizations, air carriers,
training organizations, simulator manufacturers, and industry
representative organizations. Core principles of this Advisory Circular
include:
     Reducing angle of attack is the most important pilot
action in an impending or full stall.
     Pilot training should emphasize teaching the same recovery
technique for impending stalls and full stalls.
     Evaluation criteria for a recovery from an impending stall
should not include a predetermined value for altitude loss. Instead,
criteria should consider the multitude of external and internal
variables which affect the recovery altitude.
     Once the stall recovery procedure is mastered by maneuver-
based training, stall prevention training should include realistic
scenarios that could be encountered in operational conditions,
including impending stalls with the autopilot engaged and at high
altitudes.
     Full stall training should be led by the instructor, but
must allow the pilot to experience the associated flight dynamics and
execute a recovery.
    The agency will consider all comments received by May 12, 2014.
Comments received after that date may be considered if consideration
will not

delay agency action on the review. A copy of the advisory circulars is
available for review at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/afs_ac/.

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 5, 2014.
John S. Duncan,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-05287 Filed 3-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 29172-29173]
[DOCID:fr20my08-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. OST-2007-27407]

National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing
Commission

AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of meeting location and time.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists the location and time of the twelfth and
thirteenth meetings of the National Surface Transportation
Infrastructure Financing Commission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John V. Wells, Chief Economist, U.S.
Department of Transportation,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    By Federal Register Notice dated March 12, 2007, and in accordance
with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (``FACA'')
(5 U.S.C. App. 2) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for

Users (``SAFETEA-LU'') (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144), the U.S.
Department of Transportation (the ``Department'') issued a notice of
intent to form the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure
Financing Commission (the ``Financing Commission''). Section 11142(a)
of SAFETEA-LU established the National Surface Transportation
Infrastructure Financing Commission and charged it with analyzing
future highway and transit needs and the finances of the Highway Trust
Fund and with making recommendations regarding alternative approaches
to financing surface transportation infrastructure.

Notice of Meeting Location and Time

    The Commissioners have agreed to hold their twelfth meeting from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Thursday, June 5, 2008, and their thirteenth
meeting from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. Each of the
meetings will be open to the public and is scheduled to take place at
the offices of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation,
1250 I (``Eye'') Street, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005.
    If you need accommodations because of a disability or require
additional information to attend this meeting, please contact John V.
Wells, Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Transportation, (202) 366-
9224<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on this 14th day of May, 2008.
John V. Wells,
Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Transportation, Designated Federal
Official.
[FR Doc. E8-11185 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 19693]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06784]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97212; File No. 4-698]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Amendment
to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit
Trail, as Modified by Partial Amendment Nos. 1 and 2

March 28, 2023.
    On May 13, 2022, the Operating Committee for Consolidated Audit
Trail, LLC (``CAT LLC''), on behalf of the Participants \1\ to the
National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail
(``CAT NMS Plan''),\2\ filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''),\3\ and Rule 608 of Regulation
NMS thereunder,\4\ a proposed amendment to the CAT NMS Plan (``Proposed
Amendment'') to implement a revised funding model (``Executed Share
Model'') for the consolidated audit trail (``CAT'') and to establish a
fee schedule for Participant CAT fees in accordance with the Executed
Share Model. The Proposed Amendment was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 1, 2022.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Participants are: BOX Exchange LLC, Cboe BYX Exchange,
Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX
Exchange, Inc., Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Investors Exchange
LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc., MEMX LLC, Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC, MIAX Emerald, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, Nasdaq
BX, Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, Nasdaq
PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC,
NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE
National, Inc. (collectively, the ``Participants'').
    \2\ The CAT NMS Plan is a national market system plan approved
by the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 79318 (Nov. 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696 (Nov. 23, 2016). The
CAT NMS Plan functions as the limited liability company agreement of
the jointly owned limited liability company formed under Delaware
state law through which the Participants conduct the activities of
the CAT (``Company''). On August 29, 2019, the Participants replaced
the CAT NMS Plan in its entirety with the limited liability company
agreement of a new limited liability company named Consolidated
Audit Trail, LLC, which became the Company. The latest version of
the CAT NMS Plan is available at https://catnmsplan.com/about-cat/cat-nms-plan.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \4\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94984 (May 25,
2022), 87 FR 33226 (June 1, 2022) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 30, 2022, the Commission instituted proceedings pursuant
to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\6\ to determine whether to
disapprove the Proposed Amendment or to approve the Proposed Amendment
with any changes or subject to any conditions the Commission deems
necessary or appropriate after considering public comment.\7\ On
November 15, 2022, CAT LLC submitted a letter to propose a partial
amendment of the Proposed Amendment (``Partial Amendment No. 1'') and
to respond to the Commission's solicitation of comments in the OIP and
comments received on the OIP.\8\ On November 23, 2022, pursuant to Rule
608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\9\ the Commission extended the period
within which to conclude proceedings regarding the Proposed Amendment
to 240 days from the date of publication of the Notice.\10\ Notice of
the filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 was published for comment in the
Federal Register on December 2, 2022.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95634 (Aug. 30,
2022), 87 FR 54558 (Sept. 6, 2022) (``OIP''). Comments received in
response to the OIP and the Notice can be found on the Commission's
website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/4-698/4-698-a.htm.
    \8\ See Letter from Michael Simon, Chair, CAT NMS Plan Operating
Committee, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission (Nov. 15,
2022).
    \9\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96382 (Nov. 23,
2022), 87 FR 73366 (Nov. 29, 2022).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96394 (Nov. 28,
2022), 87 FR 74183 (Dec. 2, 2022). Comments received in response to
Partial Amendment No. 1 can be found on the Commission's website at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/4-698/4-698-a.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 20, 2023, the Commission extended the period within
which to conclude proceedings regarding the Proposed Amendment to 300
days from the date of publication of the Notice.\12\ On February 15,
2023, CAT LLC submitted a letter to propose an additional partial
amendment to the Proposed Amendment (``Partial Amendment No. 2'') and
to respond to issues discussed in the comments on Partial Amendment No.
1.\13\ The Commission is publishing this notice to reflect that on
March 1, 2023, prior to the end of the 300-day period provided for in
Exchange Act Rule 608(b)(2)(ii),\14\ the Participants withdrew the
Proposed Amendment, as modified by Partial Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96725 (Jan. 20,
2023), 88 FR 5059 (Jan. 26, 2023).
    \13\ See Letter from Michael Simon, Chair Emeritus, CAT NMS Plan
Operating Committee, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission
(Feb. 15, 2023), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/4-698/4-698-a.htm. Because CAT LLC withdrew the Proposed Amendment, as
modified by Partial Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, before the Commission's
15-day deadline in Rule 608(b)(1)(ii) of Regulation NMS to send
notice of the filing of a proposed amendment to any national market
system plan to the Federal Register, the Commission did not publish
notice of the filing of Partial Amendment No. 2. See 17 CFR
242.608(b)(1)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(ii).
    \15\ See Letter from Brandon Becker, Chair, CAT NMS Plan
Operating Committee, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission
(Mar. 1, 2023).

    By the Commission.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-06784 Filed 3-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1Memorandum of November 18, 2002, from Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis, " 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8 hr Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs." This document is available at the following web site: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg/ meta. 442.1.2002baseinv. pdf. 8/ 17/ 05 version FROM PREAMBLE:

3. What baseline year should be required for the emissions inventory for the RFP requirement? [ Section VI. I. 4. of June 2, 2003 proposed rule ( 68 FR 32833); § 51.909 of the draft regulatory text; § 51.910( d) of the final regulatory text.] a. Background The baseline inventory for RFP ( under subpart 2) is used as the starting point for the determination of a target level of emissions for the future year RFP and as the baseline from which creditable reductions are determined. We designated ozone nonattainment areas in April 2004. Under the " Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule" ( 67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) revised emissions inventories are required for the years 2002 and 2005; therefore, we proposed to require use of the 2002 inventory as the baseline inventory for the RFP requirement. This would be the most recent inventory available at the time of designation. We issued a memorandum identifying 2002 as the anticipated emissions inventory base year for the SIP planning process to address the 8 hour ozone and the PM2.5 standards. 1 b. Summary of Final Rule As set forth in our proposed rule, for areas designated nonattainment for the 8 hour ozone NAAQS with an effective date of June 15, 2004, we are requiring States to use the 2002 inventory as the baseline inventory for the RFP requirement. As noted in the proposal, the inventory for the 2002 calendar year would be the most recently available inventory at the time of designation in 2004. However, in response to several comments, we are allowing States the option of justifying the use of an alternative baseline inventory year for RFP. To justify an alternative, the State would have to demonstrate how the alternative year meets the CAA's provisions for RFP and provide a rationale for the use of the alternative baseline year. We believe that for multi State nonattainment areas, the several States must agree on a single baseline. Even if a State chooses an alternative baseline inventory year for RFP, 2002 remains the valid baseline year for transportation conformity purposes as described in 40 CFR 93.119. This use of 2002 as a baseline year is consistent with the Clean Air Act requirements for transportation conformity. The baseline emissions inventory is calculated as of the 2E. g., where the effective date of designation to nonattainment for an area for the 8 hour ozone NAAQS is after June 1, 2007 but before June 1, 2010, the baseline inventory will be for calendar year 2005. effective date of an area's nonattainment designation using the most recent calendar year for which a complete inventory is required to be submitted to EPA under subpart A of this part. Under subpart A, States are required to submit a comprehensive inventory on 3 year cycles within 17 months after the close of the reporting period. Thus, the 2002 inventory was due 17 months after the December 31, 2002 close of the reporting period, i. e., was due by June 1, 2004. For those areas designated nonattainment for the 8 hour ozone NAAQS effective June 15, 2004 ( 69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004), the baseline emissions inventory shall be based on the calendar year 2002 because the 2002 inventory was due under subpart A of this part prior to the time of designation. For areas with an effective nonattainment designation in the future, the baseline inventory will be for the calendar year of the most recent triennial inventory as of the date of designation. 2 c. Comments and responses Comment: Some commenters agreed there is a reasonable basis to select 2002 as the date of emissions inventories for purpose of establishing creditable reductions from the inventory. States are not required by the CAA to adopt the year of the nonattainment designation for the 8 hour standard as the basis for their planning, even though that was the case under the 1990 CAA Amendments. The commenter claims there are a variety of measures that would be implemented after 2002 that local jurisdictions would like to be able to account for as new emissions reductions in their modeling demonstrations. The commenter claims that this in part is justified on the basis of the 1997 revisions to the ozone NAAQS, including maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) reductions and NOx SIP Call/ 126 rule reductions. The commenter thus believes that reductions between these years " should count." In addition, this was the most recent quality assured/ quality controlled inventory used to support the States' recommendations for proposed nonattainment designations on July 15, 2003. Even if EPA allows States to show that air quality improved between 2001 2003 for purposes of final designations, it will be on the basis of reductions from these earlier inventories. Several commenters recommended that the baseline year ( starting the 6 year period for RFP) be set for the year in which designations were made ( i. e., 2004).

Comment: Response: The EPA has decided to establish 2002 as the baseline year for RFP SIPs in conformity with both the language of the CAA and the inventory year cycle. Of reasonable importance is the need to maintain consistency with the periodic inventory for use in various milestone considerations such as RFP, milestone compliance demonstration, attainment, and contingency plans. In addition, there should be little if any difference in the result in terms of emissions reductions needed to demonstrate timely attainment. If we use 2002, the baseline may be higher but areas can take credit for any 2002 2004 emission reductions from federally enforceable control measures. If we use 2004, the baseline may be lower but areas can't take credit for measures that produce emissions reductions between 2002 2004. Depending on the area, the difference should be minimal in terms of the difference in the amount of reductions needed to reach attainment and what new measures are necessary to get there. Also, EPA selected this baseline year at the request of many States to allow areas to take credit for emissions reductions achieved in the 2002 2004 period as a result of numerous recently adopted Federal and State measures. We believe it is reasonable to select an inventory year for which States were already required to produce an inventory rather than requiring States to produce an additional inventory ( e. g., for 2004) that is not otherwise required. Moreover, requiring the use of an inventory for the designation year would cause delay, as it would take the States 1 2 years after the end of 2004 to produce the inventory which would be the basis for selecting controls to achieve the necessary reductions. However, we are allowing States the option of justifying the use of an alternative later baseline emission inventory, provided it meets the requirement of the CAA's RFP provisions. As noted above, the use of an alternative year for the baseline inventory for RFP does not change the requirement to use 2002 as the baseline year for transportation conformity.

Comment: Another commenter referred to EPA's proposal language regarding the RFP SIP that would have required submission of the RFP plan within 2 years after designation. They stated that EPA is missing the point in that the attainment and RFP submission dates established in subpart 2 are to allow States a sufficient amount of time to achieve the mandated goals. That commenter referred to another alternative that would amend the proposal to require a 1990, rather than 2002 baseline for those areas not having a previously approved 15 percent RFP plan. They further commented that although a 1990 baseline would not eliminate the planning burden associated with this requirement, it would go far towards minimizing the necessary additional work.

Response: We disagree with the commenters who urged use of the 1990 inventories. Use of the 1990 baseline would be unreasonable now since it would have to be substantially recalculated due to changes in emission calculating methodologies. Furthermore, a 1990 inventory was only required for nonattainment areas as of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments and therefore may not exist for a number of areas that are currently designated nonattainment for the 8 hour standard. Finally, we believe that reliance on emission reductions that may have occurred well before 8 hour designations and classifications should not be counted as making progress toward attainment.

Comment: Another commenter noted that the 18 percent reduction for serious areas would have to be achieved by 2008. This is 6 years after the base year. The commenter noted that the 2 years that would remain after SIP submission ( from the proposed SIP due date of 2006 until 2008) would be totally inadequate to achieve either the 15 percent reduction in VOCs or the 18 percent reduction in VOCs and/ or NOx. The commenter noted the CAA provides for submission of RFP plans within 3 years ( from 1990) in section 182( b)( 1)( A) and 4 years in section 182( c)( 2). Response: The final rule reflects a change from the proposal to allow submission of the RFP plan up to 3 years from the date of designation.

Comment: A comment on draft regulatory text § 51.909 noted that EPA specified various program milestone dates, which were derived from the relationship of these dates to the expected date of initial designation. The commenter recommends deleting all such specific date references from the regulation, to avoid the need for revising regulations if the initial designations are not concluded as expected. This should be replaced by a generic approach, for example by requiring the most recent year's data to be used as the baseline in the second sentence of § 51.909. Deleting the calendar specific dates would not change the result if the designations occur as planned, yet would allow for more recent data to be used if factors beyond the agency's control create a delay in designations. This approach also will allow the regulation to apply to future area designation changes, such as areas that are redesignated nonattainment at some point in the future. Such specific dates are more appropriately included as examples in agency guidance or within the preamble of a final rule with a discussion of how they are derived. The regulation itself should retain only the generic relationship between the milestone and the effective date of designation, which is the approach taken elsewhere in the rule. Response: Because the designations have already taken effect at this point, we believe removing the 2002 specification may only be confusing to some. The final version of rule ( now § 51.910( d)) provides specificity regarding the appropriate 3We note that even though the draft regulatory text was structured to place the specification of the baseline year for RFP ( as well as for attainment demonstrations) in § 51.909, the final rule places the RFP baseline year requirement in § 51.910. baseline year for subsequent nonattainment designations. 3 * * * * *

FROM REG TEXT 51.910 What requirements for reasonable further progress ( RFP) under sections 172( c)( 1) and 182 apply for areas designated nonattainment for the 8 hour ozone NAAQS?

* * *

( d) What is the baseline emissions inventory for RFP plans? ( 1) A baseline emissions inventory is required for the RFP plan required under this section. ( 2) The baseline emissions inventory shall be determined at the time of designation for the 8 hour NAAQS and shall be the emissions inventory for the most recent calendar year for which a complete inventory is required to be submitted to EPA under the provisions of subpart A of this part or a more recent alternative baseline emissions inventory provided the State demonstrates that the baseline inventory meets the CAA provisions for RFP and provides a rationale for using an alternative baseline year.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49031]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19553]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 49

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151; FRL-9915-39-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR98

General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New
Source Review Program in Indian Country

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that
the period for providing public comments on the July 17, 2014, notice
of proposed rulemaking for ``General Permits and Permits by Rule for
the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country'' is
being extended by 30 days.

DATES: The public comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking
published July 17, 2014 (79 FR 41846), is being extended by 30 days to
September 17, 2014, in order to provide the public additional time to
submit comments.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking may be
submitted to the EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile or through
hand delivery/courier. Please refer to the notice of proposed
rulemaking (79 FR 41846) for the addresses and detailed instructions.
Publicly available documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov
or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying. The EPA has established the
official public docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151.
    A copy of this document will be posted in the regulations and
standards section of our new source review (NSR) home page located at
http://www.epa.gov/nsr and on the tribal NSR page at http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/tribalnsr.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christopher Stoneman, Outreach and
Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
(C304-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number
(919) 541-0823, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA received two requests to extend the
comment period on the July 17, 2014, notice of proposed rulemaking for
``General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source
Review Program in Indian Country.'' Based on the evaluation of those
requests and the level of interest in the notice of proposed
rulemaking, the EPA is extending the public comment period for an
additional 30 days. The public comment period will end on September 17,
2014, rather than August 18, 2014. This will ensure that the public has
sufficient time to review and comment on all of the information
available, including the notice of proposed rulemaking and other
materials in the docket.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Indians, Indians-law, Indians-tribal government,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 8, 2014.
Mary Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-19553 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Contributions to Gross Domestic Product by Industry Relative Size of the U. S. Tobacco Industry to U. S. Fossil Fuel Industries:

2001 Output ( 2001$)

Electric and Gas Utilities...............$ 222 billion Transportation...............................$ 306 billion Oil and Gas Extraction..................$ 110 billion Chemical Products........................$ 164 billion Coal Mining..................................... $ 11 billion Tobacco............................................$ 21 billion Source: U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis http:// www. bea. gov/ bea/ dn2/ gpoc. htm# 1994 2001


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51943-51945]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0082]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival and Head of the
Cuyahoga, Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing regulations for annual,
combined marine events that require the establishment of a temporary
safety zone within the Captain of the Port Zone Buffalo on the Cuyahoga
River, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone regulation is necessary to
protect the surrounding public, spectators, participants, and vessels
from the hazards associated with the rowing regatta in the narrow
waterway of the Cuyahoga River. This rule is intended to restrict
vessels annually from a portion of the Cuyahoga River for up to 9 hours
during the combined Dragon Boat Festival and the Head of the Cuyahoga
Regatta.

DATES: This rule is effective September 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0082]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 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 rule,
call or email LT Stephanie Pitts, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

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

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Head of the Cuyahoga (HOTC) rowing regatta has occurred
annually for over a decade and the Dragon Boat Festival for the last 8
years. In response to past years' events, the Coast Guard established a
temporary safety zone to protect the boating public. For example, in
2013, the Captain of the Port Buffalo initiated a rulemaking (78 FR
42736, July 17, 2013) to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels
during the rowing event. The safety zone in this final rule is
identical in size, location, and effect as that established by the 2013
rulemaking.

B. Basis and Purpose

    As mentioned in the ``Regulatory History and Information'' section,
the HOTC is an annual rowing regatta that has taken place for over a
decade. The HOTC takes place on the Cuyahoga River along a 4800 meter
course and attracts numerous rowing clubs and programs from across the
U.S. Typically, the event occurs on the third Saturday of September
between the hours of 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. In 2014, the HOTC occurred
between 6 a.m. and 4 p.m. on September 20th.
    In conjunction with the HOTC, the Seventh Annual Cleveland Dragon
Boat Festival will take place from Superior/Nautica Bend to just north
of the Detroit Superior Viaduct Bridge. The Dragon Boat festival will
feature three head-to-head races being held over the course of the day.
    The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that the HOTC and
the Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival rowing events present significant
hazards to public spectators and participants.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    We received one comment on the NPRM (79 FR 24656). This comment
requested the time of enforcement be changed from 10 hours to 9 hours
and to begin at 7 a.m. in lieu of the proposed 6 a.m. and still end at
4 p.m. as originally proposed. This change was requested for the better
facilitation of trade on the Cuyahoga River. Of note, the commenter,
Great Lakes Carriers Association noted that they completed a memorandum
of agreement with the Cuyahoga River rowing foundation to address this
very issue and to formalize the agreement between them to better allow
for diverse use of the river without hampering trade and vital to the
local economy. The Coast Guard, upon reviewing the comment considers
the change to the proposal to be in the best interest of this rule and
has amended the final rule to be effective for 9 hours, beginning at 7
a.m. and ending at 4 p.m. as requested.
    The enforcement date and times for the safety zone that is listed
in 33 CFR 165.T09-0082 is to occur on the 3rd Saturday of September of
each year and to begin 7 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. For any given year, the
Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo will provide notice to the public by
publishing a Notice of Enforcement in the Federal Register, as well as,
issuing a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones
identified in Sec.  165.T09-0082 will be prohibited unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. The
Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16.

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.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard
received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this
rule. 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 would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in the safety zone while the zone is being enforced.
The safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Each
safety zone in this rule will be in enforced for no more than 9 hours
in any 24 hour period and enforced only once per year and will be in
areas with low commercial vessel traffic. Furthermore, this safety zone
has been designed to mitigate the delay to traffic by shortening the
enforcement period. In the event that a safety zone affects shipping,
commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his or her designated representative to transit the safety
zone or remain in the safety zone during the event.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the 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,
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.
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 would not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule would 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 From Environmental Health Risks

    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 would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
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 would 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 rule 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 made a
preliminary determination that 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 is categorically excluded,
under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction
because it involves the establishment of a safety zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist 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
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR parts 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; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0082 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0082  Safety Zone; Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival and
Head of the Cuyahoga, Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH between a line drawn perpendicular to
the river banks from position 41[deg]29'55'' N., 081[deg]42'23'' W.
(NAD 83) just past the Detroit-Superior Viaduct bridge at MM 1.42 of
the Cuyahoga River south to a line drawn perpendicular to the river
banks at position 41[deg]28'32'' N., 081[deg]40'16'' W. (NAD 83) just
south of the Interstate 490 bridge at MM 4.79 of the Cuyahoga River.
    (b) Enforcement period. The third Saturday of September each year
from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) ``On-scene Representative'' means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo
to monitor a safety zone, permit entry into the zone, give legally
enforceable orders to persons or vessels within the zones, and take
other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port.
    (2) ``Public vessel'' means vessels owned, chartered, or operated
by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone identified in paragraph (a) of this section is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative.
    (2) The safety zone identified in paragraph (a) of this section is
closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
    (4) Additionally, all vessels over 65 feet intending to transit,
moor or conduct operations to include loading or discharging of cargo
or passengers in the Cuyahoga River while the safety zone is being
enforced should request permission from the COTP or his/her designated
representative at least 12 hours before the zone is established.
    (e) Exemption. Public vessels, as defined in paragraph (c) of this
section, are exempt from the requirements in this section.
    (f) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this
section, upon finding that operational conditions or other
circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary
or impractical for the purposes of public or environmental safety.

    Dated: August 7, 2015.
B.W. Roche,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2015-21301 Filed 8-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P