[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20657-20658]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8168]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66697; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Non-Display of Primary Pegged Orders With an Offset Amount

March 30, 2012.
    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 March 23, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a rule change under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to provide amend Exchange Rule 3301(f)(4) to
provide for non-display of Primary Pegged Orders with an offset amount.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings, at the Exchange's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Phlx proposes to amend Rule 3301(f)(4) to provide that Primary
Pegged Orders with an offset amount will be non-displayed, a change
that will improve system and inter-market price stability. Pegged
Orders are orders that, once entered, adjust in price automatically, in
response to changes in the inside bids or offers of NASDAQ OMX PSX
(``PSX'') \4\ or the national market system, depending upon the type of
Pegged Order. A Primary Pegged Order specifies that its price will
equal the inside quote on the same side of the market; a Market Pegged
Order will equal the inside quote on the opposite side of the market. A
Midpoint Peg Order will equal the midpoint of the national best bid and
offer (``NBBO''), excluding the effect that the Midpoint Peg Order
itself has on the inside bid or inside offer. As the bids and offers
change, so move the Pegged Orders. A Pegged Order may have a limit
price beyond which the order shall not be executed. Primary Peg and
Market Peg Orders may establish their pricing relative to the
appropriate bids or offers by selecting one or more offset amounts that
will adjust the price of the order by the offset amount selected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ PSX is the Exchange's cash equities market electronic
trading platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange's current rule, Midpoint Pegged Orders are not
displayed, while Primary and Market Pegged Orders may be displayed or
not displayed, at the option of the person placing the order. The
display of Primary Pegs with an offset amount can potentially result in
excessive messaging when multiple venues display Pegged non-marketable
Orders. In these scenarios, it is possible for the Primary Pegged
Orders on each venue to react to and change in relation to each other,
resulting in excessive messaging and ``quote flickering.'' A rule
change to eliminate display of Primary Pegged Orders with an offset
amount will prevent this feedback loop, adding to system stability and
improving market quality.
    Market participants retain the ability to display orders through
other order options available under the Exchange rules, including by
using Primary Pegged Orders without an offset amount or Market Pegged
Orders. Because Primary Pegged Orders without an offset amount are
priced at the inside quote, they do not present the same messaging

problem. Rapid updates to displayed Primary Pegged Orders may still
occur, but are more likely to be the result of rapid trading. Market
Pegged Orders, in contrast to Primary Pegs with an offset amount, are
typically priced to execute and rarely post, and thus also do not
present the excessive messaging problem.
    The Commission approved the non-display of Pegged Orders when it
approved the application of BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), for
registration as a national securities exchange and found BATS' proposed
rules consistent with Section 6 of the Act.\5\ BATS Rule 11.9(c)(8)
provides that Pegged Orders ``are not displayed on the Exchange.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58375 (August 18,
2008) 73 FR 49498 (August 21, 2008); see also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 57322 (February 13, 2008), 73 FR 9370 (February 20,
2008).
    \6\ BATS Rule 11.9(c)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. Non-display of Primary Pegged
Orders with an offset amount will minimize excess messaging that
distracts from, rather than improves transparency and stability. Market
participants can elect to display orders by using other available order
types. The Exchange believes that the proposed change to Rule
3301(f)(4) meets the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in
that it will improve the stability, quality and transparency of the
national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that providing for non-display of Primary Pegged Orders will
not burden competition since at least one other exchange currently
offers the same attribute for pegged orders.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-39 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-Phlx-2012-39. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-39 and
should be submitted on or before April 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8168 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26682-26685]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10158]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6147; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-021-AD;
Amendment 39-18506; AD 2016-09-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-8 series airplanes. This AD requires a
detailed inspection for correct installation of the flex hose clamp of
the occupant backup air supply and a general visual inspection for
damage of the flex hose, and related investigative and corrective
actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that
flex hoses of the occupant backup air supply were found disconnected
from the adjacent fiberglass duct on two airplanes. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct an incorrect clamp installation on the inboard
end of the

flex hose, which allows the flex hose to slowly become disconnected
from the adjacent fiberglass duct, and damage to the hose. This
condition, in conjunction with a cargo fire event, can potentially lead
to decreased airflow to the main deck, possibly resulting in smoke and/
or toxic fumes penetrating into the main deck passenger compartment,
which could result in injury to the passengers or cabin crew.

DATES: This AD is effective May 19, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 19,
2016.
    We must receive comments on this AD by June 20, 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6147.

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-
6147; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We have received a report indicating that an operator, while on a
maintenance visit, found a flex hose of the occupant backup air supply
disconnected from the adjacent fiberglass duct on two airplanes. One of
the flex hoses had a tear on the disconnected edge. A Boeing
investigation found that these incidents were caused by the incorrect
clamp installation on the inboard end of the flex hose, which is a
quality control problem that allowed the flex hose to slowly become
disconnected from the adjacent fiberglass duct. No related system
faults were reported. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct an
incorrect clamp installation on the inboard end of the flex hose, which
allows the flex hose to slowly become disconnected from the adjacent
fiberglass duct, and damage to the hose. This condition, in conjunction
with a cargo fire event, can potentially lead to decreased airflow to
the main deck, possibly resulting in smoke and/or toxic fumes
penetrating into the main deck passenger compartment, which could
result in injury to the passengers or cabin crew.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2571, dated
December 4, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a
detailed visual inspection of the clamp installation on the inboard end
of the flex hose and general visual inspection of the flex hose for
damage, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.
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

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously.
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' is used in this AD.
Related investigative actions are follow-on actions that (1) are
related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature
of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could
include, for example, inspections.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this AD. Corrective
actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in
an AD could include, for example, repairs.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    There are currently no domestic operators of this product.
Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2016-6147 and
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-021-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected airplanes on the U.S. Register.
However, if an affected airplane is imported and

placed on the U.S. Register in the future, we estimate the following
costs to comply with this AD:

                             Estimated Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                   Labor cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of inboard end of the  3 work-hours x $85  $255 per
 flex hose.                        per hour = $255     inspection cycle
                                   per inspection
                                   cycle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                 Action                           Labor cost                  Parts cost              product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair or replacement of inboard end of   Up to 3 work-hours x $85    $65 per flex hose.........            $320
 the flex hose.                            per hour = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-09-08 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18506; Docket No. FAA-
2016-6147; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-021-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 19, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-8 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2571, dated December 4, 2015.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air
conditioning.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that flex hoses of
the occupant backup air supply were found disconnected from the
adjacent fiberglass duct on two airplanes. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct an incorrect clamp installation on the inboard
end of the flex hose, which allows the flex hose to slowly become
disconnected from the adjacent fiberglass duct, and damage to the
hose. This condition, in conjunction with a cargo fire event, can
potentially lead to decreased airflow to the main deck, possibly
resulting in smoke and/or toxic fumes penetrating into the main deck
passenger compartment, which could result in injury to the
passengers or cabin crew.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Repair of Backup Air Supply Clamp and Flex Hose

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the
applicable time in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-21A2571, dated December 4, 2015, do a detailed
inspection for correct installation of the backup air supply clamp,
and before further flight, do all applicable related investigative
and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-21A2571, dated December 4, 2015.

(h) Exception to the Service Information

    Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-21A2571, dated December 4, 2015, specifies a compliance
time ``after the original issue date of this service bulletin,''
this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time
after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled 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 RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Stanley Chen,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2571, dated December 4,
2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 21, 2016.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-10158 Filed 5-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

for

The Extreme One-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan Modeling

 for the

San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area

EPA Region 9

September 2008

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

The Extreme One-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan Modeling

for the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area

I.  INTRODUCTION

This document provides a discussion of the modeling analysis provided in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, October 8, 2004.  It discusses the adequacy of the analysis, and how the analysis meets EPA’s modeling requirements and performance goals. The ozone air quality modeling in the plan provides the basis for the attainment demonstration.  To be approved, the State submission must show that plan demonstrates attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 2010.

II. EVALUATION OF THE MODELING DEMONSTRATION

	As required by the Clean Air Act, California has used photochemical grid modeling in its demonstration that the control strategy for the San Joaquin Valley area will achieve attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by 2010.

	The modeling analysis performed by CARB that is intended to simulate the air quality levels that result from the emissions that occur in the San Joaquin Valley, as a basis for determining the level of routine emissions that can be allowed in the area and provide for  attainment.

	The modeling is based on a multi-stage analysis.  First, appropriate episode days that represent days conducive to ozone formation in the San Joaquin Valley are selected. Second, a modeling platform, including photochemical model, domain, number of vertical layers, and initial and boundary conditions most appropriate for the San Joaquin Valley area, and other factors are selected.  Third, the air quality on the selected episode is simulated, using the appropriate day-specific emissions.  Finally, the performance of the selected modeling platform on each of the modeled episode days is analyzed and compared to EPA performance criteria.  When the modeling analysis is determined to be acceptable, it then forms the basis for the attainment demonstration.

The state’s analysis is provided in the plan in Chapter 5: Future Ozone Air Quality and in Appendix D: Modeling and Attainment Demonstration.  These documents provide the basis for the modeling that was reviewed by EPA and compared to EPA guidance for each of these factors.

A. Episode Characterization

	EPA’s Guideline sets forth a recommended procedure for selecting ozone exceedance episodes appropriate for conducting a modeling demonstration.

	EPA guidance recommends that “a minimum of 3 primary days should be simulated.”  EPA guidance also recommends that ”in addition to considering the magnitude of the highest observed daily maximum concentration in making this choice, data availability and quality, model performance, availability of regional modeling analysis, pervasiveness, frequency with which observed meteorological conditions coincide with exceedances, and duration of observations greater than 0.12 ppm may be considered.”

	In the selection of the appropriate episodes, the state focused primarily on episodes which occurred during the time period of the year 2000 Central California Ozone Study (CCOS), because of the enhanced data availability and quality. The CCOS study had extensive measurements of ozone, hydrocarbon, oxides of nitrogen, and other chemical species. The data obtained during this study provided a wealth of detailed, high sensitivity information about the SJV area’s atmospheric chemistry with data on ozone, carbon monoxide, NO, and NO2.  More specific information regarding the CCOS field study is available in Appendix D of the Plan.

Five candidate episodes for the SIP modeling analysis were considered for this modeling exercise. Three episodes that were measured during the 2000 Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) were considered: June 17-18, July 31-August 2, and September 17-21. In addition, two episodes that occurred outside the CCOS time period were considered: July 11-12, 1999 and August 6-16, 2002.

Each of the three primary CCOS episodes was initially modeled by one the participating CCOS agencies or their contractors. Of the three CCOS episodes, the July 31- August 2, 2000 episode was considered to be the most representative of the transport and formation of ozone in the San Joaquin Valley.  The September 17-21 episode was also considered, but the model performance did not meet the performance criteria, so it was not pursued.

 	While two episodes that occurred outside the CCOS time period were considered: July 11-12, 1999 and August 6-16, 2002, the CCOS episodes had superior data availability and quality.

EPA believes that the extended episode from July 30-August 2, 2000 is an acceptable episode for development of the 1-hour ozone standard attainment plan.  The episode encompasses 4 exceedance days for the study area (San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area) and 2 exceedance days in the San Joaquin Valley.  It also has the advantage of being during the CCOS study’s intensive data collection period.

B. Photochemical Modeling

CARB used the most current Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) photochemical grid model (which is based on well established treatments of advection, diffusion, deposition, and chemistry similar to the Urban Airshed photochemical grid Model (UAM), for the attainment demonstration.  EPA believes that this model is an appropriate model for use to develop the SJV SIP attainment demonstration.

C.  Modeling Domain

The modeling domain for the SJV extends from the Los Angeles County in the south to the California/Oregon border in the north, and from the Pacific Ocean into Nevada in the east and is shown in Figure D-6 (p. D-41) of the plan.

EPA guidance states that:

It is recommended that the domain’s downward boundary be sufficiently far from the CMSA/MSA that is the principal focus of the modeling study to ensure that emissions from the CMSA/MSA occurring on the primary day for each selected episode remain within the domain until 8:00 pm on that day.  The extent of upwind boundaries will depend on the proximity of large upwind source areas and the adequacy of techniques used to characterize incoming precursor concentrations.  Large upwind emission source areas should be included in the modeling domain to the extent practicable.  Also, if large uncertainty is anticipated for the domain boundary conditions, the upwind boundaries should be located at a distance sufficient to minimize boundary effects on the model predictions in the center of the domain.

EPA believes that the domain selected for the episode is sufficiently large to characterize incoming precursors and minimize boundary effects for the San Joaquin Valley.

D.  Horizontal Grid Cell Size

	The horizontal Grid cell size used for the photochemical modeling exercise in the SIP was 4km by 4 km.

	EPA recommends that the size of the horizontal grid cells should not be greater than 5km by 5 km, and grid cell sizes smaller than 2km by 2 km are not recommended because of potential model formation inconsistencies for those grid sizes.  The grid cells should be small enough to reflect emission gradients and densities in urban areas, particularly those resulting from large point sources and major terrain or water features that may affect air flow.

	EPA believes that the 4km by 4 km grid cell size is appropriate for this modeling application.

E. Vertical Structure

The vertical structure for the San Joaquin Valley modeling exercise consists of 16 layers, and is shown in Table 1: Vertical Structure, shown below.

Table 1

Vertical Structure of the Air Quality Modeling Domain

for the July/August 2000 episode based on the MM5

and CALMET meteorological models

Layer Number	MM5	CALMET

	Thickness

(meters)	Height

meters above ground level)	Thickness (meters)	Height (meters above ground level)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

	24

26

56

66

74

133

161

182

205

232

265

356

488

666

926

1140	24

50

106

172

246

379

540

722

927

1159

1424

1780

2268

2934

3860

5000

	20

40

40

100

100

100

200

200

200

500

500

500

500

500

500

1000	20

60

100

200

300

400

600

800

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

5000

EPA guidance recommends that a minimum of five vertical layers be used in the modeling study, with at least three layers above the morning mixing height.  EPA encourages greater detail in the grid cell size particularly in modeling domains containing complex terrain or land/water interfaces.

EPA believes that the vertical structure meets EPA criteria and is of sufficient resolution for the San Joaquin Valley domain.

F.  Initial and Boundary Conditions

The initial and boundary concentrations were based on a combination of USEPA default values, South Coast Air Quality Management (SCAQMD) District default values, and measurements taken during the CCOS study.  EPA Guidance states that:

To develop initial and boundary conditions, it is recommended that one or more monitoring stations be sited upwind of the central urban area along the prevailing wind trajectories that give rise to the exceedance.

The sampling and analysis program should provide data to calculate hourly values for ozone, NO, NO2 and speculated hydrocarbons.

At the inflow boundaries, air quality data at the surface and aloft should be used whenever available to specify the boundary conditions.

The CCOS study provided a number of surface sites that provided data to develop initial and boundary conditions for ozone, NO, NO2 and speciated hydrocarbons.

The top boundary concentrations developed for the domain were based on the clean profile defined by EPA guidance, with the exception of the ozone concentration of 70 ppb, which was based on ozonesonde measurements collected at Granite Bay and Parlier during the CCOS study.

Table 2

Initial and Boundary Conditions for the CCOS Domain

Compound	Initial Conditions	Boundary Conditions

Non-SJV

SJV	Top	Pacific (West and  part of southern)	Overland  Boundary

Reactive Hydrocarbons	60.7 ppbC	121.4 ppbC	22 pbbc	22ppbc	60.7 ppbC

Carbon Monoxide	200 ppm	200 ppm	350 ppm	350 ppm	200 ppm

Oxides of Nitrogen	2.0 ppb	2.0 ppb	2.0 ppb	 	2.0 ppb

Ozone	40 ppb	40 ppb	70 ppb	40 ppb	40 ppb

EPA believes that the EPA guidance criteria was met in choosing initial and boundary conditions supported by measurements from the  CCOS field study data, use of EPA default values, and SCAQMD default values.  EPA also believes that, because of the relatively high level of the ozone level used for the top boundary concentration of the domain, future applications should determine the sensitivity of the model performance to the ozone top boundary concentration value.

Model Performance Evaluation Data

EPA recommends that the data base used in the attainment demonstration modeling meet the requirements for the enhanced ozone monitoring system promulgated by EPA.

EPA believes that the CCOS study, described above, meets the objectives of the EPA enhanced ozone monitoring system.

H.  Base year Model Performance Evaluation

Model performance was evaluated for nine sub-regions of the modeling domain, including the Fresno and Bakersfield areas in the San Joaquin Valley, and well as for the Sacramento Delta and San Francisco Bay Areas.

EPA guidance recommends the following mathematical formulations be applied as measures for model performance evaluation for the 1-hour ozone standard:

Unpaired highest prediction accuracy – The measure quantifies the difference between the highest observed value and highest predicted value over all hours and monitoring stations.

Normalized bias test – This test measures the models ability to replicate observed patterns during the times of day when available monitoring and modeled data re most likely to represent similar spatial scales.

Gross error of all pairs above 60 ppb - In conjunction with bias measurements, this metric provides an overall assessment of base case performance and can be used as a reference to other modeling applications.  Gross error can be interpreted as precision.

EPA guidance recommends that the statistical performance be compared with the following ranges:

Unpaired highest prediction accuracy: +/- 15-20% (0.8 -1.2),

Normalized bias test: +/5-15%, and

Gross error of all pairs above 60 ppb: 30-35%

The model performance for each of these performance criteria is shown for Fresno and Bakersfield, below, for the CAMx/CB4 and CAMx/SAPRC99f.

Model performance with CAMx /CB4 is shown for Fresno in Table 3:  Fresno Model Performance, below, and Bakersfield in Table 4: Bakersfield Model Performance.   EPA performance criteria are met for Unpaired Peak ratio, Normalized Bias and Gross Error for each of the episode days.

Table 3

Fresno Model Performance – CAMx /CB4

Day	Observed peak	Simulated Peak	Unpaired Peak Ratio	Normalized Bias % Gross Error %

EPA Guideline

Performance Goals

	0.8-1.2	+/- 15%	35

July 29, 2000

July 30, 2000

August 1, 2000

August 2, 2000	129

118

118

131	130

128

124

127	1.01

1.09

1.05

0.97	-08

+03

-09

-10	18

17

20

22

Table 4

Bakersfield Model Performance – CAMX/CB4

Day	Observed peak	Simulated Peak	Unpaired Peak Ratio	Normalized Bias % Gross Error %

EPA Guideline

Performance Goals

	0.8-1.2	+/- 15%	35

July 29,200

July 30,2000

August 1, 2000

August 2, 2000	128

115

116

151	123

119

114

129	0.96

1.04

0.98

0.85	-12

-12

-15

-13	20

18

19

21

Model performance with CAMx/SAPRC99f is shown for Fresno in Table 5: Fresno Model Performance – CAMx/SAPRC99f, below, and Bakersfield in Table 6: Bakersfield Model Performance – CAMx /SAPRC99f. EPA performance criteria are met for Unpaired Peak ratio, Normalized Bias and Gross Error for each of the episode days.  The CAMX/SAPRC99f simulated peaks are higher on most days than the CAMx/CB4, so therefore, the normalized bias is smaller.

Table 5

Fresno Model Performance – CAMx/SAPRC99f

Day	Observed peak	Simulated Peak	Unpaired Peak Ratio	Normalized Bias % Gross Error %

EPA Guideline

Performance Goals

	0.8-1.2	+/- 15%	35

July 29, 2000

July 30, 2000

August 1, 2000

August 2, 2000	129

118

118

131	144

138

132

137 	1.12

1.17

1.12

1.04	-03

+06

-05

-02	17

18

21

22

Table 6

Bakersfield Model Performance – CAMx/SAPRC99f

Day	Observed peak	Simulated Peak	Unpaired Peak Ratio	Normalized Bias % Gross Error %

EPA Guideline

Performance Goals

	0.8-1.2	+/- 15%	35

July 29, 2000

July 30, 2000

August 1, 2000

August 2, 2000	128

115

116

151	149

132

120

140	1.16

1.15

1.04

0.92	-02

-07

-10

-07	25

20

19

20

EPA believes that the model performance meets the performance criteria for the 1-hour ozone standard, and is acceptable.

I. Base Case Sensitivity to Natural Sources.

	Several simulations were conducted to determine the sensitivity of the modeling analysis to variations in natural source emission estimations.  To assess the sensitivity of the model to biogenic emissions, two emission scenarios were evaluated; one scenario zeroing out the biogenic emissions, and one scenario increasing the biogenic emission estimations by 25%.  The sensitivity of the 1-hour ozone values to these changes is shown for the modeling results in Bakersfield in Table 7: Sensitivity to Natural Sources in Bakersfield, below.

	An additional simulation was conducted to determine the sensitivity of the model to wildfire emissions.  The results of the modeling scenario with wildfire emissions removed from the emission inventory are shown below.   The ozone values for this simulation are up to 7% less in the Bakersfield area than ozone levels in the base case, indicating a fairly substantial wildfire impact on ozone during the July, August 2000 episode.

Table 7

Sensitivity to Natural Sources in Bakersfield

Day	Base case	No Fires

	+ 25% Biogenics

	No Biogenics

	ppb	ppb	% Change	Ppb	% Change	Ppb	% Change

July 31

August 1

August 2	129

119

135	0

-2

-9	0

-2

-7	2

1

1	2

1

1	-8

-8

-10	-6

-7

-7

III.  CONCLUSION

EPA believes that each of the components in the modeling analysis is acceptable.  The appropriate episode days that represent day conducive to ozone formation in the San Joaquin Valley are selected.  The modeling platform, including photochemical model, domain, number of vertical layers, and initial and boundary conditions most appropriate for the San Joaquin Valley area, and other factors are appropriate.  Finally, the performance of the selected modeling platform on each of the modeled episode days meets the performance criteria specified in EPA guidance.  EPA believes that the modeling analysis in the plan is acceptable, and that it, therefore, forms an appropriate basis for the attainment demonstration.

References

Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013 (July 1991); “Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,” EPA-454/B-95-007 (June 1996);

Guidance for the 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas that Rely on Weight-of-Evidence for Attainment Demonstrations, Mid-Course Review Guidance (March 28, 2002);

Guidance for Improving Weight-of-Evidence Through Identification of Additional Emission Reduction Not Modeled (Nov 99).

“Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model,” EPA-450/4-91-013 (July 1991).

	  Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013 (July 1991); “Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,” EPA-454/B-95-007 (June 1996);

	Guidance for the 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas that Rely on Weight-of-Evidence for Attainment Demonstrations, Mid-Course Review Guidance (March 28, 2002);

	Guidance for Improving Weight-of-Evidence Throug摉湥楴楦慣楴湯漠摁楤楴湯污䔠業獳潩敒畤 瑣潩潎⁴潍敤敬丨癯浥敢⁲㤱㤹⸩഍ 錠畇摩汥湩 潦⁲敒畧慬潴祲䄠灰楬慣楴湯漠桴牕慢楁獲敨 潍敤ⱬₔ偅ⵁ㔴⼰ⴴㄹ〭㌱⠠畊祬ㄠ㤹⤱഍ 䤠⹤഍ ̍഍ഄ̍഍ഄ഍഍ግ䅐䕇†കഀ഍倓䝁⁅ᐠᔱ

഍഍഍ግ䅐䕇†ㄔᔲ഍ግ䅐䕇   11


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 80 (Friday, April 24, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22956-22957]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0832; Project Identifier 2019-NE-28-AD; Amendment
39-21117; AD 2020-09-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines AG Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2500-A1, V2522-A5, V2524-A5,
V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, V2531-E5,
and V2533-A5 model turbofan engines with a certain diffuser case
assembly installed. This AD was prompted by a report of a manufacturing
quality escape that could impact the life of the diffuser case
assembly. This AD requires removal of the affected diffuser case
assembly from service and replacement with a part eligible for
installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact International Aero Engines AG, 400 Main Street, East Hartford,
CT 06118; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet:
https://fleetcare.pw.utc.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0832.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0832; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Paine, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
781-238-7116; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all IAE V2500-A1,
V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5,
V2530-A5, V2531-E5, and V2533-A5 model turbofan engines with a certain
diffuser case assembly installed. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on December 16, 2019 (84 FR 68374). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of a manufacturing quality escape that could impact the life of
the diffuser case assembly. The NPRM proposed to require removal of the
affected diffuser case assembly from service and replacement with a
part eligible for installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise the Required Actions

    Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that the FAA revise paragraph (g),
Required Actions, of this AD to include instructions applicable to IAE
V2500-D5 model turbofan engines. DAL reasoned that IAE Non-Modification
Service Bulletin (NMSB) V2500-ENG-72-0707, dated July 1, 2019 (``IAE
NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0707''), referenced in paragraph (g) of this AD, only
includes procedures for replacing the affected diffuser case assemblies
on IAE V2500-A1/A5 model turbofan engines. If one of the affected
diffuser case assemblies was installed on a V2500-D5 model engine, DAL
would not be able to accomplish the required actions of this AD.
    As an alternative to revising paragraph (g) of this AD, DAL
requested that the FAA add an installation prohibition or parts
installation limitation to this AD to prevent the installation of the
affected diffuser case assembly in any model turbofan engine. If the
FAA adds the installation prohibition to this AD, then DAL requested
that the FAA remove the IAE V2500-D5 model turbofan engine from
paragraph (c), Applicability, of this AD.
    The FAA disagrees. This AD does not require operators to use IAE
NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0707 to replace the affected diffuser case assembly.
The note to paragraph (g) of this AD, referencing use of IAE NMSB
V2500-ENG-72-0707, is provided as guidance.
    The FAA disagrees with adding an installation prohibition or parts
installation limitation to this AD because paragraph (g) of this AD
requires the removal of all affected diffuser case assemblies from
service.

Support for the AD

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International, expressed support
for the AD as written.

No Concerns With the AD

    United Airlines commented that it does not operate any of the
affected diffuser case assemblies and indicated it does not have any
concerns with the proposed AD.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0707, dated July 1, 2019.
The NMSB describes procedures for replacing the affected diffuser case
assemblies on IAE V2500-A5 model turbofan engines.

Costs of Compliance

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

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the diffuser case assembly..  70 work-hours x $85 per        $250,000         $255,950         $511,900
                                       hour = $5,950.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2020-09-03 International Aero Engines AG: Amendment 39-21117; Docket
No. FAA-2019-0832; Project Identifier 2019-NE-28-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 29, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2500-A1,
V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-
D5, V2530-A5, V2531-E5, and V2533-A5 model turbofan engines with
diffuser case assembly, serial number PGGUBB8267, PGGUBB8271,
PGGUA95825, PGGUA95827, or PGGUBB8264, installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a manufacturing quality
escape that could impact the life of the diffuser case assembly. The
FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the diffuser case
assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
the uncontained release of the diffuser case assembly, damage to the
engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Action

    At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of the AD
or before accumulating 10,000 cycles since new, whichever occurs
first, remove the affected diffuser case assembly from service and
replace with a part eligible for installation.
    Note to paragraph (g): IAE Non-Modification Service Bulletin
(NMSB) V2500-ENG-72-0707, dated July 1, 2019, contains guidance for
replacing the diffuser case assembly.

(h) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the
separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of
transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not
constitute an engine shop visit.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. You may email your request
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Nicholas Paine,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporate by Reference

    None.

    Issued on April 20, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-08703 Filed 4-23-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52852]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21204]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 282

[EPA-R01-UST-2019-0420; FRL-10000-56-Region 1]

Maine: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program
Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA
or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State of Maine's Underground Storage Tank
(UST) program submitted by the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (ME DEP). This action is based on EPA's determination that
these revisions satisfy all requirements needed for program approval.
This action also proposes to codify EPA's approval of Maine's state
program and to incorporate by reference those provisions of the State
regulations that we have determined meet the requirements for approval.
The provisions will be subject to EPA's inspection and enforcement
authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA subtitle I and other
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

DATES: Send written comments by November 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, identified by EPA-R01-UST-2019-0420, by
one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Susan Hanamoto, RCRA Waste Management, UST, and Pesticides
Section; Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division; EPA Region 1, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100, (Mail Code 07-1), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Susan
Hanamoto, RCRA Waste Management, UST, and Pesticides Section; Land,
Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division; EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square, Suite 100, (Mail Code 07-1), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-UST-
2019-0420. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov, or
email. The Federal http://www.regulations.gov Website is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties,
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this
codification and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following location: EPA
Region 1 Library, 5 Post Office Square, 1st floor, Boston, MA 02109-
3912; by appointment only; tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Interested persons
wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the
office at least two weeks in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Hanamoto,<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct
final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register.

    Authority:  This rule is issued under the authority of Sections
2002(a), 9004, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.

    Dated: September 13, 2019.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-21204 Filed 10-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41174-41177]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18432]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0348]
RIN 1625-AA-00

Safety Zone; Wando River, Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the duration of a temporary
safety zone for navigable waters of the Wando River within a 500-yard
radius of the SC-41 Bridge, vessels and machinery in Charleston, South
Carolina. The safety zone is needed to ensure the safety of persons,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by
demolition work on the SC-41 Bridge. Entry of vessels or persons into
this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of

the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from August 30, 2017 through November 30,
2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0348 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule
call or email Lieutenant Justin Heck, Sector Charleston Office of
Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
OMB Office of Management and Budget

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to protect
the public from the hazards associated with the demolition of the SC-41
Bridge. On August 11, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary final
rule, entitled ``Safety Zone; Demolition of SC-41 Bridge, Wando River,
Charleston, SC'' in the Federal Register (82 FR 37515) establishing a
temporary safety zone for the demolition work on the SC-41 Bridge in
Charleston, South Carolina. The safety zone is scheduled to expire on
August 30, 2017, but the demolition company has requested additional
time to complete the demolition work. This rule extends the duration of
the existing safety zone from August 30, 2017 to November 30, 2017 to
ensure, to the extent practicable, that there continues to be
protections for the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from the potential hazards created by the demolition work
on the SC-41 Bridge, which was unable to be completed during the
original time frame. It would be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest for the existing safety zone to lapse when the
demolition work needs to continue past the expiration date of the
existing safety zone.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective
date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because
immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards
associated with the demolition work on the SC-41 Bridge.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. On August 11, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary final
rule, entitled ``Safety Zone; Demolition of SC-41 Bridge, Wando River,
Charleston, SC'' in the Federal Register (82 FR 37515) establishing a
temporary safety zone for the demolition work on the SC-41 Bridge in
Charleston, South Carolina. The safety zone is scheduled to expire on
August 30, 2017, but the demolition company has requested additional
time to complete the demolition work. The Captain of the Port (COTP)
Charleston has determined that potential hazards associated with the
bridge demolition will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard
radius of the bridge, vessels, and machinery. Through this rule, the
COTP Charleston has determined it necessary to extend the duration of
the safety zone from August 30, 2017 until November 30, 2017 because
the safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the
demolition is in progress.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule extends the duration of the temporary safety zone on the
waters of the Wando River in Charleston, South Carolina during the SC-
41 bridge demolition. The company conducting the demolition contacted
the Coast Guard asking for more time to complete the demolition. The
demolition will take over two separate demolition periods between
August 31, 2017 and November 30, 2017, during which the safety zone
will be enforced for approximately six hours each. The safety zone will
cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the bridge, vessels, and
machinery being used for the demolition of the SC-41 Bridge. No vessel
or person will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the
Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. If
authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will
provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the following
reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of
twelve hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without
authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated
representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the
enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by
Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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
section.
    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.

C. 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).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    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 have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined 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 involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a
limited area surrounding the SC-41 Bridge on the waters of the Wando
River for two six hour periods. This rule is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Record of Environmental Consideration are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. 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.

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 part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.T07-0348 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0348  Safety Zone; Demolition SC-41 Bridge Demolition
Phase Two, Wando River, Charleston, SC.

    (a) Location. All waters of the Wando River encompassed within a
500-yard radius of the SC-41 Bridge, vessels and machinery.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated
areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston
or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of

the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from August 4,
2017 through November 30, 2017, during demolition activity.

    Dated: August 25, 2017.
G.G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2017-18432 Filed 8-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59481-59482]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1120

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0227]
RIN 0910-AH91

Proposed Requirements for Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practice;
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
extending the comment period for the proposed rule entitled
``Requirements for Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practice'' published
in the Federal Register of March 10, 2023, by 30 days. The Agency is
taking this action in response to a request for an extension to allow
interested persons additional time to submit comments.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule
published March 10, 2023 (88 FR 15174), by 30 days. Either electronic
or written comments must be submitted by October 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of October 6, 2023. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2013-N-0227 for ``Requirements for Tobacco Product Manufacturing
Practice.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see
ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Brenner, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 877-
287-1373, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 10, 2023
(88 FR 15174), FDA published a proposed rule entitled ``Requirements
for Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practice.'' The proposed rule
provided a 180-day period for submission of public comments.
    The Agency has received a request for an extension of the comment
period for the proposed rule. The request conveyed concern that the
comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful
or thoughtful response to the proposed rule.
    FDA has considered the request and is extending the comment period
for the proposed rule for 30 days, until October 6, 2023. FDA believes
this extension is appropriate because of the complexity of the material
being posted. The Agency believes that a 30-day extension allows
adequate time for interested persons to submit comments.

    Dated: August 24, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-18625 Filed 8-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P