	316B PHASE III RULE

 TELEPHONE LOG

Name of Caller: 	John Sunda, SAIC

Date: 			February 12, 2009

Company Name: 	Blue Stream Services

Street Address:

City/State/ZIP:	New Iberia, LA

Person Contacted:	Richard Brister

Title:			Cooling Tower Specialist

Telephone #:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-Mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Called to inquire about modular tower design and why power use was
higher

He said the 3000 ton units use more fan power because of their compact
design. This design allows for more flow and cooling capacity per unit
that other designs and especially compared to large permanent towers.
Not only does this save on space but also costs since each unit will
have costs such as shipping, installation, rental, etc that are more
sensitive to the number of units than the unit size. Thus, more cooling
per unit equals less costs.  Typically, each unit uses 400 amps and if
single unit pumps are used they require 400 amps as well.

I asked about approach values and he said a typical design spec for the
3000 ton unit would be:

Hot water:	95oF

Cold Water:	85oF

Wet Bulb:	78oF

Thus, in this instance the approach would be 7oF and in general, the
approach will range between 7 and 10oF. Of course this would vary with
flow, range, wet bulb temperature, and type of fill used.

They use a Brentwood film type fill and that the fill selected will be
determined by the quality of the water. Typical fill might be the
Brentwood CF1900 Cross Fluted Film Fill Media.  This is rated on the
Brentwood website as suitable for “average to good” water which is
defined as:

Use CF-1200 or CF-1900 when:

• TSS < 25 PPM (<100 PPM where bacterial activity is very low)

• Make-up from uncontaminated sources

• Good biological & scale control

• Low cycles of concentration

• Minimal airborne dust

• No oils or grease

If the water quality is poor and contains solids that might tend to clog
fill then a fill with larger openings is selected.  Such fill will be
less efficient (less surface area and less air water contact) and may
reduce efficiency by 6 to 10%. If all else is equal this will increase
the approach.

I asked whether he knew of any situations where a cooling tower produced
cooler water than the surface source water.  He said they were working
on one project (deal not yet sealed) in Texas where the lake water
reaches 95oF in the summer. Operating in a helper tower mode, they
figure that they will be able to return cooling water back to the lake
at a temperature lower than 95 oF and thus actually reduce the lake
temperature. He noted that one of their selling points is that they
actually increase DO in the discharge whereas once-through tends to do
the opposite.  I suggested they look at using a recirculating mode.  He
said they usually use a design wet bulb temperature of around 78 oF but
that it might be higher in areas along the Gulf like in Louisiana where
it might be 80-81 oF. Even then, these design wet bulb values are
present only a fraction of the time.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 143 (Thursday, July 27, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34891-34894]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15553]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0708; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-035-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD 2016-
20-11, for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R
series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes
(collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Airbus Model
A310 series airplanes. AD 2016-20-11 requires repetitive inspections of
the external area of the aft cargo door sill beam for cracking,
repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking of the cargo door sill
beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate, and repair if necessary.
Since we issued AD 2016-20-11, we have determined that reinforcement of
the aft cargo door sill beam area is necessary to address the unsafe
condition, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. This proposed AD would retain the inspections for
cracking, and repair if necessary; and require reinforcement of the aft
cargo door sill beam area. We are proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 11,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 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-2017-
0708; 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: Dan Rodina, 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 proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0708;
Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-035-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

    On September 28, 2016, we issued AD 2016-20-11, Amendment 39-18677
(81 FR 85837, November 29, 2016) (``AD 2016-20-11''), for certain
Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A310 series
airplanes. AD 2016-20-11 was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks on
the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate. AD 2016-
20-11 requires repetitive ultrasonic and detailed inspections of the
external area of the aft cargo door sill beam for cracking, repetitive
high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for fatigue cracking of
the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate, and
repair if necessary. We issued AD 2016-20-11 to detect and correct
fatigue cracking of the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion
box plate, which could result in the loss of the door locking function
and subsequently, loss of the cargo door in flight and rapid
decompression.
    Since we issued AD 2016-20-11, Airbus has developed a reinforcement
modification of the aft cargo door sill beam area, which constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We have determined
the reinforcement of the aft cargo door sill beam area is necessary to
address the unsafe condition.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0048, dated March 15, 2017; corrected April 20, 2017 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A300-600 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    In the frame of the widespread fatigue damage (WFD) compliance
study and after an in-service occurrence, the area of the aft cargo
door sill beam and adjacent structure was identified as sensitive to
the fatigue loads.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of multiple lock fittings, possibly resulting in loss of the
cargo door in flight and consequent explosive decompression of the
aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert
Operators Transmission (AOT) A53W005-14 providing inspection
instructions and, consequently, EASA issued Emergency AD 2014-0097-E
[which corresponded to FAA AD 2014-12-06] to require repetitive
ultrasonic inspections (US) or detailed inspections (DET) of the aft
cargo door sill beam area [and corrective actions if necessary].
    After that [EASA] AD was issued, further analysis indicated that
repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections needed to
be introduced, and Airbus published Service Bulletin (SB) A310-53-
2139 and SB A300-53-6179 to provide instructions. Prompted by this
determination, EASA issued AD 2015-0150, retaining the requirements
of EASA Emergency AD 2014-0097-E, which was superseded, and required
repetitive HFEC inspections of the concerned areas. The first HFEC
inspection terminated the repetitive US/DET inspections. That [EASA]
AD also required the inspection results to be reported.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus developed a
reinforcement modification of the aft cargo door sill beam area, and
published Airbus SB A310-53-2141 and SB A300-53-6181, which were
revised lately, to make this available for in-service application.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2015-0150 [which corresponded to FAA AD
2016-20-11], which is superseded, and requires modification
[reinforcement] of the aft cargo door sill beam, which constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
    This [EASA] AD is re-published to correct the compliance time
description in Table 4.

    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-2017-
0708.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6181, Revision
01, dated July 2, 2015; and A310-53-2141, Revision 01, dated July 2,
2015. This service information describes procedures for reinforcing the
aft cargo door sill beam. These service bulletins are distinct since
they apply to different airplane models.
    Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6179, dated
December 12, 2014; and A310-53-2139, dated December 12, 2014. This
service information describes procedures for repetitive HFEC
inspections of the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box
plate. These service bulletins are distinct since they apply to
different airplane models.
    Airbus has also issued AOT A53W005-14, Revision 01, dated April 29,
2014, which describes procedures for doing an ultrasonic inspection or
detailed inspection of the aft cargo door sill beam external area for
cracking.
    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 the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 75 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection (retained actions from  12 work-hours x $85             N/A  $1,020 per           $76,500 per
 AD 2016-20-11).                    per hour = $1,020                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
Modification (new proposed         40 work-hours x $85         $96,890  $100,290...........  $7,521,750.
 action).                           per hour = $3,400.
Reporting........................  1 work-hour x $85                 0  $85 per inspection   $6,375 per
(retained action from AD 2016-20-   per hour = $85 per                   cycle.               inspection cycle.
 11).                               inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2016-20-11, Amendment 39-18677 (81 FR 85837, November 29, 2016), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0708; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-
035-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 11, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-20-11, Amendment 39-18677 (81 FR 85837,
November 29, 2016) (``AD 2016-20-11'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus Modification 05438 has
been embodied in production, except those on which Airbus
Modification 12046 has been embodied in production.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622
airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
    (5) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324,
and -325 airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks on the cargo
door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate. We are issuing
this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the cargo door sill beam,
lock fitting, and torsion box plate, which could result in the loss
of the door locking function and subsequently, loss of the cargo
door in flight and rapid decompression.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2016-20-11, with no changes. Within the compliance time identified
in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable: Do
an ultrasonic inspection or detailed inspection of the aft cargo
door sill beam external area for cracking, in accordance with Airbus
Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53W005-14, dated April 22, 2014;
or Airbus AOT A53W005-14, Revision 01, dated April 29, 2014. Repeat
the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 275 flight
cycles. As of January 3, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-20-11),
use only AOT A53W005-14, Revision 01, dated April 29, 2014, to
comply with the requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 30,000 flight cycles or
more since the airplane's first flight as of July 2, 2014 (the
effective date of AD 2014-12-06, Amendment 39-17867, (79 FR 34403,
June 17, 2014) (``AD 2014-12-06'')): Within 50 flight cycles after
July 2, 2014.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated 18,000 flight cycles or
more, but fewer than 30,000 flight cycles since the airplane's first
flight as of July 2, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-12-06):
Within 275 flight cycles after July 2, 2014.
    (3) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 18,000 flight
cycles since the airplane's first flight as of July 2, 2014 (the
effective date of AD 2014-12-06): Before exceeding 18,275 flight
cycles since the airplane's first flight.

(h) Retained Optional Terminating Action, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (h) of AD
2016-20-11, with no changes. Accomplishment of a high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspection for cracking, in accordance with Airbus
AOT A53W005-14, dated April 22, 2014; or AOT A53W005-14, Revision
01, dated April 29, 2014; terminates the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane. If any
cracking is found during the HFEC inspection, before further flight,
repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch,
ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA).

(i) Retained Reporting Requirement, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2016-20-11, with no changes. Submit a report of the findings (both
positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (g)
of this AD to ``Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online
Application'' on Airbus World (https://w3.airbus.com/), at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
The report must include the inspection results, including no
findings.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after January 3, 2017 (the
effective date of AD 2016-20-11): Submit the report within 30 days
after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before January 3, 2017 (the
effective date of AD 2016-20-11): Submit the report within 30 days
after January 3, 2017.

(j) Retained Definition of Airplane Groups, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the definitions specified in paragraph
(j) of AD 2016-20-11, with no changes. Paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2),
and (k)(3) of this AD refer to airplane groups, as identified in
paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Airplanes on which an HFEC inspection was accomplished as
specified in Airbus AOT A53W005-14.
    (2) Airplanes on which no HFEC inspection was accomplished as
specified in Airbus AOT A53W005-14, that have accumulated more than
18,000 total flight cycles as of January 3, 2017 (the effective date
of AD 2016-20-11).
    (3) Airplanes on which no HFEC inspection was accomplished as
specified in Airbus AOT A53W005-14, that have accumulated 18,000
total flight cycles or fewer as of January 3, 2017 (the effective
date of AD 2016-20-11).

(k) Retained Repetitive HFEC Inspections, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2016-20-11, with no changes. At the applicable time specified in
paragraph (k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(3) of this AD: Do an HFEC
inspection for fatigue cracking of the cargo door sill beam, lock
fitting, and torsion box plate, in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6179, dated December 12, 2014; or Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-53-2139, dated December 12, 2014; as applicable.
Repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
4,600 flight cycles.
    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD:
Inspect within 4,600 flight cycles after the most recent HFEC
inspection specified in Airbus AOT A53W005-14.
    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD:
Inspect within 2,000 flight cycles after January 3, 2017 (the
effective date of AD 2016-20-11).
    (3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (j)(3) of this AD:
Inspect before exceeding 13,000 total flight cycles since the
airplane's

first flight, or within 2,000 flight cycles after January 3, 2017
(the effective date of AD 2016-20-11), whichever occurs later.

(l) Retained Corrective Action, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD
2016-20-11, with no changes. If any crack is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (g) or (k) of this AD: Before
further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(m) Retained Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections in Paragraph
(g) of This AD, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the terminating action of paragraph
(m)(1) of AD 2016-20-11, with no changes. For any airplane
identified in paragraphs (j)(2) and (j)(3) of this AD,
accomplishment of the initial inspection required by paragraph (k)
of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.

(n) New Cargo Door Reinforcement

    At the latest of the applicable times specified in paragraphs
(n)(1), (n)(2), and (n)(3) of this AD: Reinforce the aft cargo door
sill beam area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2141, Revision 01, dated July 2,
2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6181, Revision 01, dated
July 2, 2015; as applicable.
    (1) Before exceeding 19,600 flight cycles since first flight of
the airplane.
    (2) Within 2,300 flight cycles after the last HFEC or detailed
inspection required by this AD that was accomplished before the
effective date of this AD.
    (3) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

(o) New Terminating Action

    Modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (n) of this
AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections
required by paragraphs (g) and (k) of this AD for that airplane.

(p) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(n) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6181, dated
June 26, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2141, dated June
26, 2015; as applicable.

(q) 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 the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (r)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2016-20-11 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, 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 EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.
    (4) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (l) of this AD: If any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(r) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0048, dated March 15, 2017;
corrected April 20, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0708.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 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. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 14, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-15553 Filed 7-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 66636]
[DOCID:fr16de09-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-378-000]

Buffalo Ridge II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

December 9, 2009.

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Buffalo Ridge II LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 29, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29912 Filed 12-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 64408]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD06-6-000]

Joint Meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Notice of Joint Meeting of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) will hold a joint meeting on Wednesday,
October 21, 2015 at the headquarters of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The meeting is
expected to begin at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at approximately 11:30 a.m.
Eastern Time. Members of the public may attend the open session.
Commissioners from both agencies are expected to participate.
    The format for the joint meeting will consist of discussions
between the two sets of Commissioners following presentations by their
respective staffs. In addition, representatives of the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) will attend and participate in
this meeting.
    The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the
technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal
Reporters, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER>. There will be a free webcast of the
conference. The webcast will allow persons to listen to the technical
conference, but not participate. Anyone with Internet access can listen
to the conference by navigating to the Calendar of Events at
www.ferc.gov and locating the technical conference in the Calendar. The
technical conference will contain a link to its webcast. The Capital
Connection provides technical support for the webcast and offers the
option of listing to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you
have any questions, please visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call 703-
993-3100.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The webcast will continue to be available on the Calendar of
Events on the Commission's Web site www.ferc.gov for three months
after the conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pre-registration is not required but is highly encouraged for those
attending in person. Attendees may register in advance at the following
Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/10-21-15-NRC-form.asp. Attendees should bring a photo ID and allow time to pass
through building security procedures. There is no fee to attend the
open meeting.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or 202-502 -8659 (TTY); or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    Questions about the meeting should be directed to Sarah McKinley at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 16, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26898 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41725-41727]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14899]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food And Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-1322]

Kris A. Hampton-Bey II: Final Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring
Kris A. Hampton-Bey II for a period of 5 years from importing or
offering for import any drug into the United States. FDA bases this
order on a finding that Mr. Hampton-Bey II engaged in a pattern of
importing or offering for import misbranded drugs (i.e. in an amount,
frequency, or dosage that is inconsistent with his personal or
household use) that are not designated in an authorized electronic data
interchange system as products regulated by FDA. Mr. Hampton-Bey II was
given notice of the proposed debarment and was given an opportunity to
request a hearing to show why he should not be debarred. As of May 8,
2022 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Mr. Hampton-Bey II had not
responded. Mr. Hampton-Bey II's failure to respond and request a
hearing constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this
matter.

DATES: This order is applicable July 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the
Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm.

1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaime Espinosa, Division of
Enforcement (ELEM-4029), Office of Strategic Planning and Operational
Policy, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration,
12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(D))
permits debarment of an individual from importing or offering for
import any drug into the United States if FDA finds, as required by
section 306(b)(3)(D) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has engaged
in a pattern of importing or offering for import adulterated or
misbranded drugs (i.e. in an amount, frequency, or dosage that is
inconsistent with personal or household use by the importer) that are
not designated in an entry in an authorized electronic data interchange
system as products regulated by FDA.
    After an investigation, FDA discovered that Mr. Hampton-Bey II has
engaged in numerous instances of importing or offering for import
misbranded drugs; all the parcels containing the misbranded drugs
serving as the basis for this action, described in further detail
below, were intercepted by FDA at either the Newark or Chicago
International Mail Facilities (IMF) and were addressed to Mr. Hampton-
Bey II at an address connected to him.
    On or about March 11, 2019, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for import a
parcel intercepted and processed by FDA at the Chicago IMF and which
was addressed to him. FDA determined that the product contained in this
parcel was 550 tablets of sildenafil citrate and was a misbranded drug
because the article was determined to be a prescription drug but did
not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its label and because the article
was determined to lack adequate directions for use. The product was
refused entry on April 8, 2019.
    On or about June 25, 2019, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for import
two parcels intercepted and processed by FDA at the Chicago IMF and
which were addressed to him. FDA determined that the product contained
in the first parcel was 850 tablets of Sildenafil Tabs 100 MG and was a
misbranded drug because the article was determined to lack adequate
directions for use and because the article was determined to be a
prescription drug but did not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its
label. FDA determined that the product contained in the second parcel
was 850 tablets of Sildenafil 100 MG Tabs and was a misbranded drug
because the article was determined to lack adequate directions for use
and because the article was determined to be a prescription drug but
did not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its label. Both products were
refused entry on July 17, 2019.
    On or about August 19, 2019, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for import
a parcel intercepted and processed by FDA at the Chicago IMF and which
was addressed to him. FDA determined that the product contained in this
parcel was 900 tablets of Sildenafil Tabs 100 MG and was a misbranded
drug because the article was determined to be a prescription drug but
did not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its label and because the
article was determined to lack adequate directions for use. The product
was refused entry on September 12, 2019.
    On or about December 28, 2020, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for
import a parcel intercepted and processed by FDA at the Chicago IMF and
which was addressed to him. FDA determined that the product contained
in this parcel was 870 tablets of Sildenafil Tabs 100 MG and was a
misbranded drug because the article was determined to be a prescription
drug but did not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its label and
because the article was determined to be a drug that was not included
in a list required by section 510(j) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360(j)). The product was refused entry on January 19, 2021.
    On or about December 29, 2020, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for
import a parcel intercepted and processed by FDA at the Chicago IMF and
which was addressed to him. FDA determined that the product contained
in this parcel was 870 tablets of sildenafil citrate and was a
misbranded drug because the article was determined to be a prescription
drug but did not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its label. The
product was refused entry on January 21, 2021.
    On or about December 29, 2020, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for
import a parcel intercepted and processed by FDA at the Chicago IMF and
which was addressed to him. FDA determined that the product contained
in this parcel was 870 tablets of sildenafil citrate and was a
misbranded drug because the article was determined to lack adequate
directions for use. The product was refused entry on January 22, 2021.
    On or about January 5, 2021, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for import
a parcel intercepted and processed by FDA at the Chicago IMF and which
was addressed to him. FDA determined that the product contained in this
parcel was 870 tablets of sildenafil and was a misbranded drug because
the article was determined to lack adequate directions for use and
because the article was determined to be a prescription drug but did
not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its label. The product was
refused entry on February 5, 2021.
    On or about January 6, 2021, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for import
a parcel intercepted and processed by FDA at the Chicago IMF and which
was addressed to him. FDA determined that the product contained in this
parcel was 870 tablets of Sildenafil Tablets 100 MG and was a
misbranded drug because the article was determined to be a prescription
drug but did not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its label and
because the article had been determined to lack adequate directions for
use. The product was refused entry on February 1, 2021.
    On or about January 7, 2021, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for import
a parcel intercepted and processed by FDA at the Chicago IMF and which
was addressed to him. FDA determined that the first product contained
in this parcel was 850 tablets of sildenafil citrate and was a
misbranded drug because the article was determined to be a prescription
drug but did not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its label and
because the article had been determined to lack adequate directions for
use. FDA determined that the second product contained in this parcel
was 10 tablets of sildenafil citrate tablets and was a misbranded drug
because the article was determined to be a prescription drug but did
not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its label and because the article
had been determined to lack adequate directions for use. Both products
were refused entry on February 3, 2021.
    On or about March 4, 2021, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for import a
parcel intercepted and processed by FDA at the Chicago IMF and which
was addressed to him. FDA determined that the product contained in this
parcel was 87 tablets of sildenafil tablets and was a misbranded drug
because the article was determined: (1) to be a prescription drug but
did not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its label; (2) not to bear a
label containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer,
packer, or distributor; (3) to be a drug that was not included in a
list required by section 510(j) of the FD&C Act; and (4) to be a drug
that was manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed
in an establishment not duly registered under section 510 of the FD&C
Act. The

product was refused entry on April 5, 2021.
    On or about March 17, 2021, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for import a
parcel intercepted and processed by FDA at the Newark IMF and which was
addressed to him. FDA determined that the product contained in this
parcel was 364 tablets of BEGMA-100 Sildenafil Citrate Tablets 100 MG
and was a misbranded drug because the article was determined to be a
prescription drug but did not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its
label. The product was refused entry on April 23, 2021.
    On or about March 24, 2021, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for import a
parcel intercepted and processed by FDA at the Chicago IMF and which
was addressed to him. FDA determined that the product contained in this
parcel was 870 tablets of sildenafil citrate and was a misbranded drug
because the article was determined to be a prescription drug but did
not include the symbol ``Rx only'' on its label. The product was
refused entry on April 19, 2021.
    On or about April 20, 2021, Mr. Hampton-Bey II offered for import a
parcel intercepted and processed by FDA at the Chicago IMF and which
was addressed to him. FDA determined that the product contained in this
parcel was 800 tablets of Sildenafil 100 MG Tablets and was a
misbranded drug because the article was determined to be a drug that
was not included in a list required by section 510(j) of the FD&C Act.
The product was refused entry on May 11, 2021.
    As a result of this pattern of importing or offering for import
misbranded drugs (i.e. in an amount, frequency, or dosage that is
inconsistent with his personal or household use) that are not
designated in an authorized electronic data interchange system as
products regulated by FDA, in accordance with section 306(b)(3)(D) of
the FD&C Act, FDA sent Mr. Hampton-Bey II, by certified mail on April
4, 2022, a notice proposing to debar him for a 5-year period from
importing or offering for import any drug into the United States.
    In proposing a debarment period, FDA weighed the considerations set
forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act that it considered
applicable to Mr. Hampton-Bey II's pattern of conduct and concluded
that his conduct warranted the imposition of a 5-year period of
debarment.
    The proposal informed Mr. Hampton-Bey II of the proposed debarment
and offered him an opportunity to request a hearing, providing 30 days
from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request,
and advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver
of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this
action. Mr. Hampton-Bey II received the proposal and notice of
opportunity for a hearing on April 8, 2022. Mr. Hampton-Bey II failed
to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and
has, therefore, waived his opportunity for a hearing and waived any
contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal
Food Operations, under section 306(b)(3)(D) of the FD&C Act, under
authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Mr. Kris
A. Hampton-Bey II has engaged in a pattern of importing or offering for
import misbranded drugs (i.e. in an amount, frequency, or dosage that
is inconsistent with his personal or household use) that are not
designated in an authorized electronic data interchange system as
products regulated by FDA. FDA finds that this pattern of conduct
should be accorded a debarment period of 5 years as provided by section
306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Hampton-Bey II is
debarred for a period of 5 years from importing or offering for import
any drug into the United States, applicable (see DATES). Pursuant to
section 301(cc) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(cc)), the importing or
offering for import into the United States of any drug by, with the
assistance of, or at the direction of Mr. Hampton-Bey II is a
prohibited act.
    Any application by Mr. Hampton-Bey II for termination of debarment
under section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be identified with
Docket No. FDA-2021-N-1322 and sent to the Dockets Management Staff
(see ADDRESSES). The public availability of information in these
submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20(j).
    Publicly available submissions will be placed in the docket and
will be viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 5, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-14899 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 13840-13841]
[DOCID:fr17mr06-78]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0084; FRL-7769-9]

Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain
Pesticide Registrations: Technical Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA issued a notice
of receipt of request by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain
pesticide registrations. That notice was published in the Federal
Register on February 22, 2006, (71 FR 9118-9125). The notice announced
that 90 pesticide registrations would be canceled after 180 days unless
a request was withdrawn. These 90 registrations were listed in Table 1.
The registrant waived the 180 day comment period for EPA Registration
Number 66222-81 (Pendimethalin Technical) and EPA Registration Number
66222-82 (Repose) which was not noted in the February 22, 2006 Notice.
This notice corrects the deadline for submission of withdrawal request
for EPA Registration Number 66222-81 (Pendimethalin Technical) and EPA
Registration Number 66222-82 (Repose) only. The deadline for withdrawal
request on these two registrations should have been 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.

DATES:  Unless a request is withdrawn by March 24, 2006, orders will be
issued canceling the registrations for EPA Registration Number(s):
66222-81 and 66222-82. The Agency will consider withdrawal requests
postmarked no later than March 22, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John Jamula, Information Technolocy
and Resources Management Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use
pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket identification number [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0084; FRL-7769-9].
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2,
1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice corrects information that was published in the Federal
Register on February 22, 2006, (71 FR 9118-9125). The notice of receipt
of request to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations
announced that 90 pesticide registrations would be canceled after 180
days unless a request was withdrawn. These 90 registrations were listed
in Table 1. This notice corrects information in the notice about two of
the registrations. These registrations are: EPA Registration Number
66222-81 (Pendimethalin Technical) and EPA Registration Number 66222-82
(Repose). The registrant waived the 180 day comment period for these
two registrations. This waiver was not noted in the February 22, 2006
Notice.
    Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant by March 24, 2006,
orders will be issued canceling both of these registrations. Users of
these pesticides or anyone else desiring the retention of a
registration should contact the applicable registrant directly prior to
March 24, 2006.

III. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request,
EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal
Register. Thereafter, the

Administrator may approve such a request.

IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must
submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, postmarked before March 24, 2006. This
written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to
the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If
the product(s) have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the
effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier
cancellation action are controlling. The withdrawal request must also
include a commitment to pay any reregistration fees due, and to fulfill
any applicable unsatisfied data requirements.

V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    The effective date of cancellation will be the date of the
cancellation order. The orders effecting these requested cancellations
will generally permit a registrant to sell or distribute existing
stocks for 1 year after the date the cancellation request was received.
This policy is in accordance with the Agency's statement of policy as
prescribed in the Federal Register of June 26, 1991 (56 FR 29362) (FRL-
3846-4). Exceptions to this general rule will be made if a product
poses a risk concern, or is in noncompliance with reregistration
requirements, or is subject to a Data Call-In. In all cases, product-
specific disposition dates will be given in the cancellation orders.
    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. Unless the provisions of an earlier order apply,
existing stocks already in the hands of dealers or users can be
distributed, sold, or used legally until they are exhausted, provided
that such further sale and use comply with the EPA-approved label and
labeling of the affected product. Exception to these general rules will
be made in specific cases when more stringent restrictions on sale,
distribution, or use of the products or their ingredients have already
been imposed, as in a Special Review action, or where the Agency has
identified significant potential risk concerns associated with a
particular chemical.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: March 13, 2006.
Robert A. Forrest,
Acting Director, Information Technology and Resources Management
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 06-2633 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59738-59740]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23540]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70472; File No. SR-PHLX-2013-93]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make a
Minor Modification To Pricing Incentive Programs

September 23, 2013.
    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 September 10, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to make a minor modification to pricing
incentive programs under PHLX's schedule of fees and credits applicable
to options trading on PHLX. Specifically, PHLX is proposing to exclude
from volume-based pricing calculations any trading day on which PHLX is
closed for trading due to early closing or a market-wide trading halt.
This exclusion exists today for the trading of equities on PSX, the
equities trading facility of PHLX.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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
    PSX, the PHLX facility for trading equities, offers pricing for the
trading of equities that is based on average daily volume of trading.
The applicable fee schedule for equities trading on PSX contains
language excluding from such volume calculations any day on which the
market is not open the entire trading day. PHLX Pricing Schedule,
Section VIII, entitled ``Order Routing and Execution,'' footnote to
subsection (a)(4) states that ``For purposes of determining average
daily volume hereunder, any day that the market is not open for the
entire trading day will be excluded from such calculation.'' As a
result, when trading ends early, as for trading days preceding certain
federal holidays, or when there is a material market-wide disruption,
PHLX excludes that day from the calculation of average daily volume.
    The PHLX pricing schedule for options also contains pricing
programs based on average daily volume. PHLX has determined to make
this practice uniform for both equities and options trading on PHLX by
moving the relevant language to the preamble of the PHLX Fee Schedule.
In other words, for purposes of calculating any pricing based on
average daily volumes for both equities and options trading any day
that the market is not open for the entire trading day should be
excluded from such calculation. As it currently does for equities, this
formulation would exclude days on which the market closes early for
holiday observance. It would also exclude days where PHLX declares a
trading halt in all securities or honors a market-wide trading halt
declared by another market. This would apply to the market-wide trading
halt of approximately three hours on August 22, 2013, which PHLX plans
to exclude from Customer Rebate Tiers for the month of August.
    This change will affect several fees described in PHLX Pricing
Schedule, Section B, which contains pricing incentive programs that are
designed to encourage member participation in PHLX options trading by
increasing rebates or reducing fees for firms that trade on PHLX in
increasingly higher volumes. For example, PHLX currently has four
Customer Rebate Tiers by which it determines the rebate per share for
Customer \3\ orders in Multiply Listed Options (including SPY) that are
electronically-delivered and executed. The Customer Rebate Tier
thresholds are based upon a percentage of national volume of Customer
Orders in certain options on a monthly basis. The rebates range from
$0.00 to $0.15 per contract for Simple Orders \4\ and from $0.00 to

$0.17 per contract for Complex Orders as follows \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which
is not for the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14)).
    \4\ These ``Category A Rebates'' are paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot
Options and Customer Simple Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in
Section II symbols. Rebates are paid on Customer PIXL Orders in
Section II symbols that execute against non-Initiating Order
interest, except in the case of Customer PIXL Orders that are
greater than 999 contracts. All Customer PIXL Orders that are
greater than 999 contracts will be paid a rebate regardless of the
contra-party to the transaction.
    \5\ These ``Category B Rebates'' are paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Penny Pilot
Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II symbols. Rebates
are paid on Customer PIXL Complex Orders in Section II symbols that
execute against non-Initiating Order interest, except in the case of
Customer PIXL Complex Orders that are greater than 999 contracts.
All Customer PIXL Complex Orders that are greater than 999 contracts
will be paid a rebate regardless of the contra-party to the
transaction.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Percentage thresholds of national
                                              customer volume in multiply-
          Customer rebate tiers              listed equity and ETF options       Category A        Category B
                                             classes, excluding SPY options
                                                       (monthly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1...................................  0.00-0.75........................             $0.00             $0.00
Tier 2...................................  Above 0.75-1.60..................              0.12              0.17
Tier 3...................................  Above 1.60-2.60..................              0.14              0.17
Tier 4...................................  Above 2.60.......................              0.15              0.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Exchange did not exclude aberrant low volume days when
calculating ADV for the month, as a result of the decreased trading
volume, the numerator for the calculation (e.g., trading volume) would
be correspondingly lower, but the denominator for the threshold
calculations (e.g., the number of trading days) would not be decreased.
This would result in an effective cost increase.
    [sic] Addition to the Customer Rebate Tiers, the proposed change
will also impact additional volume based options pricing related to the
Electronic Firm Fee Discount,\6\ the QCC Rebate Schedule \7\ and a
discount related to PIXL Initiating Orders (Section II) \8\ The
proposed change does not impact the calculation of fees and rebated
[sic] set forth under Section VIII., Order Routing and Execution,
subsection (a)(1); the exclusion currently applies to those fees and it
will continue to apply unchanged. Nor does the proposal does not [sic]
apply to other transaction fees or rebates that do not include an
average daily volume component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Firm electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot
and non-Penny Pilot Options are reduced to $0.17 per contract for a
given month provided that a Firm has volume greater than 500,000
electronically-delivered contracts in a month (``Electronic Firm Fee
Discount''). The Electronic Firm Fee Discount applies per member
organization when such members are trading in their own proprietary
account.
    \7\ The QCC Rebate Schedule comprises 5 tiers as follows: Tier 1
(0 to 299,999 contracts in a month) receives $0.00 rebate per
contract; Tier 2 (300,000 to 499,999 contracts in a month) receives
$0.07 rebate per contract; Tier 3 (500,000 to 699,999 contracts in a
month) receives $0.08 rebate per contract; Tier 4 (700,000 to
999,999 contracts in a month) receives $0.09 rebate per contract;
and Tier 5 (Over 1,000,000 contracts in a month) receives $0.11
rebate per contract. The maximum QCC Rebate to be paid in a given
month will not exceed $375,000.
    \8\ The PIXL Initiating Order (Section II) pricing is as
follows: $0.07 per contract or $0.05 per contract if Customer Rebate
Program Threshold Volume defined in Section B is greater than
100,000 contracts per day in a month. Any member or member
organization under Common Ownership with another member or member
organization that qualifies for a Customer Rebate Tier discount in
Section B will receive the PIXL Initiating Order discount as
described above. The Initiating Order Fee for Professional, Firm,
Broker-Dealer, Specialist and Market Maker orders that are contra to
a Customer PIXL Order will be reduced to $0.00 if the Customer PIXL
Order is greater than 999 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Absent the authority to exclude days that the market is not open
for the entire trading day, members will experience an effective
increase in fees or decrease in rebates. The artificially low volumes
of trading on such days reduce the average daily activity of PHLX
members both daily and monthly. Accordingly, excluding such days from
the monthly calculation will diminish the likelihood of an effective
increase in the cost of trading on PHLX, a result that is unintended
and undesirable to PHLX and to PHLX members.
2. Statutory Basis
    PHLX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which PHLX operates or controls, and is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHLX believes that the proposed change provides for equitable and
reasonable allocation of fees because it simply extends to options
trading a rule that currently applies in equities trading. Moreover, it
is equitable and reasonable to eliminate from the calculation days on
which the market is not open the entire trading day because it
preserves PHLX's full intent behind adopting volume-based pricing. The
proposed change is non-discriminatory because it applies equally to all
members and to all volume tiers on all asset classes traded on PHLX.
PHLX will continue to monitor the operation of the proposed rule change
and, in the event that PHLX identifies a disparate impact on one or
another volume tier in the future, PHLX may determine to modify that
volume tier via an additional proposed rule change.

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

    PHLX 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, as amended. PHLX notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, PHLX must
continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges
and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, PHLX believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    PHLX does not believe the proposed rule change will have an adverse
impact on competition because there has been no adverse impact from
imposing this rule in the context of equities treading. Moreover, in
this instance, the proposed rule change should not impact competition
because it merely preserves the full intent of PHLX's already-filed
prices, which have not been deemed inconsistent with the Exchange Act
or been found to impose an undue burden on competition. Moreover, the
proposed rule change regarding days on which the

market is not open the entire trading day will result in an effective
reduction of fees or increase in rebates such that the total cost of
trading on PHLX should decline. This is evidence that a proposed rule
change is pro-competitive rather than anti-competitive.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    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 from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Waiver will allow the
Exchange to immediately implement the proposed change, thereby reducing
the potential for confusion among member organizations and the public
about how the Exchange will calculate thresholds related to billing for
activity on the Exchange during August 2013. Therefore, the Commission
hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-PHLX-2013-93 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-2013-93. 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 on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices 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-2013-93, and should be submitted on or before
October 18, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23540 Filed 9-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29749-29751]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0468]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Severn River, Sherwood Forest, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Severn River. This action is necessary to provide
for the safety of life on the navigable waters of Sherwood Forest near
Annapolis, MD, during a fireworks display on July 3, 2017. This action
will prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region
or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. on July 3, 2017, until 10:30
p.m. on July 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0468 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 about this
rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On December 29, 2016, the Sherwood Forest Club, Inc. of Sherwood
Forest, MD notified the Coast Guard that from 9:15 p.m. to 10 p.m. on
July 3, 2017, it will be conducting a fireworks display launched from
the end of the Sherwood Forest Club main pier located adjacent to the
Severn River, approximately 200 yards east of Brewer Pond in Sherwood
Forest, MD. In the event of inclement weather, the fireworks display
will be scheduled for July 7, 2017. In response, on April 6, 2017, the
Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled
``Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events
and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District'' (82 FR
16746). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on
our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display.
During the comment period that ended May 8, 2017, we received two
comments. While the Coast Guard has made the determination to issue a
temporary final rule concerning this year's fireworks display, USCG
still plans to issue a final rule in the future to cover this recurring
event in future years.
    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 a fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with
the fireworks to be used in this July 3, 2017 display will be a safety
concern for anyone on the Severn River near the end of the Sherwood
Forest Club main pier. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the
safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before,
during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published
April 6, 2017. Both comments addressed issues not related to this
rulemaking. Therefore, there are no changes in the regulatory text of
this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM based on the comments
received.
    Details of the event were provided to the Coast Guard on May 15,
2017, that allowed the COTP to reassess the potential hazards
associated with the fireworks to be used in this July 3, 2017 display.
The area of the safety zone at the fireworks discharge site located at
end of the Sherwood Forest Club main pier, listed in the Table to 33
CFR 165.506 under Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region--
COTP Zone as No. (b.)27, is reduced from a 200 yards radius to a 150
yards radius. As a result, there is one change in the regulatory text
of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. The safety zone will
be reduced in size from 200 yards from the center point located at
39[deg]01'54.0'' N., longitude 076[deg]32'41.8'' W. to a 150 yard
radius.

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 13563 emphasizes
the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing
costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule
has not been designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will
impact a small designated area of the Severn River for 2\1/2\ hours
during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the
Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone.

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
would 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 might 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. 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 would 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 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

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 would 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 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 involves a safety zone lasting approximately
2\1/2\ hours that will prohibit entry within 150 yards of a fireworks
discharge site at the end of the Sherwood Forest pier. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A Record of
Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is
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. 19133 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0468 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.0468  Safety Zone; Severn River, Sherwood Forest, MD.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region means the
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region to assist in enforcing the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Severn River, within a 150 yards radius of a fireworks discharge
site located at the end of Sherwood Forest Club main pier in
approximate position latitude 39[deg]01'54.0'' N., longitude
076[deg]32'41.8'' W., Sherwood Forest, MD. All coordinates refer to
datum NAD 1983.
    (c) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in
subpart C of this part apply to the safety zone created by this
section.

    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations
governing safety zones found in Sec.  165.23.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region. All vessels underway within this safety zone
at the time it is implemented shall depart the safety zone.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone must
first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region or designated representative. To request
permission to enter or transit the regulated area, the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representatives can
be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this
section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal,
State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light or other
means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If
permission is granted to enter the safety zone, all persons and vessels
must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region or designated representative and proceed as
directed while in the zone.
    (4) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and
local agencies.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m.
through 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2017, and if necessary due to inclement
weather, from 8 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 7, 2017.

    Dated: June 22, 2017.
M.W. Batchelder,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2017-13767 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 APR 23 2004 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Review of Supplemental Data on the Amino Acid Similarity Comparison for Phosopho Mannose Isomerase, a Plant Incorporated Protectant Inert Ingredient.

TO: Mike Mendelsohn Regulatory Action Leader Microbial Pesticides Branch, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C)

FROM: John L. Kough, Ph. D., Biologist Microbial Pesticides Branch, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C)

ACTION REQUESTED: To review the identified proteins shown to have regions of significant amino acid similarity to phospho mannose isomerase ( PMI).

CONCLUSION: The proteins identified as having significant amino acid similarity to the PMI enzyme are, for the vast majority, enzymes with demonstrated or inferred PMI activity. The source organisms with significant similarity to PMI were identified as numerous bacteria, fungi, plants, insects, and mammals as well as a nematode and protist. This wide diversity of source organisms and the fact that PMI is involved in carbohydrate metabolism indicates that PMI is probably a housekeeping enzyme and already has broad expression and exposure.

DATA REVIEW RECORD Inert Ingredient: Phospho Mannose Isomerase ( PMI) 2 Product Name: PMI Company Name: Syngenta Seeds, Inc. ID No: 67979 EUP G Chemical Number: 67979 Submission Number: S328476 DP Barcode: D292499 MRID No: 462052 01 BACKGROUND: In the interest of utilizing marker proteins in plant transformations that are not antibiotic resistance traits, Syngenta has developed a selectable marker based on mannose utilization.

DISCUSSION: The information provided indicates that all the proteins with similarities to the Escherichia coli PMI were either identified PMI enzymes, putative PMI enzymes or hypothetical open reading frames for PMI proteins. The one identified protein that was not directly named a PMI was identified as a RNA polymerase sigma factor.

The source organisms with significant similarity to PMI were identified as numerous bacteria, fungi, plants, insects, and mammals as well as a nematode and protist. This wide diversity of source organisms and the fact that PMI is involved in carbohydrate metabolism indicates that PMI is probably a housekeeping enzyme and already has broad expression and exposure.

RECOMMENDATION: There is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the aggregate exposure to PMI protein as a selectable marker protein and an inert ingredient for PIPs.

SUMMARY OF DATA SUBMITTED: MRID 462052 01 Supplemental information for the AA similarity comaprison. CONCLUSION: PMI from E. coli as expressed as a marker protein was shown to have significant similarity to 92 other proteins which were identified as other PMI enzymes, putative PMI enzymes or hypothetical open reading frames for PMIlike proteins. The one identified protein that was not directly named a PMI was identified as a RNA polymerase sigma factor. CLASSIFICATION: ACCEPTABLE. 3 DATA EVALUATION REPORT Reviewed by: John L. Kough, Ph. D., Biologist, BPPD ______________________________________________________________________________ STUDY TYPE: Supplemental Information on Amino Acid Similarity Comparison MRID NO: 462052 01 CHEMICAL NO: 67979 TEST MATERIAL: Phospho Mannose Isomerase STUDY NO: Report No. SSB 101 04 SPONSOR: Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC TEST FACILITY: Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC TITLE OF REPORT: Description of Phosphomannose Isomerase Protein Homologues Identified in Syngenta Seeds Biotechnology Report No. SSB 016 03 AUTHOR: Jennifer Zawodny STUDY COMPLETED: April 23, 2003 CONCLUSION: PMI from E. coli as expressed as a marker protein was shown to have significant similarity to 92 other proteins which were identified as other PMI enzymes, putative PMI enzymes or hypothetical open reading frames for PMIlike proteins. The one identified protein that was not directly named a PMI was identified as a RNA polymerase sigma factor. CLASSIFICATION: ACCEPTABLE. GLP STATEMENT: Not GLP compliant however raw data and study records were maintained. _____________________________________________________________________________ STUDY DESIGN This is a list of the specific proteins identified as having significant degree of amino acid sequence similarity to the E. coli PMI expressed in plants as a selectable marker protein.

TEST METHODS The amino acid sequence of the E. coli PMI as expressed in plants was used to screened using the BLASTP program against other proteins found in the GenBank database. The cutoff criterion for indicating significant similarity was an E value of 0.42 or less.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The 92 proteins identified by this cutoff were either identified PMI enzymes, putative PMI enzymes or hypothetical open reading frames for PMI like proteins. The one identified protein that was not directly named a PMI was identified as a RNA polymerase sigma factor.

The source of the various PMI proteins, homologues or putative open reading frames ranged from enteric bacteria such as other E. coli strains, Shigella and Salmonella ( with E values of 0) to other gram negative bacteria like Vibrio and Yersinia ( with E values very close to 0) to gram positive bacteria such Mycobacterium and Corynebacterium to actinomycetes Streptomyces. Also included in the matches were PMI proteins or putative proteins from organisms like yeasts, fungi, monkey, man, mouse, plants, nematode, insects, protists and numerous other bacterial species. This wide diversity of source organisms and the fact that PMI is involved in carbohydrate metabolism indicates that PMI is probably a housekeeping enzyme and already has broad expression and exposure. While the listing of source organisms includes numerous bacterial pathogens, there is no reason to believe 4 this specific enzyme could be directly linked to a pathogenesis factor. Virulence factors tend to be receptor proteins, membrane active enzymes and toxins not enzymes involved in carbohydrate metabolism like PMI.