[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55791-55793]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17604]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98113; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2023-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Rule
6.62P-O

August 11, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on August 3, 2023, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.62P-O (Orders and Modifiers)
regarding the handling of certain Market Orders subject to Trading
Collars and conforming changes to Rule 6.64P-O (Auction Process). The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.62P-O (Orders and Modifiers)
regarding the handling of certain Market Orders subject to Trading
Collars and conforming changes to Rule 6.64P-O (Auction Process).
    The Exchange employs Trading Collar functionality that is designed
to provide OTP Holders and OTP Firms (collectively, ``OTPs'') price
protection for Market Orders and Limit Orders traded on the
Exchange.\4\ In particular, the Trading Collar applies a static ceiling
price (for a buy order) or floor price (for a sell order) at which such
order may be traded or routed that is determined at the time of entry
(or after a series opens or reopens) and which is applicable until the
order is traded or cancelled.\5\ As described below, the Exchange
proposes to modify the application of Trading Collars to Market Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rules 6.62P-O(a)(1) (defining Market Order), (a)(2)
(defining Limit Order).
    \5\ See Rule 6.62P-O(a)(4)(A)-(C) (describing Trading Collar
functionality, including how such Collars are assigned and
calculated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Rule 6.62P-O(a)(4)(D) describes how the Trading Collar
is applied and provides that if an order to buy (sell) would trade or
route above (below) the Trading Collar or would have its working price
repriced to a Trading Collar that is below (above) its limit price, the
order will be added to the Consolidated Book at the Trading Collar for
500 milliseconds and if not traded within that period, will be
cancelled (each a ``collared'' order).\6\ Further, once the 500-
millisecond timer begins for a collared order (the ``collar timer''),
such order will be cancelled at the end of the timer even if it
repriced or was routed to an Away Market during that period, in which
case any portion of the collared order that is returned unexecuted is
cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 6.76P-O(a)(3) (providing that the ``working price''
of an order or quote means the price at which it is eligible to
trade at any given time, which may be different from the limit price
or display price of the order or quote). The ``display price'' means
the price at which an order or quote ranked Priority 2--Display
Orders or Market Order is displayed, which may be different from the
limit price or working price of the order. See Rule 6.76P-O(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, Market Orders that are collared would no longer be
held for the duration of the collar time (i.e., for 500 milliseconds).
Instead, as proposed, if a Market Order to buy (sell) would trade or
route above (below) the Trading Collar, such Market Orders would be
cancelled.\7\ Thus, a collared Market Order that can trade within the
Trading Collar will trade on the Exchange or route. Collared Market
Orders will no longer be held and displayed on the Consolidated Book
for the duration of the collar timer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Rule 6.62P-O(a)(4)(D)(i). The Exchange notes
that, consistent with current order handling, once an order has been
cancelled, the Exchange will likewise cancel any unexecuted portion
of the cancelled order that returns to the Exchange after having
been routed away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not proposing to modify the handling of Limit
Orders and such collared orders would continue to be subject to the
above-described handling, per Rule 6.62P-O(a)(4)(D)(i).\8\ The current
rule treats collared Market Orders and collared Limit Orders the same
whereas the Exchange proposes to alter only the handling of collared
Market Orders. Unlike Market Orders, Limit Orders include a specific
price at which an OTP is willing to trade (i.e., the limit price).
Market Orders do not include a price and tend to be utilized to access
liquidity. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposal to cancel
back those Market Orders that have been collared would benefit OTPs
because it would enable the order sender to reevaluate, on a timelier
basis how best to handle this trading interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Rule 6.62P-O(a)(4)(D)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it proposes to make this change in response
to OTPs' preference to have Market Orders for which they are agent
immediately cancel back for handling--rather than have such collared
Market Orders first post at aggressive prices for 500 milliseconds.
Conforming Changes
    Consistent with the proposed change to the handling of collared
Market Orders--i.e., that such orders will not be held and displayed on
the Consolidated Book for the duration of the collar timer, the
Exchange proposes the following conforming changes.
     First, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.62P-
O(a)(1)(A)(ii), which provides, in relevant part, that ``[a] Market
Order to sell will be cancelled if it was assigned a Trading Collar,
routed, and when it returns unexecuted, it has no resting portion to
join and there is no NBB, regardless of the price of the NBO.'' The
Exchange proposes to modify this provision to instead provide that
``[a] Market Order to sell that was assigned a Trading Collar, routed,
and returned unexecuted, will be cancelled if there is no NBB,
regardless of the price of the NBO.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Rule 6.62P-O(a)(1)(A)(ii). See also Rule 6.62P-
O(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) (setting forth pricing validations that a Market
Order that arrives during continuous trading or that was routed,
returns unexecuted, and has no resting quantity to join must pass to
prevent being rejected or cancelled, as applicable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Next, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.62P-
O(a)(1)(B), which

provides, in relevant part, that ``[a]fter trading or routing, or both,
the Market Order will be displayed at the Trading Collar, subject to
paragraph (a)(1)(C),'' which provision provides that a Market Order
will be cancelled before being displayed if there are no remaining
contra-side Market Maker quotes on the Exchange or contra-side
ABBO.\10\ Proposed Rule 6.62P-O(a)(1)(B) would provide that ``[a]fter
trading or routing, or both, the Market Order will be cancelled.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 6.62P-O(a)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In addition, the Exchange also proposes to delete as
inapplicable Rule 6.62P-O(a)(1)(C).\11\ Consistent with this deletion,
the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.64P-O(f)(3)(A)(vi), which cross
references the to-be-deleted provision, and to provide that
``[u]nexecuted Market Orders will be cancelled.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 6.62P-O(a)(1)(C) (providing that a Market Order
will be cancelled before being displayed if there are no remaining
contra-side Market Maker quotes on the Exchange or contra-side
ABBO).
    \12\ Compare proposed Rule 6.64P-O(f)(3)(A)(vi) with Rule 6.64P-
O(f)(3)(A)(vi) (providing that Market Orders received during a pre-
open state will be subject to the validation specified in Rule
6.62P-O(a)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Finally, the Exchange also proposes to delete as
inapplicable Rule 6.62P-O(a)(1)(D).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 6.62P-O(a)(1)(D) (providing that after being
displayed at its Trading Collar, a Market Order will be cancelled if
there ceases to be a contra-side NBBO). The Exchange proposes the
non-substantive change to re-number current paragraph (a)(1)(E) of
the Rule to new paragraph (a)(1)(C) to account for the
aforementioned deletions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed functionality would provide
greater determinism for Market Orders that have been collared, which
would provide OTPs that send Market Orders as agent greater control
over, and more certainty regarding, the Exchange's handling of such
orders.
Implementation
    The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date
of the proposed rule change, which implementation will be no later than
90 days after the effectiveness of this rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\14\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5),\15\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change to modify the handling of
collared Market Orders, which is being made in response to OTPs'
preference to have Market Orders for which they are agent immediately
cancel back for handling--rather than have such collared Market Orders
first post at aggressive prices for 500 milliseconds, would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because the proposed handling would refine
existing functionality in a manner that would enable OTPs to have more
certainty regarding, and more control over, the handling of their
Market Orders.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As discussed supra, the proposal would alter the handling
of collared Market Orders (but not collared Limit Orders) because
Market Orders (unlike Limit Orders) do not include a price and tend
to be utilized to access liquidity. Thus, the proposal to cancel
back collared Market Orders would benefit OTPs because it would
enable the order sender to reevaluate, on a timelier basis how best
to handle this trading interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed conforming changes would remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, would protect investors and the public interest
because such changes would add clarity, transparency, and internal
consistency to Exchange rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is proposing a
market enhancement that would provide OTPs with greater control over,
and more certainty regarding, collared Market Orders that such OTPs
have submitted as agent. The proposal would apply to all similarly-
situated OTPs and would not impose a competitive burden on any
participant. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to
the existing Trading Collar functionality would impose a burden on
competing options exchanges. Rather, the availability of the modified
Trading Collar functionality may foster more competition. Specifically,
the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily favor competing venues. When an
exchange offers enhanced functionality that distinguishes it from the
competition and participants find it useful, it has been the Exchange's
experience that competing exchanges will move to adopt similar
functionality. Thus, the Exchange believes that this type of
competition amongst exchanges is beneficial to the marketplace as it
can result in enhanced processes, functionality, and technologies.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\18\
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)(iii) of the Act \19\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of
Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \21\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\22\ 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 take effect immediately. The

Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because it
will enable the Exchange to provide, without delay, more refined
handling of collared Market Orders. Accordingly, the Commission hereby
waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative
upon filing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \23\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 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) \24\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-54. 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 website (https://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 website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-54 and should
be submitted on or before September 6, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17604 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47578-47580]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20405]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0698; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-20]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace; Pontiac, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class D airspace at Oakland
County International Airport, Pontiac, MI. The FAA is proposing this
action as the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Pontiac VHF omnidirectional range (VOR)
navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the
instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum
Operational Network (MON) Program. This action would also replace the
outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement.
Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2018-0698; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-20, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between

9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class D airspace at Oakland County International
Airport, Pontiac, MI, to support IFR operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0698;
Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-20.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective
September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class D airspace at
Oakland County International Airport, Ponitac, MI, adding an extension
1.0 mile each side of the 274[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.4 miles west of the airport; and adding
an extension 1.0 mile each side of the 275[deg] bearing from the
Oakland County Intl: RWY 09R-LOC extending from the 4.2-mile radius to
4.4 miles west of the Oakland County Intl: RWY 09R-LOC.
    This action also would make an editorial change to the airspace
legal description replacing ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with ``Chart
Supplement''.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Pontiac VOR, which provided navigation
information to the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13,
2018, and effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL MI D Pontiac, MI [Amended]

Oakland County International Airport, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]39'56'' N, long. 83[deg]25'14'' W)
Oakland County Intl: RWY 09R-LOC
    (Lat. 42[deg]39'56'' N, long. 83[deg]24'16'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,500 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Oakland County
International Airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the 274[deg]
bearing from the airport extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.4
miles west of the airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the
275[deg] bearing from the Oakland County Intl: RWY 09R-LOC extending
from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.4 miles from the Oakland County Intl:
RWY 09R-LOC. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 10, 2018.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-20405 Filed 9-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17757-17758]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08536]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0005; FRL-9977-10--Region 7]

Approval of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants;
Missouri; Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incineration (HMIWI)
Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the Missouri state plan for designated facilities and
pollutants developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) that were requested by Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) in two separate submissions made on August 8, 2011 and on July
3, 2014. This final action will amend the state regulations referenced
in the state's 111(d) plan applicable to existing Hospital, Medical,
Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) operating in the state of
Missouri. The state rule revisions we are approving with this action
update HMIWI regulatory requirements for emission limits for waste
management plans, training, compliance and performance testing,
monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping to be consistent with
updates to Federal rules. These regulatory revisions we are approving
into Missouri's state plan do not impact air quality. EPA's approval of
this revision is being performed in accordance with the requirements of
CAA section 111(d) as further described in the Technical Support
Document that is included in this docket.

DATES: This rule will be effective May 24, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Gonzalez, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is approving revisions to the regulations cited in Missouri's
state plan for HMIWI facilities and pollutants developed under sections
111(d) and 129 of the CAA that were requested by MDNR in two separate
submissions made on August 8, 2011, and on July 3, 2014. This
regulatory action is a revision to the state's regulatory requirements
for existing facilities and not new sources. The amended state rule
limits emissions of metals, particulate matter, acid gases, organic
compounds, carbon monoxide, and opacity. These rule revisions are
necessary to ensure that the state regulations applicable to HMIWI are
consistent with updates to Federal rules for HMIWI.
    The August 8, 2011, submittal updates requirements for emission
limits, waste management plans, training, compliance and performance
testing, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements that
apply to existing HMIWI facilities. Additionally, the state's
regulatory revisions also include the movement of definitions,
previously located in the state rule that applies specifically to HMIWI
(10 CSR 10-6.200) to a new regulatory section that contains definitions
applicable to air rules in general (10 CSR 10-6.020).
    In the July 3, 2014 request, Missouri is seeking approval of
additional revisions made to 10 CSR 10-6.200 that revise the
regulations to follow the revised Federal standards. In addition to
updating the emission standard tables, the revisions remove language
from the compliance and performance testing provisions applicable to
HMIWI that provided an exemption to compliance with the emission limits
during startup, shutdown and malfunction conditions. Additionally, the
state revised the hierarchy of definitions to clearly state that the
applicable definitions in the Code of Federal Regulations take
precedence over those in 10 CSR 10-6.020, and revised the test methods
references in the state rule to match how the test methods are referred
to in the Federal HMIWI regulations.
    This final action addresses both requests to amend the state plan
by amending the underlying regulation referenced in the 111(d) plan
applicable to HMIWI. For additional information on EPA's rational for
approval, see EPA's proposal which contains background information for
this action (83 FR 5231, February 6, 2018).

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Missouri's August 8, 2011 and July 3, 2014,
submittals of its amended 111(d) plan for HMIWI in accordance with our
proposed rule dated February 6, 2018 (83 FR 5231), in which we proposed
to approve the MDNR request and requested comment regarding our future
action. EPA received one comment in response to our proposal which was
not related to the proposed rule and therefore a response is not
required.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). This action is not subject to review under Executive

Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because
SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866. This action is
also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state
law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rulemaking will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rulemaking would approve pre-existing requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also
is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hospital, medical, and infectious incineration
units, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: April 16, 2018.
Karen A. Flournoy,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 62
as set forth below:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. Amend Sec.  62.6358 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  62.6358  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) Amended plan. Submitted by the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources on July 3, 2014 and August 8, 2011. The effective date of the
amended plan is May 24, 2018.

[FR Doc. 2018-08536 Filed 4-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11553-11554]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0080]

Draft Guidance on Food and Drug Administration Oversight of
Positron Emission Tomography Drug Products--Questions and Answers;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance entitled ``FDA Oversight of PET Drug
Products--Questions and Answers.'' The draft guidance provides
questions and answers that address nearly all aspects of the FDA
approval and surveillance processes, including application submission,
review, compliance with good manufacturing practices, inspections,
registration and listing, and user fees.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by May 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Giaquinto, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 51, rm. 6164,

Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled
``FDA Oversight of PET Drug Products--Questions and Answers.'' In 1997,
Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (the
Modernization Act) (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 121 of the Modernization
Act directed FDA to establish appropriate approval procedures and
current good manufacturing practices (CGMP) for PET drugs. The
procedures were finalized and an implementation timeline was instituted
on December 10, 2009, when FDA published regulations that described the
minimum CGMP standards that each PET drug manufacturer is to follow
during the production of a PET drug (see part 212 (21 CFR part
212)).\1\ Under the requirements of section 121 of the Modernization
Act, within 2 years following that publication date, a new drug
application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) must be
submitted for any PET drug marketed for clinical use in the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The regulation, CGMP guidance, and supportive information,
including historical documents, are available at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/Manufacturing/ucm085783.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that many PET drug producers are unfamiliar with the
drug approval process, FDA issued the guidance entitled PET Drug
Applications--Content and Format for NDAs and ANDAs,\2\ and held a
public meeting in March 2011 to assist applicants in preparing NDAs and
ANDAs for the three most commonly used PET drugs. Numerous questions
have been raised since that public meeting on all aspects of FDA
oversight of PET drugs. This draft guidance is being issued to respond
to the questions that have been submitted to date, and it will be
revised periodically to respond to additional questions that have been
submitted and are expected to be submitted in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We update guidances periodically. To make sure you have the
most recent version of a guidance, check FDA's Drugs guidance Web
page at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on the FDA
oversight of PET drugs. It does not create or confer any rights for or
on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 were approved under OMB
control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0338; the collections of information
in 21 CFR part 312 were approved under OMB control number 0910-0014;
the collections of information in part 212 were approved under OMB
control number 0910-0667; the collections of information in 21 CFR
parts 210 and 211 were approved under 0910-0139; and the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 207 were approved under OMB control number
0910-0445. The draft guidance also refers to collections of information
associated with submitting Form FDA 3397 (Prescription Drug User Fee
Cover Sheet), approved under OMB control number 0910-0297.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either  http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or
http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: February 21, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-4427 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70868-70871]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1115; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-221-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections for damage of the electrical terminal at the left and right
flightdeck window 1, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed
AD would also allow for replacing the flightdeck window 1 with a new
improved flightdeck window equipped with different electrical
connections, which would terminate the repetitive inspections for that
flightdeck window 1. This proposed AD was prompted by several reports
of electrical arcs at the terminal blocks of the electrically heated
flightdeck window 1. We are proposing this AD to prevent smoke and fire
in the cockpit, which could lead to loss of visibility, and injuries to
or incapacitation of the flightcrew.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 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 proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louis Natsiopoulos, Aerospace
Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 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-2010-1115;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-221-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 because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received multiple reports of electrical arcs at the
terminal blocks of the flightdeck window 1. In several incidents, the
arcs resulted in open flames. An investigation showed that the
electrical arcs are caused by loose terminal connections, which are
caused by incorrect torque of the screw or an incorrectly installed
screw. A loose terminal connection will overheat with electrical
current passing through it. An overheated connector can degrade the
adjacent electrical circuit (including solder, if present). This
condition, if not corrected, could result in smoke and fire in the
cockpit, and consequent loss of visibility, and injuries to or
incapacitation of the flightcrew.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-30-
2081, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010. Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-30-2081, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010,
describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for damage
(including but not limited to a cross-threaded screw, arcing, loose
terminal, and heat damage) of the terminal block, connector, and wiring
at the left and right flightdeck window 1, and corrective actions if
necessary. The corrective actions are applying the correct torque to a
loose electrical connection, repairing damaged wiring, or installing a
replacement window 1. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-30-
2081, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010, specifies a compliance time of
within 500 hours after the date on the service bulletin for doing the
initial detailed inspection.
    Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-30-2081, Revision 2,
dated March 10, 2010, specifies that the replacement window can either
be a window that uses screws and lugs for the electrical connection or
a window that uses pins and sockets for the electrical connections. For
airplanes on which a replacement window that uses pins and sockets is
installed, Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-30-2081,
Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010, also specifies changes to the related
wire bundle. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-30-2081,
Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010, specifies that installing a window
that uses pins and sockets eliminates the need for the repetitive
inspections. If the window is replaced with the same type of window
(i.e., windows with the screw and lug type electrical terminations),
then the inspection must be repeated within 500 flight hours from

the date of the accomplishment of these corrective actions and every
6,000 flight hours thereafter.

Related Rulemaking

    We issued AD 2010-15-01, Amendment 39-16367 (75 FR 39804, July 13,
2010), that applies to certain Model 757 airplanes, Model 767
airplanes, and Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. That AD
requires repetitive inspections for damage (e.g., of the electrical
terminal at the left and right flightdeck window 1), and corrective
actions if necessary. That AD also allows for replacing the flightdeck
window 1 with a new improved flightdeck window equipped with different
electrical connections, which terminates the repetitive inspections for
that flightdeck window 1. That AD results from several reports of
electrical arcs at the terminal blocks of the electrically heated
flightdeck window 1. We issued that AD to prevent smoke and fire in the
cockpit, which could lead to loss of visibility, and injuries to or
incapacitation of the flightcrew.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-30-2081, Revision 2,
dated March 10, 2010, does not explicitly specify an inspection for,
nor specify a corrective action for, airplanes on which a screw is
found cross threaded during the detailed inspections in paragraph (g)
of this proposed AD. If these conditions are found, paragraph (i) of
this proposed AD would require replacing the windshield either before
further flight if the screw is found to be loose, or within 500 flight
hours or 150 days after the inspection if the screw is found to be
tight, whichever occurs first.
    Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-30-2081,
Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010, specifies an interval for repetitive
inspections not to exceed 6,000 flight hours, paragraphs (g) and (h) of
this proposed AD would require repetitive inspections at intervals not
to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever occurs later. We
have determined that this revised interval will not adversely affect
safety of the affected airplanes. Boeing concurs with this extension of
the interval for the repetitive inspections.

Clarifications of Service Information

    Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-30-2081,
Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010, and paragraph (h) of this proposed AD
state to perform a detailed inspection for damage of the terminal
block, connector, and wiring of flightdeck window 1 ``within 500 flight
hours,'' it is also acceptable to do the inspection at zero flight
hours (i.e., before the airplane ever leaves the hangar and resumes
operations). The intent of this second inspection is for quality
assurance purposes. This clarification has been coordinated with
Boeing.
    We have added paragraph (k) of this proposed AD to clarify that
each window is handled separately. In the compliance table in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-
30-2081, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010, the repeat interval applies
to the action, which is doing both Work Packages 1 and 2. If the left
window is replaced with a window that uses pins and sockets for the
electrical connection, then that replacement terminates the
requirements of this proposed AD for that window only. The other window
still needs to be inspected.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 251 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Action                  Labor cost                 Parts cost             Cost per product                 Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.................  1 work-hour x $85 per   None.......................  $85 per inspection      $21,335 per inspection cycle.
                              hour = $85 per                                       cycle.
                              inspection cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost              Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of windshield.........  Up to 18 work-hours x  Up to $47,592........  Up to $49,122.
                                     $85 per hour =
                                     $1,530.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-1115; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-221-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by January 3, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated
in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-30-2081, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 30: Ice and rain protection.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from several reports of electrical arcs at
the terminal blocks of the electrically heated flightdeck window 1.
In several of the incidents, the arcs resulted in open flames. We
are issuing this AD to prevent smoke and fire in the cockpit, which
could lead to loss of visibility, and injuries to or incapacitation
of the flightcrew.

Compliance

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

Detailed Inspection and Corrective Actions

    (g) Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
do a detailed inspection for damage (including but not limited to a
cross-threaded screw, arcing, loose terminal, and heat damage) of
the terminal block, connector, and wiring of flightdeck window 1,
and do all applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing the
actions specified in Work Packages 1 and 2 of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-30-2081, Revision 2, dated March 10,
2010, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight, except as
required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Except as required by
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, repeat the detailed inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24
months, whichever occurs later. Doing the replacement specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspection
requirements of this paragraph for the replaced flightdeck window 1.
    (h) For airplanes on which a flightdeck window 1 is replaced
with a window that uses screws and lugs for the electrical
connections, in accordance with Work Package 1 or 2 of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-30-2081, Revision 2, dated
March 10, 2010: Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD, do
the next detailed inspection within 500 flight hours after the
corrective action, and repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever occurs
later. Doing the replacement specified in paragraph (k) of this AD
terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph
for the replaced flightdeck window 1.

Exceptions to the Service Bulletin

    (i) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, a screw is found cross threaded do the applicable corrective
action specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If the terminal lug is loose and cannot be tightened: Before
further flight, replace the window, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-30-2081, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010.
    (2) If the terminal lug is tight: Within 150 days or 500 flight
hours after the inspection, whichever occurs first, replace the
window, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-30-2081, Revision 2, dated
March 10, 2010.
    (j) Where paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-30-2081, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010, states in
the ``Action'' column to ``do the inspections given in Work Packages
1 and 2,'' the intent is ``Work Package 1, step 3. or Work Package
2, step 3., as applicable.'' Operators are to use one or the other
(or both) work instruction, as applicable, to replace the window(s)
that need replacing.

Optional Terminating Action

    (k) Replacing a flightdeck window 1 that uses screws and lugs
for the electrical connections with a flightdeck window that uses
pins and sockets for the electrical connections, in accordance with
Work Packages 3 or 4 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
747-30-2081, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010, ends the repetitive
inspection requirements of this AD for that window only.

Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously According to Previous Issue
of Service Information

    (l) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-30-
2081, dated August 08, 2006; or Revision 1, dated August 20, 2008;
are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
actions specified in this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your Principal
Maintenance Inspector or Principal Avionics Inspector, as
appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office.

Related Information

    (n) For more information about this AD, contact Louis
Natsiopoulos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-
130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(425) 917-6590; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (o) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, the FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 10, 2010.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-29236 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 6306]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4504-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Kansas; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4504-DR), dated March 29, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 9, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Andrea
Spillars, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Kathy Fields as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-01905 Filed 1-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 87 (Monday, May 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 21451]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09287]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Thirty Third RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic
Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Joint Plenary With EUROCAE Working Group 79

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

ACTION: Thirty Third RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/
Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Joint Plenary with EUROCAE Working
Group 79.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Thirty Third RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/
Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Joint Plenary with EUROCAE Working
Group 79.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 10-12, 2017 from 9:30 a.m.-6:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: EUROCAE Facilities, ``Le
Triangle'' building, 9-23 rue Paul Lafargue, 93200 Saint-Denis, France.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Thirty Third RTCA SC-213 Enhanced
Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Joint Plenary
with EUROCAE Working Group 79. The agenda will include the following:

Wednesday, May 10, 2017, 9:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m.

Plenary Discussion

1. Introductions and administrative items
2. DFO statement
3. Review and approve minutes from last full plenary meeting
4. Review of terms of reference and update work product dates
5. RTCA presentation on the FRAC process
6. WG1, WG2, WG3 and WG4 status updates
7. Industry updates
8. Working group discussion

Thursday May 11, 2017, 9:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m.

1. Plenary discussion
2. Working group discussions

Friday, May 12, 2017, 9:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m.

1. Working group discussion
2. Administrative items (new meeting location/dates, action items etc.)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2017.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-09287 Filed 5-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26615-26616]
[DOCID:fr10my07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-8-001]

Guardian Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Amendment to Application

May 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 25, 2007, Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
(Guardian), filed in Docket No. CP07-8-001, an amendment to its October
13, 2006 application pursuant to section 7 (c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) in which it requested authorization to site, construct, and
operate facilities consisting of approximately 110 miles of new
mainline, two electric compressor stations, seven meter stations and
appurtenant facilities resulting in 537,200 Dth/d of incremental firm
capacity on Guardian's existing pipeline system and 437,200 Dth/d of
firm capacity on the expansion facilities. The amended application
consists mainly of a proposed, approximately 23-mile

reroute that increases the total length of the pipeline by 8.74 miles.
The reroute allows Guardian to avoid tribal lands for which it was
unable to negotiate an easement. Additionally, Guardian proposes to
move the Sycamore Compressor Station to a new location approximately
0.25 mile north, all as more fully set forth in the application which
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
Commission staff will determine if this amendment will have an effect
on the schedule for the environmental review of this project. If
necessary, a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will be issued
within 90 days of this Notice. The instant filing may be also viewed on
the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Bambi
Heckerman, Director, Regulatory Affairs, ONEOK Partners GP, LLC, 13710
FNB Parkway, Omaha, Nebraska 68154-5200; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 25, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8970 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 37740]
[DOCID:fr29jy09-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [REMOVED PRIVATE FIELD]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17a-6; OMB Control No. 3235-0489; SEC File No. 270-433.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 17a-6 (17 CFR 240.17a-6) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) permits national securities exchanges,
national securities associations, registered clearing agencies, and the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (collectively, ``SROs'') to
destroy or convert to microfilm or other recording media records
maintained under Rule 17a-1, if they have filed a record destruction
plan with the Commission and the Commission has declared such plan
effective.
    There are currently 27 SROs: 17 National securities exchanges, 1
national securities association, and 9 registered clearing agencies. Of
the 27 SROs, 2 SRO respondents have filed a record destruction plan
with the Commission. The staff calculates that the preparation and
filing of a new record destruction plan should take 160 hours. Further,
any existing SRO record destruction plans may require revision, over
time, in response to, for example, changes in document retention
technology, which the Commission estimates will take much less than the
160 hours estimated for a new plan. Thus, the total annual compliance
burden is estimated to be 60 hours per year. The approximate cost per
hour is $305, resulting in a total cost of compliance for these
respondents of $18,300 per year (60 hours @ $305 per hour).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to Shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or by sending an e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this
notice.

    Dated: July 23, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17943 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P