[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 76474]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30913]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9931-88-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Iowa's
request to revise certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow
electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective December 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On September 22, 2015, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR) submitted an amended application titled ``State and Local
Emissions Inventory System (SLEIS)'' for revisions to its EPA-approved
programs under title 40 CFR to allow for electronic reporting. EPA
reviewed IDNR's request to revise its EPA-authorized programs and,
based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the
standards for approval of authorized program revisions set out in 40
CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice
of EPA's decision to approve Iowa's request to revise its following
EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR
parts 51 and 70, is being published in the Federal Register: Part 52--
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; and Part 70--State
Operating Permit Programs.
    IDNR was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application
with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

Matt Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2015-30913 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42035-42036]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17591]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86630; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings to
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To
List and Trade Shares of the VanEck SolidX Bitcoin Trust

August 12, 2019.
    On January 30, 2019, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to list and trade shares of SolidX Bitcoin Shares
issued by the VanEck SolidX Bitcoin Trust under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4),
Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on February 20, 2019.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85119 (Feb. 13,
2019), 84 FR 5140 (Feb. 20, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 29, 2019, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ On May 20, 2019, the Commission instituted proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\ As of August 12, 2019, the
Commission has received 38 comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85475 (Mar. 29,
2019), 84 FR 13345 (Apr. 4, 2019).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85896 (May 20,
2019), 84 FR 24188 (May 24, 2019). Specifically, the Commission
instituted proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the
proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the public
interest.'' See id. at 24189 (citing 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5)).
    \8\ Comments on the proposed rule change can be found at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2019-004/srcboebzx2019004.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \9\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The date
of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change was
February 20, 2019. August 19, 2019, is 180 days from that date, and
October 18, 2019, is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change

so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ designates October 18, 2019, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
(File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17591 Filed 8-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25980-25983]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11261]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0525; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-121-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive
maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations are
necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations.
We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 21, 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 Dassault
Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South
Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-
0525; 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: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA

98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0525;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-121-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0127, dated June 23, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation
Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for
the DA [Dassault Aviation] Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 900 type design are
included in Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and are
approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). These
instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued
airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0053 [which corresponds with
AD 2016-01-16, Amendment 39-18376 (81 FR 3320, January 21, 2016)
(``AD 2016-01-16'')] to require accomplishment of the maintenance
tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as
specified in DA Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 900 AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT
113873) at revision 20.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, DA issued revision 22 of
Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 900 AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113873) (hereafter
referred to as ``the ALS'' in this [EASA] AD), which contains new or
more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations. The ALS introduces, among others, the following new
tasks:

--Task 53-40-07-280-803 ``Special detailed inspection of the
repaired areas on centre-wing lower panel'';
--Task 53-50-00-220-803 ``Detailed inspection of the baggage
compartment'';
--Task 53-50-00-220-807 ``Detailed inspection of the upper part of
frame 30.''

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2013-0053, which is superseded, and requires
accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS.

    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-
0525.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault issued Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision
22, dated December 2015, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900
Maintenance Manual. The service information describes procedures,
maintenance tasks, and airworthiness limitations specified in the
Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the AMM. 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.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of
changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued
operational safety of the airplane.
    This proposed AD would not supersede AD 2016-01-16. Rather, we have
determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address
the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require revising the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or
more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations than those required by AD 2016-01-16. Accomplishment of the
proposed actions would then terminate all the requirements of AD 2016-
01-16.

Airworthiness Limitations Based on Type Design

    The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the
applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into
an operator's maintenance or inspection program.
    Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation
authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered
under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD
typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.
    In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an
airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in
this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or
inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as
specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been
approved by the FAA.
    When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific
ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified
in 14 CFR 21.31(c).
    The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is
an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design
referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation
may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS
revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part
of their type design.
    To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods
of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most
recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu
of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict
and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type
design.
    However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we
recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-
mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection
programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS
revisions, to

help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators
comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes
containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to
limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS revisions to those
airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of the ALS, either as
part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier AD. This proposed
AD therefore applies Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900
airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original
export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the
date of approval of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD.
Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date
must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the
approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 65 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on  U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance or inspection program     1 work-hour x $85 per                $0              $85           $5,525
 revision.                             hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2017-0525; Directorate Identifier
2016-NM-121-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 21, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2016-01-16, Amendment 39-18376 (81 FR 3320,
January 21, 2016) (``AD 2016-01-16'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Dassault Aviation MYSTERE-FALCON 900
airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original
certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before December 1, 2015.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations,
Revision 22, dated December 2015, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon
900 Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for
accomplishing the actions specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision 22, dated December 2015, of the Dassault
Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance Manual, is within the applicable
times specified in the maintenance manual, or within 90 days after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, except as
provided by paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.
    (1) The term ``LDG'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means total airplane landings.
    (2) The term ``FH'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means total flight hours.
    (3) The term ``FC'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means total flight cycles.
    (4) The term ``M'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means months.

(h) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the

procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action

    Accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all the
requirements of AD 2016-01-16.

(j) 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 manager of the International Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0127, dated June 23, 2016,
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-2017-0525.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11261 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 195)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52156-52158]
[DOCID:fr09oc09-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0938; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-052-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (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 results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to the
discovery of cracks caused by stress corrosion in the main-gear
support struts. All the main-gear support struts that had cracks
were made from material AA2024-T351 which has a lower resistance to
stress corrosion cracking.
    Such cracks, if undetected, could lead to the failure of the
strut during landing which could then cause the Main Landing Gear
(MLG) to collapse.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 23,
2009.

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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0938;
Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-052-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

    The Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the aviation
authority for Switzerland, has issued FOCA AD HB-2009-011, dated
September 10, 2009 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct
an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to the
discovery of cracks caused by stress corrosion in the main-gear
support struts. All the main-gear support struts that had cracks
were made from material AA2024-T351 which has a lower resistance to
stress corrosion cracking.
    Such cracks, if undetected, could lead to the failure of the
strut during landing which could then cause the Main Landing Gear
(MLG) to collapse.
    In order to correct and control the situation, this AD mandates
the identification of the main-gear support struts to check if they
have rounded clevis lugs and a Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI)
procedure on the main-gear support struts if they have chamfered
clevis lugs.

For main-gear support struts with chamfered clevis lugs that show
cracks during the NDI, the MCAI also requires replacing any cracked
main-gear support struts with parts of improved design. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. has issued PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No.
32-024, Rev. No. 1, dated November 17, 2008; and PILATUS PC-7 Service
Bulletin No. 32-025, Rev. No. 1, dated November 17, 2008. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 this State of

Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined
the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 10 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $3,200, or $320 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 20 work-hours and require parts costing $20,000, for a cost
of $21,600 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 AD:

PILATUS Aircraft Ltd: Docket No. FAA-2009-0938; Directorate
Identifier 2009-CE-052-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by November 23, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model PC-7 airplanes, manufacturer serial
numbers 101 through 618 that are:
    (1) Equipped with main-gear support struts part number (P/N)
5<IP_ADDRESS> or P/N <IP_ADDRESS>; and
    (2) Certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to the
discovery of cracks caused by stress corrosion in the main-gear
support struts. All the main-gear support struts that had cracks
were made from material AA2024-T351 which has a lower resistance to
stress corrosion cracking.
    Such cracks, if undetected, could lead to the failure of the
strut during landing which could then cause the Main Landing Gear
(MLG) to collapse.
    In order to correct and control the situation, this AD mandates
the identification of the main-gear support struts to check if they
have rounded clevis lugs and a Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI)
procedure on the main-gear support struts if they have chamfered
clevis lugs.

For main-gear support struts with chamfered clevis lugs that show
cracks during the NDI, the MCAI also requires replacing any cracked
main-gear support struts with parts of improved design. You may
obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 30 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or within the next 30 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, visually inspect
the left and right main-gear support struts to determine if they
have rounded or chamfered clevis lugs. Do the inspection following
paragraph 3.A. of PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No. 32-024, Rev. No.
1, dated November 17, 2008.
    (2) Based on the results of the inspection required in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, if the main-gear support strut has rounded clevis
lugs, no further action is required except the requirement specified
in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD still applies. Make an entry in the
airplane logbook to show compliance with this AD.
    (3) Based on the results of the inspection required in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, if the main-gear support strut has chamfered
clevis lugs, before further flight do a Non-Destructive Inspection
(NDI). Do the NDI following paragraphs 3.B. through 3.E. of PILATUS
PC-7 Service Bulletin No. 32-024, Rev. No. 1, dated November 17,
2008.
    (i) If cracks are found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(3) of this AD:
    (A) Before further flight after the inspection, replace any
cracked main-gear support struts with new main-gear support struts,
P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS>. Do the replacement following PILATUS PC-7 Service
Bulletin No. 32-025, Rev. No. 1, dated November 17, 2008.

    (B) Within the next 10 days after the inspection, report the
cracks to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371
STANS, Switzerland, using the Crack Report Form (Figure 4) in
PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No. 32-024, Rev. No. 1, dated November
17, 2008. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the
information collection requirements contained in this regulation
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned OMB
Control Number 2120-0056.
    (ii) If no cracks are found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, no further action is required. Make an
entry in the airplane logbook to show compliance with this AD.
    (4) As of 30 days after the effective date of this AD, do not
install any main-gear support struts, P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS> or P/N
<IP_ADDRESS>, with chamfered clevis lugs.

    Note 1: If you have any main-gear support struts, P/N
5<IP_ADDRESS> or P/N <IP_ADDRESS>, with chamfered clevis lugs held
as spares, you may return them to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer
Liaison Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland, for replacement with a
new main-gear support strut, P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS>.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI FOCA AD HB-2009-011, dated September 10, 2009;
and PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No. 32-024, Rev. No. 1, dated
November 17, 2008; and PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No. 32-025,
Rev. No. 1, dated November 17, 2008, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 5, 2009.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-24450 Filed 10-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 62496-62497]
[DOCID:fr25oc06-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54437A; File No. SR-CHX-2005-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 and Notice
of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 2 to
a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Disciplinary and Delisting
Procedures; Correction

October 18, 2006.
    In FR Doc. No. E6-15588, beginning on page 55037 for Wednesday,
September 20, 2006, the sentence in Part V on page 55042 contained an
error. Release No. 34-54437 (the ``Release'') approved a proposed rule
change filed by the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., in File No. SR-CHX-
2005-06. Part V of the Release identified the filing being

approved as SR-CBOE-2005-06, rather than SR-CHX-2005-06. Accordingly,
Part V of the Release should be revised to read as follows:
    ``It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\1\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2005-06), as amended, is
approved.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-17846 Filed 10-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58681]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23251]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 80

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0410]
RIN 1625-AC13

Navigation and Navigable Waters; Technical, Organizational, and
Conforming Amendments

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register
on July 7, 2014, making non-substantive corrections throughout Title 33
of the Code of Federal Regulations. In that final rule, the Coast Guard
revised a paragraph because it duplicated the substance of another
paragraph within the same section of an existing regulation. In
correcting that error, the Coast Guard inadvertently removed four
paragraphs from its regulations. This correction resolves that error by
replacing the four paragraphs that we inadvertently removed.

DATES: This correction is effective on September 30, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this final
rule, call or email Paul Crissy, Office of Standards Evaluation and
Development, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing material on
the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To view the original final rule document,
visit https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/07/2014-14897/
navigation-and-navigable-waters-technical-organizational-and-
conforming-amendments?utmcampaign=subscription+mailing+list&utm
medium=email&utmsource=federalregister.gov.

Background

    On July 7, 2014, the Coast Guard published its annual technical
amendment to make non-substantive changes to Title 33 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. 79 FR 38422.

Need for Correction

    The Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register that
created the need for this correction. In that final rule, the Coast
Guard revised 33 CFR 80.712 because paragraphs (a) and (b) described
the same demarcation line for Stono Inlet. The Coast Guard corrected
Sec.  80.712 by redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph (b), and
revising paragraph (a) to reflect the latitude and longitude
coordinates for the demarcation line across Lighthouse Inlet. Our
amendatory instruction, however, resulted in the inadvertent removal of
paragraphs (c) through (f) in Sec.  80.712. This correction restores
the original paragraphs (c) through (f) in Sec.  80.712.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 80

    Navigation (water), Treaties, Waterways.

    Accordingly, 33 CFR part 80 is amended by making the following
correcting amendment:

PART 80--COLREGS DEMARCATION LINES

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  14 U.S.C. 2; 14 U.S.C. 633; 33 U.S.C. 151(a).

0
2. Revise Sec.  80.712 to read as follows:

Sec.  80.712  Morris Island, SC to Hilton Head Island, SC.

    (a) A line drawn from the easternmost tip of Folly Island to
32[deg]41'37'' N., 079[deg]53'03'' W. (abandoned lighthouse tower) on
the northside of Lighthouse Inlet; thence west to the shoreline of
Morris Island.
    (b) A line drawn from the seaward tangent of Folly Island across
Stono River to the shoreline of Sandy Point.
    (c) A line drawn from the southernmost extremity of Seabrook Island
257[deg] true across the North Edisto River Entrance to the shore of
Botany Bay Island.
    (d) A line drawn from the microwave antenna tower on Edisto Beach
charted in approximate position latitude 32[deg]28.3' N. longitude
80[deg]19.2' W. across St. Helena Sound to the abandoned lighthouse
tower on Hunting Island.
    (e) A line formed by the centerline of the highway bridge between
Hunting Island and Fripp Island.
    (f) A line drawn from the westernmost extremity of Bull Point on
Capers Island to Port Royal Sound Channel Range Rear Light, latitude
32[deg]13.7' N., longitude 80[deg]36.0' W.; thence 259[deg] true to the
easternmost extremity of Hilton Head at latitude 32[deg]13.0' N.,
longitude 80[deg]40.1' W.

    Dated: September 23, 2014,
Katia Cervoni,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-23251 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19256-19258]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08183]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

48 CFR Parts 1511 and 1552

[EPA-HQ-OARM-2012-0478; FRL-9925-99-OARM]

EPAAR Clause for Level of Effort--Cost-Reimbursement Contract

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amends the EPA
Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to update policy, procedures, and
contract clauses. The proposed rule updates the EPAAR clause Level of
Effort--Cost-Reimbursement Term Contract, modifies the clause title,
and updates the corresponding EPAAR clause prescription.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OARM-2012-0478, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email: valentino.thomas@ epa.gov
     Mail: EPA-HQ-OARM-2012-0478, OEI Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of three (3) copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center-Attention OEI Docket, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-
2012-0478. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ''anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket, and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment, and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties, and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/ epahome/ dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) Docket, EPA/ DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202)
566-1752. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Valentino, Policy, Training,
and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
valentino.thomas@ epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the

disk or CD ROM as CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk
or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition
to one complete version of the comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/ or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    The EPA reviewed EPAAR clause 1552.211-73, Level of Effort--Cost-
Reimbursement Term Contract, to make the clause more prescriptive in
describing the EPA's responsibilities when the Agency orders less level
of effort (LOE) than the maximum LOE specified in the subject clause;
e.g., if the clause specifies 100,000 hours for a given period of
performance but the contractor only provides 70,000 hours. The clause
provides that a downward equitable adjustment will be made to reduce
the fixed fee by the percentage by which the total expended LOE is less
than 100% of that specified in the LOE clause; e.g., the fixed fee
amount will be reduced by 30% using the same 100,000/ 70,000 hours
example. The clause title is also modified so that the clause is now
applicable to EPA LOE cost-reimbursement contracts. The EPAAR 1511.011-
73 clause prescription is also being updated accordingly.

III. Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule amends the EPAAR to revise the following:
    1. The EPAAR 1511.011-73 clause prescription is updated.
    2. The clause title is revised as follows: Level of Effort--Cost-
Reimbursement Contract.
    3. Paragraph (a) has been revised.
    4. An expositional statement has been added to paragraph (c).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
therefore, not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
No information is collected under this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et.
seq.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's final rule on small
entities, ``small entity'' is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business
Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action
revises a current EPAAR provision and does not impose requirements
involving capital investment, implementing procedures, or record
keeping. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on small
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, Local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector.
    This rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for State, Local, and Tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty
on any State, Local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus,
the rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and Local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have

tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be economically
significant as defined under Executive Order 12886, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate
effect on children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by
Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on
environmental health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution of Use'' (66 FR 28335 (MAY 22, 2001), because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C 272 note) of NTTA, Public Law 104-113,
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in it's regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rulemaking does not involve human health or
environmental affects.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1511 and 1552

    Describing Agency Needs; Solicitation Provisions and Contract
Clauses.

    Dated: April 3, 2015.
John R. Bashista,
Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

    Therefore, 48 CFR Chapter 15 is proposed to be amended as set forth
below:

PART 1511--DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1511 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C.
486(c).
0
2. Revise 1511.011-73 to read as follows:

1511.011-73  Level of effort

    The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1552.211-73,
Level of Effort--Cost Reimbursement Contract, in cost-reimbursement
contracts including cost contracts without fee, cost-sharing contracts,
cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts, cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts
(CPIF), and cost-plus-award-fee contracts (CPAF).

PART 1552--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 1552 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended,
40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

0
4. Revise 1552.211-73 to read as follows:

1552.211-73  Level of effort--cost-reimbursement contract.

    As prescribed in 1511.011-73, the contracting officer shall insert
the following contract clause in cost-reimbursement contracts including
cost contracts without fee, cost-sharing contracts, cost-plus-fixed-fee
(CPFF) contracts, cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts (CPIF), and cost-
plus-award-fee contracts (CPAF).

Level of Effort--Cost-Reimbursement Contract (__2015)
    (a) The Contractor shall perform all work and provide all
required reports within the level of effort specified below. The
Contractor shall provide __ direct labor hours for the base period,
which represents the Government's best estimate of the level of
effort to fulfill these requirements, and is provided for advisory
and estimating purposes. The Government is only obligated to pay for
direct labor hours used and corresponding fixed fee for labor hours
completed.
    (b) Direct labor includes personnel such as engineers,
scientists, draftsmen, technicians, statisticians, and programmers,
and not support personnel such as company management or data entry/
word processing/ accounting personnel even though such support
personnel are normally treated as direct labor by the Contractor.
The level of effort specified in paragraph (a) includes Contractor,
subcontractor, and consultant non-support labor hours.
    (c) If the Contractor provides less than 90 percent of the level
of effort specified for the base period or any optional period
exercised, an equitable downward adjustment of the fixed fee, if
any, for that period will be made. The downward adjustment will
reduce the fixed fee by the percentage by which the total expended
level of effort is less than 100% of that specified in paragraph
(a). (For instance, if a hypothetical base-period LOE of 100,000
hours is being reduced to 70,000, the fixed fee shall also be
reduced by the same 30%. Using a corresponding hypothetical base-
period fixed fee pool of $300,000, the reduced fixed-fee amount is
calculated as: $300,000 x (70,000 hours/100,000 hours) = $210,000.)
    (d) The Government may require the Contractor to provide
additional effort up to 110 percent of the level of effort for any
period until the estimated cost for that period has been reached.
However, this additional effort shall not result in any increase in
the fixed fee, if any. If this is a cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF)
contract, the term ``fee'' in this paragraph means ``base fee and
incentive fee.'' If this is a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract,
the term ``fee'' in this paragraph means ``base fee and award fee.''
    (e) If the level of effort specified to be ordered during a
given base or option period is not ordered during that period, that
level of effort may not be accumulated and ordered during a
subsequent period.
    (f) These terms and conditions do not supersede the requirements
of either the ``Limitation of Cost'' or ``Limitation of Funds''
clauses.

(End of clause)

[FR Doc. 2015-08183 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P