[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2328-2329]
[FR Doc No: 2012-637]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66122; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-186]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Fees Applicable to the Trading of NMS Stocks Through NASDAQ OMX PSX

January 10, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''); \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 28, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the fees applicable to trading on
the NASDAQ OMX PSX system (``PSX''). The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/Filings/, at the
principal office of the Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to modify order routing fees applicable
to the use of PSX's PMOP routing strategy. PMOP is a routing option
under which an incoming order routes only to Protected Quotations (as
defined in SEC Rule 600 under Regulation NMS),\3\ and only for the
displayed size of such quotes. If shares remain unexecuted after
routing, they are posted to the PSX book and do not route out again.
Currently, the Exchange charges $0.0025 per share executed with respect
to PMOP orders that execute at the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'')
and $0.0035 per

share executed with respect to PMOP orders that execute at other
trading venues. The Exchange is proposing to reduce the fee for PMOP
orders that execute at other venues to $0.0031 per share executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 242.600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which Phlx operates or controls. In general, routing fees are
reasonable because they seek to recoup the cost of the execution on the
other venue, which is generally borne by the order router and,
ultimately, the routing exchange. The proposed change reflects a
reduction in fees in order to make the routing services of PSX more
attractive to potential customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is equitable.
All similarly situated members are subject to the same fee structure,
and access to Phlx is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms;
specifically, the same routing fee, credit or pass through fee applies
to any participant and does not differ based on user type (e.g.,
customer or broker-dealer). The Exchange further believes that the fee
for the PMOP routing strategy is equitable because PMOP is a complex
routing strategy that it involves ascertaining all venues displaying a
protected quote and the simultaneous routing of orders to the displayed
size of such quotes; accordingly, the Exchange believes that charging a
higher fee with respect to the strategy as compared with other
strategies is equitable. Nevertheless, the change will reduce the
difference between PMOP fees and fees for the use of other strategies,
thereby enhancing the competiveness of the Exchange's routing services.
    Furthermore, the new routing fees are reasonable and equitable in
that the decision to send routable orders and to use PHLX as a router
is entirely voluntarily; members can avail themselves of numerous other
means of directing orders to other venues, including becoming members
of those markets or using any of a number of competitive routing
services offered by other exchanges and brokers.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Because the market for order execution and routing is extremely
competitive, members may readily favor the Exchange's competitors in
making order routing decisions to the extent that they deem PSX's fees
to be excessive. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposal will
enhance competition through its use of reduced fees to draw greater
order flow to PSX.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\6\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2011-186 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2011-186. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2011-186 and should be
submitted on or before February 7, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-637 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16022-16024]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2013-1073]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0017, Various
International Agreement Safety Certificates and Documents. Our ICR
describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before
submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as
described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2013-1073] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., STOP 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or
decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collections. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2013-1073], and
must be received by May 23, 2014. We will post all comments received,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any
personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use
their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2013-1073], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2013-1073'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2013-1073'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Various International Agreement Safety Certificates and
Documents.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0017.
    Summary: These Coast Guard issued forms are used as evidence of
compliance with the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea,
1974 (SOLAS) by certain U.S. vessels on international voyages. Without
the proper certificates or documents, a U.S. vessel could be detained
in a foreign port.
    Need: SOLAS applies to all mechanically propelled cargo vessels of
500 or more gross tons (GT), and to all mechanically propelled
passenger vessels carrying more than 12

passengers that engage in international voyages. SOLAS and title 46 CFR
2.01-25 list certificates and documents that may be issued to vessels.
    Forms: CG-967, CG-968, CG-968A, CG-969, CG-3347, CG-3347B, CG-4359,
CG-4360, CG-4361, CG-5643, CG-5679, CG-5679A, CG-5680, CG-6038, CG-
6038A.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of SOLAS vessels.
    Frequency: Annually and On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 169 hours
to 94 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual number of
responses.

    Dated: March 14, 2014.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2014-06233 Filed 3-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 28)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6993-6994]
[DOCID:fr12fe09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 522

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0039]

Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Flunixin

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental abbreviated new
animal drug application (ANADA) filed by Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd. The
supplemental ANADA provides for the veterinary prescription use of
flunixin meglumine solution by intravenous injection in dairy cattle
for control of pyrexia associated with acute bovine mastitis.

DATES: This rule is effective February 12, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Harshman, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd.,
Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland, filed supplemental ANADA 200-387 that
provides for veterinary prescription use of FLUNAZINE (flunixin
meglumine) Injectable Solution intravenously in dairy cattle for
control of pyrexia associated with acute bovine mastitis. The
supplemental ANADA is approved as of December 18, 2008, and the
regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.970 to reflect the approval.
    In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR
part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and
effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of
this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of
a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subject in 21 CFR Part 522

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is
amended as follows:

PART 522--IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. In Sec.  522.970, revise paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  522.970  Flunixin.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) See No. 057561 for use as in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2)(i)(A),
(e)(2)(ii)(A), and (e)(2)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) See Nos. 055529, 059130, and 061623 for use as in paragraphs
(e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section.
* * * * *

    Dated: February 3, 2009.
Steven D. Vaughn,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary
Medicine.
[FR Doc. E9-2941 Filed 2-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 21889]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-4962-007]

Lasky, Charles D.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 12, 2011, Charles D. Lasky submitted for
filing an application for authority to hold interlocking positions,
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b)
and part 45 of title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 18 CFR
45.9(c).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 3, 2011.

    Dated: April 12, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9373 Filed 4-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7710-7712]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02756]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0657; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00478-T;
Amendment 39-21927; AD 2022-03-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report indicating that during maintenance, a fuse pin
retaining the main landing gear support structure (MLGSS) was found
incorrectly engaged in the trunnion block and improperly secured with
the associated retaining pin, due to incorrect installation during
assembly. This AD requires inspecting the fuse pins and associated
retaining pins of the MLGSS for such discrepancies, and corrective
action if necessary, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 17, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 17,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0657.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0657; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments
received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations is
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0112, dated April 22, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0112), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus
SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS
Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on August 12, 2021 (86 FR 44319). The NPRM was prompted by a
report indicating that during maintenance, a fuse pin retaining the
MLGSS was found incorrectly engaged in the trunnion block and
improperly secured with the associated retaining pin; this was due to
incorrect installation during assembly. The NPRM proposed to require
inspecting the fuse pins and associated retaining pins of the MLGSS for
such discrepancies, and corrective action if necessary, as specified in
EASA AD 2021-0112.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address incorrect fuse pin
installations, which could lead to premature failure of the retaining
pin and subsequent fuse pin migration and disconnection, and could
ultimately lead to main landing gear collapse and possible damage to
the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.
    The FAA received additional comments from Delta Air Lines (DAL).
The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response to each comment.

Request To Define an Affected Part

    DAL asked that the proposed AD include a statement that an
``affected part'' includes parts that are improperly engaged or
incorrectly secured. DAL stated that the purpose of the inspection in
EASA AD 2021-0112 is to inspect the affected parts for any discrepant
conditions, in accordance with the instructions specified in Airbus
Alert Operations Transmission (AOT) A57P016-21, dated April 1, 2021,
which includes any incorrectly installed or missing trunnion block fuse
pins for applicable Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. DAL
added that if,

during accomplishment of this AOT, no discrepant conditions are found,
then no further action is required. DAL noted that the MCAI's
definition of ``affected part'' implies that the area will become an
AD-related area for the rest of the life of the aircraft. Delta stated
that it has added ``AD affected no deviations'' language to all AD-
related aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) and illustrated parts catalog
(IPC) areas. However, if there are no findings during the inspection,
the area should revert back to a normal post-production non-AD area,
and the language should not be added to the related AMM and IPC at
every revision for the life of the aircraft.
    The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request to refine the
MCAI's definition of an affected part because this AD requires a one-
time inspection only and that action is not effective for the life of
the airplane. Correctly installed parts do not continue to be affected
parts. Therefore, the FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify ICA Requirement

    DAL asked that the proposed AD clarify that the instructions for
continued airworthiness (ICAs) are required per Section E of the repair
instructions specified in Airbus AOT A57P016-21, dated April 1, 2021.
DAL stated that per the inspection instructions detailed in the AOT, if
there is a discrepant condition found during accomplishment of the
inspection, all operators are to follow the referenced repair
instructions to replace all six fuse pins within the trunnion block of
the MLGSS. DAL noted that after the repair is accomplished, the ICAs
require again inspecting the trunnion block for damage and replacing
all six fuse pins at 14,400 flight cycles or 60,000 flight hours (in
contrast to the current life limit for the fuse pins of 36,000 flight
cycles or 150,000 flight hours).
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's request to clarify whether the
ICA requirements in Section E of the repair instructions are required
by this AD. In certain circumstances, the NPRM proposed corrective
actions that include repair instructions for Model A350-900 airplanes
(R57V-40112) and Model A350-1000 airplanes (R57V-40113), as specified
in RC (required for compliance) paragraph 4.2.3 of Airbus AOT A57P016-
21, dated April 1, 2021. However, the NPRM, EASA AD 2021-0112, and AOT
did not expressly state what revision level of the repair instructions
are mandatory. ICA requirements were added to a later revision of the
repair instructions. By not mandating a specific revision of the repair
instructions, operators can use any revision level to satisfy the
requirements of this AD. Whichever revision level an operator chooses,
the operator must use that revision level in its entirety. The FAA
encourages affected operators to utilize the most current ICA for their
respective aircraft condition. No changes have been made to this AD in
this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic
burden on any operator. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0112 describes procedures for a detailed inspection
for discrepancies (missing or migrated fuse pins, and fuse pins
improperly secured with the associated retaining pin) in the left- and
right-hand sides of the MLGSS trunnion block. The service information
also describes procedures for corrective action (including replacement
of discrepant fuse pins and the main landing gear forward pintle
assembly). This material 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 17 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................              $0              $85           $1,445
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Labor cost                          Parts cost                       Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 30 work-hours x $85 per hour = Up    Up to $4,410................  Up to $6,960.
 to $2,550.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds

necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that
is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking
action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-03-10 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21927; Docket No. FAA-2021-0657;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00478-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 17, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0112, dated April 22,
2021 (EASA AD 2021-0112).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during
maintenance, a fuse pin retaining the main landing gear support
structure (MLGSS) was found incorrectly engaged in the trunnion
block and improperly secured with the associated retaining pin, due
to incorrect installation during assembly. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address incorrect fuse pin installations, which could lead to
premature failure of the retaining pin and subsequent fuse pin
migration and disconnection, and could ultimately lead to main
landing gear collapse and possible damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2021-0112.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0112

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0112 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0112 specifies
contacting Airbus for approved instructions for corrective actions
for certain conditions, those corrective actions must be done using
a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0112 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0112
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0112,
dated April 22, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0112, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 21, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-02756 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 47840]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19425]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9713-7; CERCLA-04-2012-3775]

American Drum and Pallet Company Site; Memphis, Shelby County,
Tennessee; Notice of settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection
Agency has entered into a settlement for past response costs concerning
the American Drum and Pallet Company Superfund Site located in Memphis,
Shelby County, Tennessee.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until
September 10, 2012. The Agency will consider all comments received and
may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments
received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the
settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V.
Painter. Submit your comments by Site name American Drum and Pallet
Company Site by one of the following methods:
     www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/enforcement/enforcement.html.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 13, 2012.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund
Division, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-19425 Filed 8-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 66391]
[DOCID:fr15de09-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings; Agreements Filed the Week Ending November
28, 2009

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21
days after the filing of the application.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0312.
    Date Filed: November 27, 2009.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC3 Japan-Korea, Expedited Resolution 002ma, (Memo 1326),
Intended effective date: 15 January 2010.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0313.
    Date Filed: November 27, 2009.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC3 Japan, Korea--South Asian Subcontinent Expedited,
Resolution 002L, (Memo 1327), Intended effective date: 15 January 2010.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0314.
    Date Filed: November 27, 2009.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC3 Japan, Korea--South East Asia (except between Korea
(Rep. of) and Guam, Northern Mariana Islands) Expedited Resolution
002k, (Memo 1328), Intended effective date: 15 January 2010.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0315.
    Date Filed: November 27, 2009.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association
    Subject: TC3 Japan, Korea--South East Asia between Korea (Rep. of)
and Guam, Northern Mariana Islands Resolution 002kk (Memo 1329),
Intended effective date: 15 January 2010.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0316.
    Date Filed: November 27, 2009.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC3 Within South East Asia (except between Malaysia and
Guam) Expedited Resolution 002bi, (Memo 1330), Intended effective date:
15 January 2010.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E9-29776 Filed 12-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


Other drawbacks with the ASTM International approach include the complexities of the IDE and IQE procedures, along with their inability to address individual laboratory performance. Despite these limitations, however, EPA believes the IDE and IQE can be used to establish sensitivity for certain applications. For example, consider the theoretical situation of an ASTM method for the determination of an analyte regulated under the NPDES program that uses the IDE or IQE to describe method sensitivity and for which the value of the IDE or IQE was below the relevant criterion or regulatory limit. EPA would evaluate the overall performance of such a method for approval at 40 CFR part 136, despite the fact that the method did not contain an MDL determined using the procedure described in 40 CFR part 136, Appendix B. ( See Chapter 3, Section 3.2.8 for a more in depth discussion of using alternative procedures to establish sensitivity.)

EPA's assessment of the theoretical and practical applications of each detection and quantitation approach ( see Appendices B and C) is summarized in Exhibit 6 1. This exhibit suggests that no approach produces the " right" answer, and that different approaches produce different detection and quantitation limits. Observed differences are largely due to different sources of variability accounted for among the approaches.

As part of this assessment, EPA identified the need for approaches that can support CWA programs, including:

 method performance verification at a laboratory,  method development and promulgation,  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) applications,  non regulatory studies and monitoring,  descriptive versus prescriptive uses of lower limits to measurement, and  use of a pair of related detection and quantitation procedures in all OW applications EPA has concluded that the MDL and ML can meet all of these applications and that the addition of a scope and application section to the procedure would help clarify use of the MDL for these applications. However, as noted in Chapter 3, outside organizations use different detection and quantitation approaches that meet their own needs. Given EPA's diverse needs and desire to encourage the development of improved measurement techniques, EPA does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to require the exclusive use of the MDL and ML approaches in CWA programs. As indicated above, EPA would allow use of alternative detection and quantitation procedures to establish detection and quantitation limits in an analytical method, provided that the resulting detection and quantitation limits meet the sensitivity needs for the specific application. Chapter 6 February 2003 6 3 Exhibit 6 1: Theoretical and Practical Application of Each Approach Finding 1: Each approach yields different values. Detection Limit Approaches ° The EPA MDL and ACS LOD approaches, which are functionally analogous, produced detection limits that are a median of 1.25 times higher than the limits produced by the CRV advanced by ISO and IUPAC ( Appendix C of this document). ° The Minimum Detectable Value ( MDV) advanced by ISO and IUPAC produced detection limits that are a median of 1.2 times higher than the limits produced by the MDL and LOD approaches ( Appendix C of this document). ° A single laboratory variant of the IDE ( the IDE has been advanced by ASTM International) produced detection limits that are a median of 2.9 times higher than the median limits produced by the MDL and LOD approaches ( Appendix C of this document). This result is not surprising given that the IDE is functionally analogous to Currie's detection level, while the MDL and LOD are analogous to Currie's critical value. Quantitation Limit Approaches ° The EPA ML and the functionally equivalent ACS LOQ produced quantitation limits that are a median of 1.1 times higher than the limits produced by the LOQ approach advanced by ISO and IUPAC ( Appendix C of this document). ° A single laboratory variant of the IQE ( the IQE has been advanced by ASTM International) produced median quantitation limits that are equivalent to the median limits produced by the EPA ML and ACS LOQ approaches ( Appendix C of this document).

Finding 2: More than the 5 levels specified by ASTM are required to produce a reliable IDE and IQE ° EPA found that the IDEs produced with a subset of data generated from the minimum of 5 concentrations recommended in the IDE procedure differed widely from the IDEs produced with a larger set of data involving 16 concentrations ( which included the subset of 5 concentrations) ( Appendix C of this document). ° Findings suggest that more than 5 concentrations are needed to produce a reliable IDE, due to the limited power of the statistical tests for significant model parameters and the difficulty of drawing conclusions based on residual plots with only 5 points ( Appendix C of this document). ° Parallel reasoning can be applied to the IQE based on its similarity to the IDE.

Finding 3: The ML procedure yields quantitation limits that are generally in the range of the 10% RSD intended in the ML ( and the functionally analogous ACS LOQ) approach. ° EPA calculated the uncertainty associated with replicate measurements made at the ML for a large number of analytes and techniques ( Appendix C of this document). ° EPA found that on average, across all techniques tested, the RSD of replicate measurements at the ML was approximately 7%. Median RSDs calculated for each multi analyte method ranged from 6  14%, and RSD values calculated for each single analyte method ranged from 4  16% ( Appendix C of this document).

Finding 4: No single model adequately predicts the behavior of all analytes and all methods across the measurement range. ° EPA produced graphs representing hundreds of analyte/ method combinations. Selection of an appropriate model based on these graphs is highly subjective, at best, due to the lack of clear patterns and the residuals observed with each model applied ( Chapter 3, Section 3.3, and Appendix B of this document). ° The IDE and IQE are the only approaches other than the MDL and ML that are supported by a procedure for their implementation. The IDE and IQE procedures rely heavily on model selection, and the degree of subjectivity involved in selecting these models makes implementation of the IDE and IQE difficult ( Chapter 5, Sections, 5.1.2 and 5.2.2, and the third conclusion in Appendix C).

Finding 5: Use of a recovery correction when establishing detection and quantitation limits may not be appropriate. ° EPA found that using a regression to estimate a recovery correction at zero concentration causes great swings in the resulting detection and quantitation limits ( Appendix C of this document). ° Use of a recovery correction procedure also can result in ` double correcting' for recovery because 1) nearly all methods already contain specifications for acceptable recovery performance, and 2) some methods include recovery correction in the computation of sample results ( Chapter 3, Section 3.1.4). Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Approaches February 2003 6 4 Exhibit 6 2: Summary of Recommended Modifications to the MDL and ML procedures EPA believes that the following revisions and clarifications to the MDL and ML would allow these procedures to fully meet the Agency's needs under the CWA.

° Refine the definition of the MDL to make it more consistent with the MDL procedure and note the functional analogy of the MDL with the " critical value" described by Currie ( 1968 and 1995) and with the " limit of detection" ( LOD) described by the American Chemical Society in 1980 and 1983 ( Chapter 5, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1). ° Expand the Scope and Application discussion to acknowledge that there are a variety of purposes and analytical methods for which the MDL procedure may be employed and to provide examples of common uses of the MDL procedure ( i. e., demonstrating laboratory capability with a particular method; monitoring trends in laboratory performance; characterizing method sensitivity in a particular matrix; and establishing an MDL for a new or revised method for nationwide use). ° Clarify the considerations for estimating the detection limit in Step 1 of the current MDL procedure, and suggest that the method specified MDL can be used as the initial estimate when performing an MDL study to verify laboratory performance or to demonstrate that the MDL can be achieved in a specific matrix ( Chapter 5, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1). ° Revise the specifications for establishing the test concentration range ( i. e., determining the spike levels) in Section 3.1 according to the intended application of the MDL as follows: 1) if verifying a published MDL, the test concentration should be no more than five times the published MDL; 2) if verifying an MDL to support a regulatory objective or the objective of a study or program, the test concentration should be no more than one third the compliance or target limit; 3) if determining an MDL for a new or revised method, the test concentration should be no more than five times the estimated detection limit; and 4) if performing an iteration, the test concentration should be no more than five times the MDL determined in the most recent iteration. ° Delete the calculation of a 95% confidence interval estimate for the MDL from Step 6. EPA has determined that these calculations are neither routinely performed by laboratories, nor are the results employed by regulatory agencies, including EPA. ° Revise Step 7 to 1) require that the iterative procedure be used to verify the reasonableness of the MDL when developing an MDL for a new or revised method or when developing a matrix specific MDL, but that it remain optional when verifying a method, matrix, program, or study specific MDL, and 2) provide specific instructions on how to assess the reasonableness of an MDL used to verify laboratory performance ( Chapter 5, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1). ° Add a new Step 8 to the MDL procedure to address the treatment of suspected outliers ( Chapter 5, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1). ° Delete the discussion of analysis and use of blanks included in Section 4( a) of the current MDL procedure. The current discussion applies to methods in which a blank measurement is required to calculate the measured level of an analyte; it requires separate measurements of blank samples for each MDL sample aliquot analyzed and subtraction of the average result of the blank samples from each respective MDL sample measurement. Deletion of this discussion recognizes that subtraction of a single ( or average) blank sample result from the result for each MDL sample would not change the standard deviation and thus, would have no effect on the resulting MDL. Although EPA believes laboratories would be prudent to analyze method blanks for assessing potential contamination, EPA also believes that requiring analysis of method blanks or subtraction of method blank results during MDL determinations is unnecessarily burdensome. ° Revise the optional pre test described in Section 4( b) of the current MDL procedure to provide criteria that allow the analyst to determine if the test samples are the desirable range. ° Improve overall readability and understanding of the MDL procedure through editorial changes to the specific numbering scheme, the addition of clearer titles to some of the steps, and minor clarifications. ° Clarify the ML to emphasize its relationship to Currie's Quantitation Limit and ACS' Limit of Quantitation ( LOQ) ° Clarify the ML procedure to address the use of other than seven replicates for determination of the MDL and ML. February 2003 R 1 References ASTM D6091, Standard Practice for 99 %/ 95 % Interlaboratory Detection Estimate ( IDE) for Analytical Methods with Negligible Calibration Error, 1991.

ASTM Practice D 2777, Standard Practice Interlaboratory Quantitation Estimate, 2000.

Barwick, V. J., and Ellison, S. L. R. ( 2000), Protocol for Uncertainty Evaluation from Validation Data, Report Number LGC/ VAM/ 1998/ 088.

Clayton C. A., J. W. Hines, and P. D. Elkins ( 1987), Detection Limits with Specified Assurance Probabilities, Analytical Chemistry 59: 2506 2514.

Currie, Lloyd A. ( 1968), Limits for Quantitative Detection and Quantitative Determination, Analytical Chemistry 40: 586 593.

Currie, Lloyd A. ( 1995), Nomenclature in Evaluation of Analytical Methods including Detection and Quantification Capabilities, Pure and Appl. Chem. 67: 10, 1699 1722.

Currie, Lloyd A. ( 1999a), Nomenclature in Evaluation of Analytical Methods Including Detection and Quantification Capabilities ( IUPAC Recommendations 1995) Anal. Chim. Acta 391, 105 126.

Currie, Lloyd A. ( 1999b), Detection and Quantification Limits: Origins and Historical Overview, Anal. Chim. Acta 391, 127 134.

Currie, Lloyd A. ( 2000), Detection and quantification capabilities and the evaluation of low level data: Some international perspectives and continuing challenges, J. Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chem, Vol. 245, 145 156.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U. S. 579 ( 1993).

Federal Register ( 1979), Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Proposed Rule ( 44 FR 69463).

Federal Register ( 1984), Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Final Rule and Interim Final Rule, and Proposed Rule ( 49 FR 43234).

Federal Register ( 1987), National Primary Drinking Water Regulations  Synthetic Organic Chemicals Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule, 52 FR 25699.

Federal Register ( 1992), National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals; Final Rule, 57 FR 31800.

Federal Register ( 1998), Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, OMB Circular A 119, 63 FR 8546.

Federal Register ( 1999), Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Measurement of Mercury in Water ( EPA Method 1631, Revision B); Final Rule, 64 FR 30417. Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Approaches February 2003 R 2 Gibbons, R. D., F. H. Jarke, K. P. Stoub ( 1991), Detection Limits: For Linear Calibration Curves with Increasing Variance and Multiple Future Detection Decisions, Waste Testing and Quality Assurance: ASTM STP 1075, D. Friedman, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia 3: 337 390.

Gibbons, Robert D., David E. Coleman, and Raymond F. Maddalone ( 1997), Response to Comment on " An Alternative Minimum Level Definition for Analytical Quantification," Env. Sci. and Tech. 31: 7 2071 2077.

Glaser, John, Denis Foerst, Gerald McKee, Stephan Quave, William Budde ( 1981), Trace Analyses for Wastewaters, Env. Sci. & Tech 15: 1426 1435.

Glaser, John ( 2003), e mail to Dale Rushneck, February 3, 2003, " Replicates for MDL."

Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. ISO, Geneva ( 1993). ( ISBN 92 67 10188 9).

Hahn and Meeker, Statistical Intervals, Wiley, 1991.

Hubaux, A. and G. Vos ( 1970), Decision and Detection Limits for Linear Calibration Curves, Analytical Chemistry 42: 849 855.

Keith, Lawrence H., et. al. ( 1983), Principles of Environmental Analysis, Anal. Chem. 55: 14, 2210 2218.

Maddalone, Raymond , James Rice, Ben Edmondson, Babu Nott, & Judith Scott ( 1993), Defining Detection and Quantitation Levels, Water Environment and Technology 5, 41  44.

MacDougall, Daniel, et al. ( 1980), Guidelines for Data Acquisition and Data Quality Evaluation in Environmental Chemistry, Anal. Chem. 52: 14, 2242 2249.

Oblinger Chilress, Carolyn J. William T. Foreman, Brooke F. Connor, and Thomas J. Mahoney ( 1999), New Reporting Procedures Based on Long Term Method Detection Levels and Some Considerations for Interpretations of Water Quality Data Provided by the U. S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory, U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 99 193, Reston, Virginia.

Patterson, Clair C. and Dorothy M. Settle, ( 1976), NBS Special Publication 422, Accuracy in Trace Analysis: Sampling, Sample Handling, and Analysis 1, 321.

Pratt and Gibbons, Concepts of Non parametric Theory, Springer Verlag, 1981.

Rocke, David and Stefan Lorenzato ( 1995) A Two Component Model for Measurement Error in Analytical Chemistry, Technometrics 37: 176 184.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 1991), Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control, EPA 505/ 2 90/ 001.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 1993), Guidance on Evaluation, Resolution, and Documentation of Analytical Problems Associated with Compliance Monitoring, EPA 821 B 93 001.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 1994), Draft National Guidance for the Permitting, Monitoring, and Enforcement of Water Quality based Effluent Limitations Set Below Analytical Detection/ Quantitation Levels. References February 2003 R 3 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2001), EPA's Guidance for Implementation and Use of EPA Method 1631 for the Determination of Low Level Mercury, EPA 821 R 01 023.

Youden, W. J. and E. H. Steiner, Statistical Manual of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists AOAC International, 481 N. Frederick Ave., Suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877 2417.

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods ( SW 846), Chapter 1, Revision 1, July 1992.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35244-35246]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15188]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0531]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks, Portage Canal,
Hancock, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the Portage
Canal near Hancock, MI. This safety zone is intended to restrict
vessels from specified waters in the Portage Canal during the
Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks Display. This safety zone is necessary to
protect spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks
display.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2015-0531]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Chief Petty Officer Aaron Woof, Waterways management, MSU
Duluth, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

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

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. In May of this year, the Coast Guard
discovered an error in the coordinates for the safety zone for the
Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(1). On May 4, 2015,
the COTP Duluth signed a NPRM to correct the error (USCG-2015-0215).
This NPRM has yet to publish in the Federal Register. Because the
fireworks event is scheduled for June 20, 2015, there is insufficient
time to accommodate the comment period. Thus, delaying the effective
date of this rule to wait for the comment period to run would be both
impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would
inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels
from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define
regulatory safety zones.
    Between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. on June 20, 2015, Bridgefest Regatta
fireworks display will take place within the Portage Canal in Hancock,
MI. The likely combination of recreation vessels, darkness punctuated
by bright flashes of light, and fireworks debris falling into the water
presents risks of collisions which could result in serious injuries or
fatalities. Establishing a safety zone around the launch site will help
ensure the safety of persons and recreational boats during the
fireworks display.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    In light of the aforementioned hazards, the Captain of the Port
Duluth has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of spectators and participants during the fireworks
display. This safety zone will encompass all waters of the Portage
Canal within an area bounded by a circle with a 280 foot radius at
position 47[deg] 07' 22'' N, 088[deg] 35' 39'' W.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for an hour on a single day. Under
certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the
safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)

that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary
rule on small entities. This rule would affect the following entities,
some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of
recreational vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the
Portage Canal in Hancock, MI from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 20,
2015.''
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the
Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the
enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to
Mariners so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishing a safety zone. This rule
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0531 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0531  Safety zone; Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks, Portage
Canal, Hancock, MI.

    (a) Location. All waters of the Portage Canal within an area
bounded by a

circle with a 280 foot radius at position 47[deg]07'22'' N,
088[deg]35'39'' W.
    (b) Effective period. This safety zone is effective from 10 p.m. to
11 p.m. on June 20, 2015.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Duluth, or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Duluth or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-
scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or
his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Duluth or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all
directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Duluth or his on-
scene representative.

    Dated: June 10, 2015.
A.H. Moore, Jr.,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Duluth.
[FR Doc. 2015-15188 Filed 6-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 62384-62385]
[DOCID:fr27no09-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0178]

National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC);
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC);
notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The NHTSA announces a meeting of NEMSAC to be held in the
Metropolitan Washington, DC area. This notice announces the date, time
and location of the meeting, which will be open to the public. The
purpose of NEMSAC is to provide a nationally recognized council of
emergency medical services representatives and consumers to provide
advice and recommendations regarding Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
to the U.S. DOT's NHTSA.

DATES: The meeting will be held on December 15, 2009, from 8 a.m. to
noon, and December 16, 2009, from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. A public comment
period will take place on December 15, 2009, between 11:15 a.m. and
11:45 a.m.
    Comment Date: Written comments or requests to make oral
presentations must be received by December 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel,
1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. Persons wishing to
make an oral presentation or who are unable to attend or speak at the
meeting may submit written comments. Written comments and requests to
make oral presentations at the meeting should reach Drew Dawson at the
address listed below and must be received by December 8, 2009.
    All submissions received must include the docket number NHTSA-2009-
0178, and may be submitted by any one of the following methods: You may
submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management
System (DMS) at http://www.regulations.gov/ under the docket number
listed at the beginning of this notice. The DMS is available 24 hours
each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help
guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. An
electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the Federal
Register's home page at http://www.archives.gov and the Government
Printing Office's database at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Fax:
(202) 366-7149.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Drew Dawson, Director, Office of
Emergency Medical Services, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., NTI-
140, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C.
App. 1 et seq.) The NEMSAC will be holding its eighth meeting on
Tuesday and Wednesday, December 15 and 16, 2009, at the Sheraton
Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

Agenda of Council Meeting, December 15-16, 2009

    The tentative agenda includes the following:

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

    (1) Opening Remarks;
    (2) Introduction of Members and all in attendance;
    (3) Review and Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting;
    (4) NHTSA Update;
    (5) FICEMS Update;
    (6) Federal Partners' Update;
    (7) Public Comment Period.

    Note: The NEMSAC Committees will hold their meetings the
afternoon of the 15th--these are not part of the larger public
meeting.

)Wednesday, December 16, 2009

    (1) Introductions and Review of 15 December Discussion;
    (2) Committee Reports and Discussion/Action;
    (3) Unfinished Business from 15 December;
    (4) Next Steps and Adjourn.
    A public comment period will take place on December 15, 2009,
between 11:15 a.m. and 11:45 a.m.
    Public Attendance: The meeting is open to the public. Persons with
disabilities who require special assistance should advise Drew Dawson
of their anticipated special needs as early as possible. Members of the
public who wish to make comments on Tuesday, December 15 between 11:15
a.m. and 11:45 a.m. are requested to

register in advance. In order to allow as many people as possible to
speak, speakers are requested to limit their remarks to 3 minutes. For
those wishing to submit written comments, please follow the procedure
noted above.
    This meeting will be open to the public. Individuals wishing to
register must provide their name, affiliation, phone number, and e-mail
address to Drew Dawson by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER> no later than December 8, 2009. There will be limited
seating, so please register early. Pre-registration is necessary to
enable proper arrangements.
    Minutes of the NEMSAC Meeting will be available to the public
online through http://www.ems.gov.

    Issued on: November 20, 2009.
Jeffrey P. Michael,
Associate Administrator for Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-28323 Filed 11-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48608]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19353]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0707]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW), Chesapeake, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the operation of the I64 Bridge across
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, South Branch of the Elizabeth
River, mile 7.1, at Chesapeake, VA.
    This deviation is necessary to facilitate maintenance work on the
moveable spans. This temporary deviation allows the drawbridge to
remain in the closed to navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on Sept 13, 2013 to 5
p.m. Sept 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0707] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mrs. Kashanda Booker, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-
6227, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
reviewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Transportation,
who owns and operates this bridge, has requested a temporary deviation
from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.997(e), to
facilitate maintenance of the moveable spans on the structure.
    The current operating schedule for the bridge is set out in 33 CFR
117.997 (e) which requires the bridge open on signal if at least 24
hours notice is given. The I64 Bridge has a vertical clearance in the
closed position of 65 feet above mean high water.
    Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be closed to
navigation each day, from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Friday September 13,
2013 to Sunday September 15, 2013; and on Friday September 20, 2013 to
Sunday September 22, 2013; with inclement weather dates, from 7 a.m. to
5 p.m., on Friday September 27, 2013 through Sunday, September 29,
2013. The bridge will operate under normal operating schedule at all
other times.
    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do
so at anytime and are advised to proceed with caution. There is no
immediate alternate route for vessels transiting this section on the
South Branch of the Elizabeth River; however, vessels requiring an
opening may proceed before and after the closure periods. The bridge
will not be able to open for emergencies. The Coast Guard will also
inform additional waterway users through our Local and Broadcast
Notices to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that
vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by
the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 31, 2013.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-19353 Filed 8-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P