[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16001-16003]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05743]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69068; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New Exchange Rule 1047(f)(iv)
Regarding Quoting Obligations

March 7, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 5, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Exchange Rule 1047(f)(iv) to
provide for how the Exchange proposes to treat market-making quoting
obligations, in response to the Regulation NMS Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new
language is italicized.
* * * * *

Rule 1047. Trading Rotations, Halts and Suspensions

    (a)-(e) No change.
    (f) This paragraph shall be in effect during a pilot period to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, as it may be
amended from time to time (``LULD Plan''). Capitalized terms used in
this paragraph shall have the same meaning as provided for in the LULD
Plan. During a Limit State and Straddle State in the Underlying NMS
stock:
    (i)-(iii) No change.
    (iv) When evaluating whether a specialist or Registered Options
Trader has met the continuous quoting obligations of Rule
1014(b)(ii)(D)(1) and (2) in options overlying NMS stocks, the Exchange
will not consider as part of the trading day the time that an NMS stock
underlying an option was in a Limit State or Straddle State.
    (g) No change.
    * * * Commentary:
    .01-.03 No change.
* * * * *

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 proposes to adopt Exchange Rule 1047(f)(iv) \3\ to
provide for how the Exchange will treat market making quoting
obligations in response to the Regulation NMS Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility (the ``Plan''), which is applicable to
all NMS stocks, as defined in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(47). The
Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 1047(f)(iv) for a pilot period that
coincides with the pilot period for the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The provisions of Rule 1047(f)(i)-(iii) were filed and
became effective on February 28, 2013, with a 30 day operative
delay, on a pilot basis. See SR-Phlx-2013-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Since May 6, 2010, when the markets experienced excessive
volatility in an abbreviated time period, i.e., the ``flash crash,''
the equities exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') have implemented market-wide measures designed to restore
investor confidence by reducing the potential for excessive market
volatility. Among the measures adopted include pilot plans for stock-
by-stock trading pauses,\4\ related changes to the equities market
clearly erroneous execution rules,\5\ and more stringent equities
market maker quoting requirements.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See e.g., Exchange Rule 3100.
    \5\ See e.g., Exchange Rule 3312.
    \6\ See e.g., NASDAQ Rule 4613.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan, as amended, on a
one-year pilot basis.\7\ In addition, the Commission approved changes
to the equities market-wide circuit breaker rules on a pilot basis to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631) (Order Approving
the Plan on a Pilot Basis).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-
025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-
30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-
2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to prevent trades in individual NMS stocks
from occurring outside of specified Price Bands.\9\ As described more
fully below, the requirements of the Plan are coupled with Trading
Pauses to accommodate more fundamental price moves (as opposed to
erroneous trades or momentary gaps in liquidity). All trading centers
in NMS stocks, including both those operated by Participants and those
operated by members of Participants, are required to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to comply with the requirements specified in the
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are based on the defined terms of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in more detail in the Plan, Price Bands consisting of
a Lower Price Band and an Upper Price Band for each NMS Stock are
calculated by the Processors.\10\ When the National Best Bid (Offer) is
below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band, the Processors shall
disseminate such National Best Bid (Offer) with an appropriate flag
identifying it as unexecutable. When the National Best Bid (Offer) is
equal to the Upper (Lower) Price Band, the Processors shall distribute
such National Best Bid (Offer) with an appropriate flag identifying it
as a Limit State Quotation.\11\ All trading centers in

NMS stocks must maintain written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to prevent the display of offers below the Lower
Price Band and bids above the Upper Price Band for NMS stocks.
Notwithstanding this requirement, the Processor shall display an offer
below the Lower Price Band or a bid above the Upper Price Band, but
with a flag that it is non-executable. Such bids or offers shall not be
included in the National Best Bid or National Best Offer
calculations.\12\ Trading in an NMS stock immediately enters a Limit
State if the National Best Offer (Bid) equals but does not cross the
Lower (Upper) Price Band.\13\ Trading for an NMS stock exits a Limit
State if, within 15 seconds of entering the Limit State, all Limit
State Quotations were executed or canceled in their entirety. If the
market does not exit a Limit State within 15 seconds, then the Primary
Listing Exchange would declare a five-minute trading pause pursuant to
Section VII of the Plan, which would be applicable to all markets
trading the security.\14\ In addition, the Plan defines a Straddle
State as when the National Best Bid (Offer) is below (above) the Lower
(Upper) Price Band and the NMS stock is not in a Limit State. For
example, assume the Lower Price Band for an NMS Stock is $9.50 and the
Upper Price Band is $10.50, such NMS stock would be in a Straddle State
if the National Best Bid were below $9.50, and therefore unexecutable,
and the National Best Offer were above $9.50 (including a National Best
Offer that could be above $10.50). If an NMS stock is in a Straddle
State and trading in that stock deviates from normal trading
characteristics, the Primary Listing Exchange may declare a trading
pause for that NMS stock if such Trading Pause would support the Plan's
goal to address extraordinary market volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section V(A) of the Plan.
    \11\ See Section VI(A) of the Plan.
    \12\ See Section VI(A)(3) of the Plan.
    \13\ See Section VI(B)(1) of the Plan.
    \14\ The primary listing market would declare a Trading Pause in
an NMS stock; upon notification by the primary listing market, the
Processor would disseminate this information to the public. No
trades in that NMS stock could occur during the trading pause, but
all bids and offers may be displayed. See Section VII(A) of the
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 1047(f)(iv) to provide that the
Exchange shall exclude the amount of time an NMS stock underlying a
Phlx option is in a Limit State or Straddle State from the total amount
of time in the trading day when calculating the percentage of the
trading day specialists and Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') are
required to quote.
    Currently, the quoting requirements appear in Rule
1014(b)(ii)(D)(1) and (2), which generally require that: (i) A
Streaming Quote Trader (``SQT'') and a Remote Streaming Quote Trader
(``RSQT'') shall be responsible to quote two-sided markets in not less
than 60% of the series in which such SQT or RSQT is assigned; (ii) a
Directed SQT (``DSQT'') or a Directed RSQT (``DRSQT'') shall be
responsible to quote two-sided markets in the lesser of 99% of the
series listed on the Exchange or 100% of the series listed on the
Exchange minus one call-put pair, in each case in at least 60% of the
options in which such DSQT or DRSQT is assigned; and (iii) the
specialist (including the RSQT functioning as a Remote Specialist in
particular options) shall be responsible to quote two-sided markets in
the lesser of 99% of the series or 100% of the series minus one call-
put pair in each option in which such specialist is assigned. To
satisfy these requirements, they must be quoting such series 90% of the
trading day as a percentage of the total number of minutes in such
trading day.
    The Exchange now proposes to subtract from the total number of
minutes in a trading day the time period for an option when the
underlying NMS stock was in a Limit State or Straddle State. The
Exchange believes that this is appropriate for the same reasons
discussed above, in light of the limited price discovery in the
underlying stock and the direct relationship between an options price
and the price of the underlying security. During a Limit State or
Straddle State, the bid price or offer price of the underlying security
will be unexecutable and the ability to hedge the purchase or sale of
an option will be jeopardized. Recognizing that it may be impossible to
hedge to offset the risk created by trading options, the Exchange
expects that specialists and ROTs will, as a result, modify their
quoting behavior. The Exchange believes it is reasonable and
appropriate to exclude this time period, which the Exchange believes
will generally be limited. Currently, the Exchange excludes the time
period when an option is halted for the obvious reason that trades
cannot occur and quotes are irrelevant during a halt.
    The Exchange has considered waiving its bid/ask differential
requirement (also known as quote spread parameters), but ultimately
determined that those requirements should be maintained in order to
promote liquidity and the operation of a fair and orderly market.
Accordingly, even when the quoting obligation is not in effect,
specialists and ROTs who choose to quote must do so within the
applicable bid-ask differentials. The Exchange believes that this
should help ensure the quality of the quotes that are entered and
preserves one of the obligations of being a market maker.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Because they will continue to be subject to the market
maker obligation of maintaining quotes within a certain bid/ask
differentials, Specialists and ROTs will continue to be eligible for
the various ``guarantees'' that are available to them including the
Directed Order and size pro-rata allocations. See Rule 1080. The
Exchange notes that it is technically complex, and therefore,
impractical, to address this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\16\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, which requires that the
rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade,
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest,
because the Exchange believes that excluding the Limit and Straddle
State from a specialist's and ROT's quoting obligation calculation
should promote just and equitable principles of trade by recognizing
the particular risk that arises for liquidity providers who cannot
hedge. Whenever an NMS stock is in a Limit State or Straddle State,
trading continues; however, there will not be a reliable price for a
security to serve as a benchmark for the price of the option.
Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to expressly remove these periods from
consideration in order to enable specialists and ROTs to provide the
necessary liquidity and facilitate transactions on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Specifically, the proposal does not impose an intra-market burden on
competition, because it will apply to all members subject to those
obligations in the same manner. Nor will the proposal impose a burden
on competition among the options exchanges, because, in

addition to the vigorous competition for order flow among the options
exchanges, the proposal addresses a regulatory situation common to all
options exchanges. To the extent that market participants disagree with
the particular approach taken by the Exchange herein, market
participants can easily and readily operate on competing venues. The
Exchange believes this proposal will not impose a burden on competition
and will help provide liquidity during periods of extraordinary
volatility in an NMS stock.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2013-21 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-2013-21. 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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-2013-21 and should be
submitted on or before March 28, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05743 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Reasonable and Prudent Practices For Stabilization ( RAPPS)

of Oil and Gas Construction Sites RAPPS

Developed by oil and gas industry representatives with assistance from an environmental consultant

Guidance document for non technical personnel

Developed with input from field personnel

Field tested by oil and gas companies RAPPS Goals

To compile reasonable and prudent practices commonly used in exploration and production

Provide guidance for small operators or construction personnel, which is readily understood and used

Provide a process to assess which, if any,

controls are needed for a specific location RAPPS  Industry associations have endorsed and published on their web sites  TIPRO  IPAA  TAEP  USOGA  DPC  OIPA  Guidance for voluntary use throughout the oil and gas industry HOW TO USE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 1. Determine geographical category that best fits local conditions using Figure 1 and field judgment.

2. Assure that assumptions for geographical category fit construction location. If local conditions do not meet assumptions, use good judgment to select RAPPS.

3. Review area between construction activity and regulated water body to determine distance to the regulated water body, approximate slope, and approximate vegetative cover.

4. Work through decision tree utilizing information from step 3.

5. Select RAPPS from the alternatives listed as being effective for a construction site under similar conditions of distance, slope, and vegetative cover ( Note:

not all RAPPS alternatives listed will necessarily be required for effective storm water control).

6. Implement RAPPS in appropriate locations.

7. Begin construction.

8. Stabilize disturbed areas following completion of construction. HOW TO USE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 1. Determine geographical category that best fits local conditions using Figure 1 and field judgment.

2. Assure that assumptions for geographical category fit construction location. If local conditions do not meet assumptions, use good judgment to select RAPPS.

3. Review area between construction activity and regulated water body to determine distance to the regulated water body, approximate slope, and approximate vegetative cover.

4. Work through decision tree utilizing information from step 3.

5. Select RAPPS from the alternatives listed as being effective for a construction site under similar conditions of distance, slope, and vegetative cover ( Note:

not all RAPPS alternatives listed will necessarily be required for effective storm water control).

6. Implement RAPPS in appropriate locations.

7. Begin construction.

8. Stabilize disturbed areas following completion of construction. XERIC MOUNTAINS Description Generally mountainous areas within the western US; slopes exceeding 10%; variable vegetation cover; shallow rocky soils with low erodibility; and low to moderate annual precipitation.

Selection of RAPPS This region is dominated by very rocky, low erodibility soils and typically only experiences rainfall events during warmer months. Snowmelt can cause erosion, but the opportunity for sediment in storm water runoff to be discharged to a regulated water body in undesirable quantities is low in comparison to the Mesic Mountains, and distance and slope are adjusted accordingly compared to the Mesic Mountains. Therefore, construction at oil and gas sites will not require the installation of RAPPS if one of the following exists:

1. The construction site is located in excess of 150 feet from a regulated water body.

2. The area between the construction site and a regulated water body has vegetative cover in excess of 75% AND the site is in excess of 75 feet from a regulated water body.

If neither of these two conditions is met, the decision tree in Table 3.5 1 will be useful in determining which RAPPS would be effective under the given circumstances. The decision tree process for this geographical category assumes annual precipitation is low to moderate ( from 10 to 50 inches) and soils are primarily rock. HOW TO USE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 1. Determine geographical category that best fits local conditions using Figure 1 and field judgment.

2. Assure that assumptions for geographical category fit construction location. If local conditions do not meet assumptions, use good judgment to select RAPPS.

3. Review area between construction activity and regulated water body to determine distance to the regulated water body, approximate slope, and approximate vegetative cover.

4. Work through decision tree utilizing information from step 3.

5. Select RAPPS from the alternatives listed as being effective for a construction site under similar conditions of distance, slope, and vegetative cover ( Note:

not all RAPPS alternatives listed will necessarily be required for effective storm water control).

6. Implement RAPPS in appropriate locations.

7. Begin construction.

8. Stabilize disturbed areas following completion of construction. Xeric Mountains Assumptions:

1. Annual precipitation is between 10 and 50 inches 2. Soils are rocky with low erodability No RAPPS needed:

1. When construction site is in excess of 150 feet from a regulated water body OR 2. When vegetative cover exceeds 75% AND the site is in excess of 75 feet from a regulated water body. The list of RAPPS for any given pathway on the decision tree are suggestions of RAPPS alternatives, from which one or more of the listed techniques or practices may be selected for a given site under site specific circumstances. Not all RAPPS listed will necessarily be required for any given project.

The list of RAPPS for any given pathway on the decision may not exhaust all of the available RAPPS that may be effective for any given construction site. Other RAPPS, not listed in this flowchart,

may be beneficial for controlling surface water runoff from the construction site, in addition to or in lieu of the RAPPS listed in this document. HOW TO USE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 1. Determine geographical category that best fits local conditions using Figure 1 and field judgment.

2. Assure that assumptions for geographical category fit construction location. If local conditions do not meet assumptions, use good judgment to select RAPPS.

3. Review area between construction activity and regulated water body to determine distance to the regulated water body, approximate slope, and approximate vegetative cover.

4. Work through decision tree utilizing information from step 3.

5. Select RAPPS from the alternatives listed as being effective for a construction site under similar conditions of distance, slope, and vegetative cover ( Note:

not all RAPPS alternatives listed will necessarily be required for effective storm water control).

6. Implement RAPPS in appropriate locations.

7. Begin construction.

8. Stabilize disturbed areas following completion of construction. ROCK BERM ( RB)

This technique is useful to filter sediment from concentrated flows and/ or runoff of moderate grades and larger drainage areas. Additionally, rock berms may be utilized to reduce velocity of flows within constructed channels.

Limitations: Availability of rock Anchor rock into soil Difficult to remove after construction Require regular maintenance due to sediment build up Installation:

Use medium to large diameter rock May secure rock within woven wire sheathing but not required Berm side slopes should be 3: 1 or flatter Top of berm should be a minimum of 2 feet wide Construction Activities:

Access roads, well/ tank battery pads, and flow/ gathering pipeline DIVERSION/ EARTHEN DIKES ( WATER BARS) ( DD)

This technique may be used to collect runoff from undisturbed areas and divert around construction activity. Additionally, dikes are used to limit the accumulation of water volume by diverting runoff from construction area into a stabilized outlet or well vegetated area.

Limitations:

Not for use on concentrated flows May cause concentrated flows from sheet flow Requires vegetative cover or other filter at discharge point Installation:

Pile and compact soil Dike sideslopes should be 2: 1 or flatter Angle dike at approximately 30o to slope Increase frequency with increased slope Outlet dike into well vegetated area or install secondary control such as rock filter or straw bales Construction Activities:

Access roads, well/ tank battery pads, and flow/ gathering pipelines ROAD SURFACE SLOPE ( RDSS)

This technique sheds runoff water from road surface into stabilized ditches or vegetation. Roads may be crowned, in sloped, or out sloped.

Limitations:

Only sheds runoff collected from surface of road May cause concentrated flows from sheet flow Require vegetative ditches, turnouts, and/ or cross drains Installation: Compact soil or road base material to direct runoff Crowning design directs runoff to both sides of the road requiring 2 road side ditches Inslope design directs runoff toward the hillside and requires cross drain installation Outslope design is most effective on moderate slopes with dense vegetative cover Construction Activity:

Access roads DRAINAGE DIPS ( DIP)

This technique captures and directs runoff from the road into vegetative filter strips or other filter system. Ridges and associated dips are constructed diagonally across and as part of the road surface. Limitations:

Size limited by the safe passage of trucks and equipment May cause concentrated flows from sheet flows Require vegetative cover or other filter at discharge point Installation:

Need to be deep enough to carry expected flow Need to be wide enough to allow traffic to pass Increase frequency with increase slope Pile and compact soil Angle dips up to 25o to slope Place rock at outlet Construction Activity:

Access roads ROAD SIDE DITCHES ( RDSD)

This technique requires constructing channels parallel to roads. The ditches convey concentrated runoff of surface water from roads and surrounding areas to a stabilized area.

Limitations: Erosion occurs within channel Channel does not necessarily filter sediment from runoff Installation: Excavate channel along roadside to a width and depth that can handle expected flows Slope channels so that water velocities do not cause excessive erosion Shape and level channel removing excess spoil so water can flow Vegetate or line channel with material to prevent erosion Construction Activity:

Access roads TURNOUTS OR WING DITCHES ( TO)

These structures are extensions of road side ditches and will effectively remove run off water from the ditch into well stabilized areas.

Limitations: Gradual slopes only Require vegetative cover or other filter at discharge point Installation: Slope turnout gradually down from bottom of road ditch Angle turnout at approximately 30o to road ditch Discharge turnout into well vegetated area or install secondary control such as rock filter or straw bales Space turnouts according to slope Construction Activities:

Access roads CONSTRUCTION MATS ( CM)

This technique spreads the weight of construction equipment over a broad area to help prevent soil compaction and soil exposure.

Limitations: Useful on wet, soggy, and/ or inundated soils Mats are bulky and difficult to move Does not filter sediment from runoff Installation:

Mats are constructed of large timber tied together Mats are placed ahead of operating equipment to provide stable work area Construction Activities:

Flow/ gathering pipelines CROSS DRAIN CULVERTS ( CULV)

This technique can be used to direct road side ditch flow across road or may be used to direct stream flow under road or construction area. Culverts passing construction sites will allow for continued flow of stream with minimal siltation.

Limitations: Culverts may become clogged Not a sediment filter Installation: Culverts may be steel, aluminum, or concrete Culverts should be placed at surface grades to allow normal low flow water to be conveyed Soil or road base should be compacted over culverts to a minimum of 12 inches Culvert size should be adequate to convey anticipated flow Ditch plug will be needed within road side ditch to direct water into culvert Culvert drop grade should be adequate to convey flows Increase frequency of culverts with increased slope Rock rip rap often needed at outlet Construction Activities:

Access roads and flow/ gathering pipelines GEOTEXTILES/ EROSION BLANKETS ( GEO)

Geotextiles are typically a porous fabric constructed of woven fibers. They are useful for stabilizing and preventing erosion on slopes, especially adjacent to streams.

Limitations: Decompose Effectiveness depends on proper installation Expensive Installation: Select appropriate fabric type for necessary purpose Smooth soil prior to installation Fabric needs to be in continuous contact with exposed soil Anchor fabric securely Apply seed prior to fabric installation for final stabilization of construction sites Construction Activities:

Well/ tank battery pads and flow/ gathering pipelines HOW TO USE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 1. Determine geographical category that best fits local conditions using Figure 1 and field judgment.

2. Assure that assumptions for geographical category fit construction location. If local conditions do not meet assumptions, use good judgment to select RAPPS.

3. Review area between construction activity and regulated water body to determine distance to the regulated water body, approximate slope, and approximate vegetative cover.

4. Work through decision tree utilizing information from step 3.

5. Select RAPPS from the alternatives listed as being effective for a construction site under similar conditions of distance, slope, and vegetative cover ( Note:

not all RAPPS alternatives listed will necessarily be required for effective storm water control).

6. Implement RAPPS in appropriate locations.

7. Begin construction.

8. Stabilize disturbed areas following completion of construction. STABILIZATION Actively Disturbed (" Under Construction")

 Beginning of any land disturbing activities   clearing, grading, excavation  Ends when site is suitable for its intended use and capacity  And RAPPS have been selected and installed appropriately Final Stabilization ( CGP, if needed, can be terminated)

 Construction of road, well or equipment pad is complete and stabilized by placement of base material or compaction  Where no base material is placed  In wet areas  Vegetative cover is 70% of native background  In arid areas:

 Active disturbance of the land has ceased  RAPPS have been selected and installed appropriately  Native seed has been dispersed and expected to achieve 70% of background vegetative cover within 3 years. 70% OF VEGETATIVE COVER VEGETATIVE COVER Vegetative cover is an effective natural means of filtering runoff and preventing erosion.

Preservation of existing vegetation to the maximum extent practicable keeps soils stabilized and provides a natural filter. The most effective vegetative cover consists of low growing,

herbaceous species with a high percentage of ground coverage. Shrubs and trees provide some means of preventing erosion; however, the filtering ability is greatly reduced.

Limitations:

 Primarily filters sheet flow  Minimum width of vegetative strip dependent on slope ( greater slope requires wider strip)

 Vegetation must be established  High percentage of ground cover Installation:

 Limit vegetation clearing to the extent practicable during construction  Plant fast growing annual grasses for temporary controls  Plant perennial seed mixes recommended by the local soil conservation office Construction Activities:

 Access roads, well/ tank battery pads, and flow/ gathering pipelines CONSTRUCTION CROSSING A REGULATED WATER BODY Construction of crossing at regulated water bodies increases the opportunity for pollution entering these areas.

Several listed RAPPS will likely be necessary for water protection given the particular circumstances. Appendix B includes some general diagrams indicating RAPPS used effectively to protect regulated waters during oil and gas construction activity. The general recommendations listed below should also be considered to help control discharges of sediment to the regulated water in undesirable quantities during construction at regulated water bodies.

 Bore under regulated water body to prevent disturbance.

 Generally, construction activities should be limited to the extent practicable within regulated waters.

 Locate staging areas and spoil storage areas a minimum of 10 feet from the water's edge. Additionally,

good vegetative cover and/ or sediment barriers will be needed between the stored spoil and regulated water.

 Operate tracked equipment on construction mats within regulated waters to limit soil compaction or disturbance within these areas.

 Refuel equipment a minimum of 100 feet from the regulated water body.

 Cut vegetation at ground level and limit removal of root zones and stumps where possible.

 Maintain the maximum amount of vegetative ground cover possible.

 Install temporary equipment crossings after initial clearing to allow for equipment access during construction. Flume pipe will be necessary at flowing streams.

 Stream flows at crossings should be flumed or dammed and pumped past the construction area.

 Dewater trench in a manner to prevent sediment laden water from entering the regulated water.

Trench water should be pumped into an area with good vegetative cover or into a filter bag and dewatering structure.

 Water body banks should be stabilized following construction to prevent sloughing or erosion. APPENDIX B DIAGRAMS OF TYPICAL REGULATED WATER BODY CROSSINGS


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24708-24712]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08548]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0023; Amdt. No. 192-133]
RIN 2137-AF39

Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: Repair
Criteria, Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic Protection,
Management of Change, and Other Related Amendments: Technical
Corrections; Response to Petitions for Reconsideration

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; technical corrections; response to petitions for
reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is making necessary technical corrections to ensure
consistency within, and the intended effect of, a recently issued final
rule titled ``Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: Repair Criteria,
Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic Protection, Management of
Change, and Other Related Amendments.'' PHMSA also alerts the public to
its November 18, 2022, and April 19, 2023, responses to petitions for
reconsideration of this final rule.

DATES: Effective May 24, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Technical questions: Steve Nanney, Senior Technical Advisor, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    General information: Robert Jagger, Senior Transportation
Specialist, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 24, 2022, as the culmination of a
decade-long rulemaking process, PHMSA published a final rule titled
``Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: Repair Criteria, Integrity
Management Improvements, Cathodic Protection, Management of Change, and
Other Related Amendments'' \1\ amending the Pipeline Safety Regulations
at 49 CFR part 192 to improve the safety of onshore gas transmission
pipelines. In preparing to implement provisions of the August 2022
Final Rule, as well as through discussions with stakeholders (including
petitions for reconsideration of the August 2022 Final Rule), PHMSA has
identified several places in the amended regulatory text that would
benefit from technical correction to facilitate timely implementation
of the August 2022 Final Rule consistent with the function and purposes
described in the administrative record. PHMSA also alerts the public to
the availability in the rulemaking docket of its November 18, 2022,
response to a petition for reconsideration filed by the American Gas
Association and its April 19, 2022, response to a petition for
reconsideration jointly filed by the Interstate Natural Gas Association
of America and the American Petroleum Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 87 FR 52224 (Aug. 24, 2022) (``August 2022 Final Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Technical Corrections To Ensure Consistency Between Sec. Sec.
192.714 and 192.933

    Among the August 2022 Final Rule's regulatory amendments were the
enhancement of existing repair criteria and repair schedules for
anomalies discovered in a High Consequence Area (HCA) and the extension
of those repair criteria and schedules to onshore gas transmission
lines outside an HCA. See 87 FR at 52226 (``The content of the non-HCA
repair criteria being finalized in this rule is consistent with the
criteria for HCAs''). This was achieved by adding similar repair
criteria and scheduling requirements to both 49 CFR 192.714 (applicable
to non-HCA lines) and Sec.  192.933 (applicable to HCA lines). See 87
FR at 52246. However, PHMSA has identified three instances in the
amended regulatory text that would benefit from technical correction to
facilitate timely implementation of the August 2022 Final Rule
consistent with the function and purposes described in the
administrative record.
    First, both Sec. Sec.  192.714 and 192.933 provide, at respective
paragraph (d)(1), for specific conditions that must be repaired
immediately. These are the most severe, risk-bearing conditions and the
August 2022 Final Rule set out the importance for public and
environmental safety of their swift remediation upon detection. That
detection may come from regularly scheduled assessments and the
evaluation of anomalies that appear indicative of a serious condition.
Section 7 of ASME/ANSI B31.8S provides that examination of these
indications must occur ``within a period not to exceed 5 days following
determination of the condition,'' with ``prompt[ ]'' remediation
thereafter of

any defect found to require repair or removal.\2\ ASME/ANSI B31.8S,
section 7 is incorporated in the HCA immediate repair criteria at Sec.
192.933(d)(1) for operators to follow in their evaluation and
remediation schedule. However, parallel language was inadvertently
omitted from Sec.  192.714(d). See 87 FR at 52246 (referencing ASME/
ANSI B31.8S, section 7 in the preamble discussion supporting Sec.
192.714).\3\ This omission from Sec.  192.714 leaves unintended
asymmetry in the evaluation and remediation schedule for immediate
repair conditions between HCA and non-HCA lines, with potential for
operator confusion. As the Sec.  192.714 repair criteria were intended
to largely mirror those at Sec.  192.933, PHMSA is correcting this
oversight by adding to the beginning of Sec.  192.714(d)(1) similar
language that begins Sec.  192.933(d)(1): ``An operator's evaluation
and remediation schedule for immediate repair conditions must follow
section 7 of ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
192.7).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Am. Soc'y Mech. Eng'rs, B31.8S-2004, ``Managing System
Integrity of Gas Pipelines,'' sec. 7 (2005) (``ASME/ANSI B31.8S'').
    \3\ PHMSA included amendatory language at Sec.  192.7(c)(6) to
incorporate by reference ASME/ANSI B31.8S for Sec.  192.714(d). See
87 FR at 52267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Sec. Sec.  192.714(d)(3) and 192.933(d)(3) list various
``monitored conditions'' that entail less acute risk to public safety
and the environment but which nevertheless merit monitoring by
operators to ensure no further degradation occurs. Evidence supporting
differentiation between a scheduled repair condition and a monitored
repair condition can include an engineering critical assessment (ECA)
demonstrating critical strain levels are not exceeded; conversely,
exceedance of critical strain levels will often require a condition be
scheduled for a repair under Sec. Sec.  192.714(d)(2) and
192.933(d)(2). For that reason, PHMSA explained during the Gas Pipeline
Advisory Committee (GPAC) meeting that it intended for dent repair
criteria for both HCA and non-HCA areas to provide that ``[d]ents
analyzed by ECA, but shown to not exceed critical strain levels[,]
would be Monitored Conditions'' under Sec. Sec.  192.714(d)(3) and
192.933(d)(3).\4\ However, the regulatory text adopted by the August
2022 Final Rule included references to ECA as an element for only two
of three monitored dent conditions in Sec.  192.714 (applicable to non-
HCA lines), even as it referenced ECA for all three monitored dent
conditions in Sec.  192.933 (applicable to HCA lines). See Sec. Sec.
192.714(d)(3)(ii)-(iii) and 192.933(d)(3)(i)-(iii). The omission of ECA
in the criteria at Sec.  192.714(d)(3)(i) for dents on the bottom third
(\1/3\) of the pipeline was inadvertent, as further demonstrated by
reference to the same condition found in Sec.  192.933(d)(3)(i) for HCA
pipelines, which correctly includes the reference to an ECA.
Accordingly, PHMSA is correcting the editorial oversight at Sec.
192.714(d)(3)(i) by revising the regulatory language to provide that a
dent on the bottom third (\1/3\) of a pipeline can be a monitored
condition ``where an engineering analysis, performed in accordance with
Sec.  192.712(c), demonstrates critical strain levels are not
exceeded.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ GPAC, Mar. 26 to 28, 2018 Meeting Slides at slide 150 (Mar.
2018); 87 FR at 52249. The GPAC meeting material is available on the
public meeting page accessible at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, PHMSA also clarifies that Sec.  192.714(b) permits operators
in certain circumstances to use the default values provided for in
Sec.  192.712(d)(3) and (e)(2) to calculate predicted failure pressure
during repair operations when their documented material properties are
unknown. Section 192.714(b) sets general, baseline requirements to
``ensure that the repairs are made in a safe manner'' and requires a
``pipeline segment's operating pressure [to] be less than the predicted
failure pressure determined in accordance with Sec.  192.712 during
repair operations.'' Section 192.712 directs operators to use material
property values that are documented in traceable, verifiable, and
complete records where possible and provides conservative values
operators may use where they are not. See Sec.  192.712(d)(3), (e)(2).
Operators must, in complying with Sec. Sec.  192.714(b) and 192.933(a),
either use documented material properties where they are available;
obtain any missing documentation through Sec.  192.607 where possible;
or where such documentation is unavailable and cannot be obtained in a
timely manner, employ the conservative assumptions in Sec.  192.712 in
their stead. See 87 FR at 52253. To make this clear, PHMSA is issuing a
technical correction to add as the final sentence to both Sec. Sec.
192.714(b) and 192.933(a): ``Until documented material properties are
available, the operator must use the conservative assumptions in either
Sec.  192.712(e)(2) or, if appropriate following a pressure test, in
Sec.  192.712(d)(3).'' As PHMSA explained in the August 2022 Final
Rule, an operator ``missing any material properties during anomaly
evaluations and repairs'' should, through the ensuing repair operation,
``confirm those material properties under Sec. Sec.  192.607 and
192.712(e) through (g)'' for future use. 87 FR at 52253.

B. Technical Correction to Sec.  192.319(f) for Consistency With Sec.
192.461(h) Regarding Schedule for Completing Any Necessary Repairs

    PHMSA also intended in the August 2022 Final Rule to establish a
consistent approach for scheduling remediation of severe coating damage
for newly installed (pursuant to Sec.  192.319) and existing (pursuant
to Sec.  192.461) pipelines to protect against corrosion. As PHMSA
explained during the GPAC meeting, PHMSA intended both Sec. Sec.
192.319 and 192.461 to provide operators 1 year total (contingent on
obtaining any necessary permits) to complete the assessment of a pipe's
corrosion protective coating and make any needed repairs; specifically,
PHMSA intended to provide operators 6 months for the assessment plus 6
months from the assessment to complete any necessary repairs, with an
allowance for permitting delays.\5\ While Sec.  192.461 contains
language providing for this schedule at paragraphs (f) (assessment) and
(h) (repair), and Sec.  192.319 provides for the same schedule at
paragraph (d) (assessment), PHMSA inadvertently omitted such language
from paragraph (f) (repair) of Sec.  192.319. PHMSA is therefore
issuing a technical correction so that Sec.  192.319(f) provides 6
months from the assessment, or as soon as practical after obtaining
necessary permits, to complete any necessary repairs. This technical
correction will also ensure that under Sec.  192.319(f) operators apply
for any needed permits within 6 months, mirroring the language in Sec.
192.461(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ GPAC, June 6 to 7, 2017 Meeting Slides at slides 10 & 13
(June 2017) (providing 6 months for assessment ``plus 6 months to
complete repairs''); GPAC, June 6, 2017 Meeting Transcript, at 40.
The GPAC material is available on the public meeting page accessible
at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Technical Correction To Specify the Unit Measurement in Sec.
192.473(c)(3) Is in Alternating Current (AC)

    Finally, among several provisions providing safety measures against
potential corrosion, the August 2022 Final Rule includes language at
Sec.  192.473(c) obliging operators to conduct interference surveys to
detect certain stray currents, for example, those from ``co-located
pipelines, structures, or high voltage alternating current (HVAC) power
lines.'' 87 FR at 52269 (amending Sec.  192.473(c)(1)). Detecting and
remediating interference surveys is essential to protecting pipeline
integrity against stray currents

that interfere with a corrosion control system. 87 FR at 52237. Section
192.473(c)(3), as adopted by the August 2022 Final Rule, requires that
operators take remedial action when those surveys detect interference
current that meets or exceeds 100 amps per meter square. The precise
unit of measure is ``100 amps per meter squared alternating current
(AC).'' 100 amps is calibrated as the appropriate value when measured
in AC, as PHMSA has also specified in special permits it has issued,
stating: ``Remedial action is required when the interference . . . is
at a level that could cause significant corrosion (defined as 100 amps
per meter square for AC-induced corrosion)[.]'' See, e.g., Special
Permit Requested by Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC, Class
1 to Class 3, Dkt. No. PHMSA-2019-0150 (Issued May 17, 2022), https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2022-05/2019-0150-NGPL-Class-1-to-3-FL-SP-05-17-2022.pdf; Special Permit Requested by Florida
Gas Transmission Company, LCC, Class 1 to Class 3, Dkt. No. PHMSA-2020-
0001 (Issued Mar. 31, 2022), https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2022-04/2020-0001-Florida-Gas-Transmission-SP-Class-1-to-3-FL-SP-03-31-2022.pdf. PHMSA is issuing a technical
correction to clarify in the regulatory text of Sec.  192.473(c)(3)
that the unit of measure is in AC.

D. Response to Petitions for Reconsideration

    PHMSA alerts the public and regulated community to its responses to
petitions for reconsideration filed by the American Gas Association
(AGA), the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), and
the American Petroleum Institute (API). On September 23, 2022, AGA
submitted a petition for reconsideration of the August 2022 Final Rule
requesting clarification of two definitions at Sec.  192.3 (regarding
``in-line inspection'' and ``transmission line'') and additional
compliance time. See Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0023-0643. PHMSA's November
18, 2022, response letter to AGA's petition is available in the docket
for this rulemaking at Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0023-0646.
    Also on September 23, 2022, INGAA and API jointly submitted a
petition for reconsideration of the August 2022 Final Rule that raised
a wide variety of requests, including additional compliance time. See
Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0023-0644. PHMSA's April 19, 2023, response
letter to INGAA and API's petition is available in the docket for this
rulemaking at Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0023-0649. Several of the issues
raised in this petition have also informed technical corrections made
in this notice.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for these technical corrections to the August
2022 Final Rule, as with that final rule itself, is provided by the
Federal Pipeline Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.). The Secretary
delegated his authority under the Federal Pipeline Safety Act to the
PHMSA Administrator under 49 CFR 1.97.
    PHMSA finds it has good cause to make these five technical
corrections without notice and comment pursuant to Section 553(b) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551, et seq.). Section
553(b)(B) of the APA provides that, when an agency for good cause finds
that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. These technical
corrections, as explained above, are all editorial in nature and
consistent with the intent of the recently published August 2022 Final
Rule, which itself was the product of a decade-long rulemaking record
with extensive notice and opportunity for comment, including various
occasions for input through the GPAC at public meetings. The technical
corrections make no substantive changes to the August 2022 Final Rule
but merely facilitate its implementation by aligning the regulatory
text with explanatory material in the August 2022 Final Rule's preamble
and the administrative record. Because the August 2022 Final Rule is
the product of an extensive administrative record with numerous
opportunities (including through written comments and the advisory
committee) for public comment, PHMSA finds that additional comment on
the technical corrections herein is unnecessary.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    These technical corrections have been evaluated in accordance with
existing policies and procedures and are considered not significant
under Executive Order 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') \6\
and DOT Order 2100.6A (``Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures''). While
the August 2022 Final Rule received review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866, these technical
corrections (which are consistent with the final rule) are not
considered significant and accordingly, this notice has not been
reviewed under that authority. PHMSA finds that the technical
corrections herein (in all respects consistent with the final rule)
neither impose incremental compliance costs nor adversely affect
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Flexibility Fairness Act of 1996 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), generally requires Federal regulatory agencies to prepare a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject
to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA. 5 U.S.C. 604(a).\7\
PHMSA did so for the August 2022 Final Rule, where the FRFA is
available in the rulemaking docket, and that analysis remains unchanged
as the technical corrections will impose no new incremental compliance
costs.\8\ Because PHMSA has ``good cause'' under the APA to forego
comment on the technical corrections herein, no FRFA is required,
consistent with the Small Business Administration's implementing
guidance which explains that ``[i]f an NPRM is not required, the RFA
does not apply.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This requirement is subject to exceptions--which are not in
any event applicable here because PHMSA has good cause to forego
comment in adopting the technical correction herein.
    \8\ Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Doc. No. PHMSA-2011-0023-
0637, at 44 (Aug. 26, 2022).
    \9\ Small Business Administration, ``A Guide for Government
Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act'' 55
(2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The technical corrections in this notice impose no new or revised
information collection requirements beyond those discussed in the
August 2022 Final Rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    These technical corrections do not impose an unfunded mandate under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
PHMSA prepared an analysis of the UMRA considerations in the final
regulatory impact analysis for the August 2022 Final Rule, which is
available in the docket for the rulemaking.\10\ These technical
corrections have no substantial effect on that analysis as they will
impose no new incremental compliance costs. PHMSA has analyzed the
technical corrections in this notice

under the factors in the UMRA, as well, and determined that the
technical corrections to the final rule herein do not impose
enforceable duties on State, local, or Tribal governments or on the
private sector of $100 million or more, adjusted for inflation, in any
one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Doc. No. PHMSA-2011-0023-0637, at 44 (Aug. 26, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on
major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. PHMSA analyzed the August 2022 Final Rule in accordance
with NEPA, implementing Council on Environmental Quality regulations
(40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOT implementing policies (DOT Order
5610.1C, ``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'') and
determined the final rule would not significantly affect the quality of
the human environment.\11\ The technical corrections in this notice
have no effect on PHMSA's earlier NEPA analysis prepared on the August
2022 Final Rule as the technical corrections are consistent, and merely
facilitate compliance with, the August 2022 Final Rule. The purpose of
the technical corrections is to further improve safety in conducting
operations and repairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Final Environmental Assessment, Doc. No. PHMSA-2011-0023-
0635 (July 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Privacy Act Statement

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    PHMSA has analyzed this notice in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism'').\12\
PHMSA has previously determined that the August 2022 Final Rule itself
did not impose any substantial direct effect on the States, the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, see 87 FR at 52266; nor do the technical corrections
herein, which are consistent with the August 2022 Final Rule and merely
facilitate its compliance. Therefore, the consultation and funding
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Executive Order 13211

    PHMSA analyzed the August 2022 Final Rule and determined that the
requirements of Executive Order 13211 (``Actions Concerning Regulations
that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'') \13\
did not apply. Neither are these technical corrections to the rule a
``significant energy action'' under Executive Order 13211 as they are
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on supply,
distribution, or energy use. Further, OMB has not designated these
corrections a significant energy action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Executive Order 13175

    This document was analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'') \14\ and DOT Order
5301.1 (``Department of Transportation Policies, Programs, and
Procedures Affecting American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Tribes'').
Because nothing herein has Tribal implications or imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    Under Executive Order 13609 (``Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation''),\15\ agencies must consider whether the impacts
associated with significant variations between domestic and
international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the
ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation
can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that
are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The
technical corrections to the final rule in this notice do not impact
international trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

    Corrosion control, Incorporation by reference, Installation of pipe
in a ditch, Integrity management, Internal inspection device,
Management of change, Pipeline safety, Repair criteria, Surveillance.

    In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA further amends 49 CFR part
192, as amended August 24, 2022, at 87 FR 52224, and effective May 24,
2023, by making the following technical amendments:

PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  30 U.S.C. 185(w)(3), 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60101 et seq.,
and 49 CFR 1.97.

0
2. Section 192.319, as amended August 24, 2022, at 87 FR 52269, and
effective May 24, 2023, is further amended by revising paragraph (f) to
read as follows:

Sec.  192.319  Installation of pipe in a ditch.

* * * * *
    (f) An operator of an onshore steel transmission pipeline must
develop a remedial action plan and apply for any necessary permits
within 6 months of completing the assessment that identified the
deficiency. An operator must repair any coating damage classified as
severe (voltage drop greater than 60 percent for DCVG or 70 dB[micro]V
for ACVG) in accordance with section 4 of NACE SP0502 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  192.7) within 6 months of the assessment, or as
soon as practicable after obtaining necessary permits, not to exceed 6
months after the receipt of permits.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 192.473, as amended August 24, 2022, at 87 FR 52269, and
effective May 24, 2023, is further amended by revising paragraph (c)(3)
to read as follows:

Sec.  192.473  External corrosion control: Interference currents.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Development of a remedial action plan to correct any instances
where

interference current is greater than or equal to 100 amps per meter
squared alternating current (AC), or if it impedes the safe operation
of a pipeline, or if it may cause a condition that would adversely
impact the environment or the public; and
* * * * *

0
4. Section 192.714, as added August 24, 2022, at 87 FR 52271, and
effective May 24, 2023, is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d)(1)
introductory text, and (d)(3)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  192.714  Transmission lines: Repair criteria for onshore
transmission pipelines.

* * * * *
    (b) General. Each operator must, in repairing its pipeline systems,
ensure that the repairs are made in a safe manner and are made to
prevent damage to persons, property, and the environment. A pipeline
segment's operating pressure must be less than the predicted failure
pressure determined in accordance with Sec.  192.712 during repair
operations. Repairs performed in accordance with this section must use
pipe and material properties that are documented in traceable,
verifiable, and complete records. If documented data required for any
analysis, including predicted failure pressure for determining MAOP, is
not available, an operator must obtain the undocumented data through
Sec.  192.607. Until documented material properties are available, the
operator must use the conservative assumptions in either Sec.
192.712(e)(2) or, if appropriate following a pressure test, in Sec.
192.712(d)(3).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Immediate repair conditions. An operator's evaluation and
remediation schedule for immediate repair conditions must follow
section 7 of ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
192.7). An operator must repair the following conditions immediately
upon discovery:
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) A dent that is located between the 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock
positions (bottom \1/3\ of the pipe) with a depth greater than 6
percent of the pipeline diameter (greater than 0.50 inches in depth for
a pipeline diameter less than NPS 12), and where an engineering
analysis, performed in accordance with Sec.  192.712(c), demonstrates
critical strain levels are not exceeded.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 192.933, as amended August 24, 2022, at 87 FR at 52277, and
effective May 24, 2023, is further amended by revising paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  192.933  What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?

    (a) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to
address all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the
integrity assessment. In addressing all conditions, an operator must
evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could reduce
a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate that
the remediation of the condition will ensure the condition is unlikely
to pose a threat to the integrity of the pipeline until the next
reassessment of the covered segment. Repairs performed in accordance
with this section must use pipe and material properties that are
documented in traceable, verifiable, and complete records. If
documented data required for any analysis is not available, an operator
must obtain the undocumented data through Sec.  192.607. Until
documented material properties are available, the operator must use the
conservative assumptions in either Sec.  192.712(e)(2) or, if
appropriate following a pressure test, in Sec.  192.712(d)(3).
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
Tristan H. Brown,
Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-08548 Filed 4-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 41804]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17887]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0496]

Town Hall Discussion With the Director of the Center for Devices
and Radiological Health and Other Senior Center Management

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
meeting entitled ``Town Hall Discussion With the Director of the Center
for Devices and Radiological Health and Other Senior Center
Management.'' The purpose of this public meeting in San Francisco, CA,
is to engage in a dialogue about issues of importance to FDA's Center
for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and to members of the
public, including the medical device industry, health care
professionals, patients, and consumers.
    Date and Time: The public meeting will be held on Thursday,
September 22, 2011, from 8 a.m. to 12 noon PDT.
    Location: The public meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites
Hotel, San Francisco Airport, 250 Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco,
CA 94080. Attendees requiring overnight accommodations should call 650-
589-3400 and request the group rate for the ``FDA/CDRH Town Hall
Meeting'' block of rooms.
    Contact: Heather Howell, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
66, rm. 4320, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration and Requests for Oral Presentations: If you wish to
attend the public meeting, you must register online at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm258228.htm. Persons without Internet access may call Heather Howell
at<PHONE_NUMBER> to register for the meeting.
    Provide complete contact information for each attendee, including
name, title, company or organization, address, e-mail, and telephone
and fax number. Registration requests must be received by 5 p.m. EDT on
Friday, September 9, 2011.
    The meeting will not be videotaped or Web cast.
    If you wish to make an oral presentation during the meeting, you
must indicate this at the time of registration. FDA will do its best to
accommodate requests to speak. Individuals and organizations with
common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their
presentations and to request time for a joint presentation. FDA will
determine the amount of time allotted to each presenter and the
approximate time that each oral presentation is scheduled to begin.
    Registration is free and will be on a first-come-first-served
basis. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited.
FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization based
on space limitations. Registrants will receive confirmation once they
have been accepted. Onsite registration the day of the public meeting
will be provided on a space-available basis beginning at 7 a.m. PDT on
September 22, 2011.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Susan Monahan,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    Comments: FDA is holding this public meeting to share information
and discuss issues of importance to the public, including the medical
device industry, health care professionals, patients, and consumers.
    Regardless of attendance at the public meeting, interested persons
may submit either electronic or written comments. Submit electronic
comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. It is only necessary
to send one set of comments. It is no longer necessary to send two
copies of mailed comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 2010, CDRH held three Town Hall meetings in Minneapolis, MN,
Boston, MA, and Los Angeles, CA, to provide the public with a new venue
to discuss issues of interest with the Center. Any member of the public
was invited to provide comments to or ask questions of CDRH
participants. We received positive feedback on these meetings and are
continuing this activity in 2011 in three new locations. This year we
have held two meetings: one in Dallas, TX, and one in Orlando, FL. The
meeting in San Francisco will be our final meeting of 2011.

II. Public Meeting

    The objective of this public meeting is to engage in a dialogue
about issues that are of importance to the public.
    The public meeting will open with an introduction of CDRH senior
staff in attendance. Following introductions, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, the
Director of CDRH, will describe CDRH's strategic priorities for 2011.
Members of the public will then be given the opportunity to present
comments to CDRH senior staff followed by a question and answer session
during which any member of the public may ask questions of the CDRH
senior staff on any topic of interest.
    In advance of the meeting, additional information, including a
meeting agenda with a speakers' schedule, will be made available on the
Internet. This information will be placed on file in the public docket
(docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document),
which is available at http://www.regulations.gov. This information will
also be available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm (select the appropriate meeting from
the list).

III. Transcripts

    Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it
will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at
the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35), Office
of Management Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: July 11, 2011.
Nancy K. Stade,
Deputy Director for Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-17887 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12728]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5211]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13059-001]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On January 31, 2011, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed
an application for a successive preliminary permit, pursuant to section
4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility
of developing incremental capacity at PG&E's licensed Pit 3, 4, 5
project (No. 233), located on the Pit River in Shasta County,
California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during
the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit
holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter
upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new
single-unit powerhouse with a turbine and generator constructed
downstream of the right abutment of the existing Pit 4 dam. The
proposed project would have an expected capacity of 2.2 megawatts and
an expected annual average energy production of 11.3 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Randal S. Livingston, Vice President--Power
Generation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 245 Market Street, MS
N11E, P.O. Box 770000, San Francisco, CA 94177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Matt Buhyoff; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13059-001) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: March 1, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5211 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 4176-4177]
[DOCID:fr23ja09-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

January 9, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP95-408-072.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits Substitute
Twenty-Fourth Revised Sheet 29 to its FERC Electric Tariff, Second
Revised Volume 1 to be effective 2/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090108-0379.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-331-021.

    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits part of
its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1, an original and five
copies of Second Sub. Eighth Revised Sheet 12 bearing an issuance date
of 1/5/09 to be effective 12/1/08.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP03-36-040.
    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.
    Description: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners submits Forty-Second
Revised Sheet 9, part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Volume 1 effective.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090108-0377.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP03-323-015.
    Applicants: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.
    Description: Supplemental Information for Tariff Filing Withdrawal
by Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090106-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-257-003.
    Applicants: Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C.
    Description: Saltville Gas Storage Company LLC submits First
Revised Sixth Revised Sheet 11 et al., part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume 1 to be effective 9/1/08.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090108-0380.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-110-001.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits Substitute 11
Revised Sheet 286 et al. of its FERC Electric Tariff, Fifth Revised
Volume 1 to be effective 12/26/09.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090108-0378.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-115-001.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc submits
Substitute Ninth Revised Sheet 12, part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume 1, to be effective 1/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090108-0376.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-203-000.
    Applicants: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company.
    Description: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company submits
Sixth Revised Sheet 293 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090108-0105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-204-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: 2008 Interruptible Revenue Sharing Report for Carolina
Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-5069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-205-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits its FERC Gas
Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1 and copies of Seventh Revised Sheet
543A to be effective 2/7/09.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090108-0381.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1367 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65195-65198]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0486; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-031-AD;
Amendment 39-17622; AD 2013-20-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for MDHI
Model MD900 helicopters with certain main rotor blade (MRB) retention
bolts (bolts) installed. This AD requires a daily check of the position
of each bolt, a daily check and a repetitive inspection for a gap in
each bolt, and, if necessary, removing and inspecting the bolt for a
crack and replacing any cracked bolt with an airworthy bolt. This AD
was prompted by multiple reports of in-service bolt failures. The
actions are intended to prevent failure of a bolt, which could lead to
loss of MRB structural integrity and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective December 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact MDHI,
Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615,
Mesa, AZ 85215-9734, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
at http://www.mdhelicopters.com. You may review a copy of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L,
3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(562) 627-5210, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On June 14, 2013, at 78 FR 35773, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to MDHI Model MD900
helicopters with certain bolts installed. The NPRM proposed to require
a daily check of the position of each bolt, a daily check and a
repetitive inspection for a gap in each bolt, and, if necessary,
removing and inspecting the bolt for a crack and replacing any cracked
bolt with an airworthy bolt. The NPRM was prompted by multiple reports
of in-service bolt failures. The proposed requirements were intended to
prevent failure of a bolt, which could lead to loss of MRB structural
integrity and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 35773,
June 14, 2013).

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of the same type designs and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information

    MDHI issued Alert Service Bulletin SB900-116R1, dated April 9, 2010
(ASB SB900-116R1), which supersedes ASB SB900-116, dated February 24,
2010 (ASB SB900-116).
    ASB SB900-116 specifies a repetitive check of the blade retention
bolts, part number (P/N) 900R3100001-103 and 900R3100001-105, for a gap
and, depending on the outcome of the inspection, removing and
inspecting the bolt for damage. The ASB also specifies a repetitive
force check of each bolt, P/N 900R3100001-103, and a torque check of
each bolt, P/N 900R3100001-105. Lastly, the ASB specifies a daily
preflight check of each bolt to examine the position of the bolt and
for a gap, and, if any bolt has moved up or down or if there was no
gap, removing and inspecting the bolt.
    Superseding ASB SB900-116R1 retains the same specifications as ASB
SB90016, except that it revises the

interval for the bolt force and torque checks from 4-6 flight-hours to
8-10 flight-hours. ASB SB90016R1 also revises the change of force or
torque from not more than 10 percent to not more than 10
percent.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    This AD uses the term ``inspect'' when describing the action of
inspecting a bolt for a crack and inspecting for a gap between the
thrust washer and the retainer. The ASB uses the term ``check.''

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 29 helicopters in the U.S.
registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs to
comply with this AD: The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. It
will take about .5 work hour to do a gap inspection of each bolt. It
will take about 1 work hour to replace a cracked bolt and the required
parts will cost $800 at a total cost per helicopter of $928.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-20-16 MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI): Amendment 39-17622; Docket
No. FAA-2013-0486; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-031-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model MD 900 helicopters with a main rotor
blade retention bolt (bolt), part number (P/N) 900R3100001-103 or
900R3100001-105, installed; certificated in any category.

 (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as bolt failure. This
condition could result in loss of main rotor blade structural
integrity and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

 (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Before the first flight of each day:
    (i) Visually check each bolt for failure. Failure of a bolt may
be indicated by movement of the bolt out of the bolt hole or by
inconsistent extension of the bolt above or below the other bolts
being inspected (a failed bolt migrates out of the bolt hole).
    (ii) Visually check for a gap between the thrust washer and the
retainer, P/N 900R2100009-101 or -103. The thrust washer is depicted
as item 2 and the retainer is depicted as item 8 in Figure 1 to
paragraph (e) of this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31OC13.000

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
    (iii) The actions required by paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and
(e)(1)(ii) may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at
least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the
aircraft maintenance records showing compliance with this AD in
accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v).
The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380,
or 135.439.
    (iv) If there is any indication of bolt failure or if there is
no gap between the thrust washer and retainer, before further
flight, remove and inspect the bolt for a crack. Replace any cracked
bolt with an airworthy bolt.
    (2) Within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, inspect each bolt for a gap
between the thrust washer and the retainer.
    (i) Determine whether an O-ring is installed. Install any
missing O-ring.
    (ii) If there is no gap between the thrust washer and retainer,
before further flight, remove and inspect the bolt for a crack.
Replace any cracked bolt with an airworthy bolt.
    (iii) If there is a gap between the thrust washer and retainer,
measure the gap in two locations, 180 degrees apart, with a feeler
gage. If the gap is more than 0.100 inch (2.54 mm) at either
location, before further flight, remove and inspect the bolt for a
crack. Replace any cracked bolt with an airworthy bolt.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Airframe Branch (ANM-120L), FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send
your request to Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(562) 627-5210, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    MDHI Alert Service Bulletin SB900-116R1, dated April 9, 2010,
which supersedes MDHI Alert Service Bulletin SB SB900-116, dated
February 24, 1010, neither of which is incorporated by reference,
contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For
service information identified in this AD, contact MDHI, Attn:
Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615,
Mesa, AZ 85215-9734, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or at http://www.mdhelicopters.com. You may review copies of the
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas.

 (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component: 6210: Main rotor blade
retention bolts.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 27, 2013.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-25702 Filed 10-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P