[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22199-22201]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10186]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0687]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Croix River, Stillwater, MN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is altering the operating schedule that
governs the Stillwater Highway Bridge across the St. Croix River, mile
23.4, at Stillwater, Minnesota. This action is necessary because the
Stillwater Highway Bridge is no longer open to vehicular traffic. This
operating schedule change will increase daily openings for vessel
traffic on the St. Croix River, while minimally impacting the
pedestrian and bicycle traffic that transits the bridge.

DATES: This rule is effective May 15, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-
2017-0687 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Stillwater Highway Bridge, across the St. Croix River, mile
23.4, at Stillwater, Minnesota, currently operates under 33 CFR
117.667(b). The Stillwater Highway Bridge provides a vertical clearance
of 10.9 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position.
Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial
sightseeing/dinner cruise boats and recreational watercraft. On July 7,
2017, the Coast Guard was informed that with the August 2017 opening of
the new St. Croix River Crossing, vehicular traffic over the Stillwater
Highway Bridge terminated. In response, on August 30, 2017, we
published a temporary deviation titled Notice of temporary deviation
from drawbridge regulations; request for comments (82 FR 41174). There,
we stated why we issued the temporary deviation, and invited comments
on whether a permanent change to the Stillwater Highway Bridge
operating schedule was warranted. In addition, the petition we received
for schedule change was made available for public inspection in the
Federal eRulemaking Portal online docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
During the comment period that ended on November 28, 2017, we received
41 comments.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is unnecessary. The
temporary deviation provided for public notice and comment, and this
final rule lifts, rather than imposes, restrictions on the operating
schedule of the Stillwater Highway Bridge.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal

Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to change the schedule of the bridge before the summer
boating season begins.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Stillwater Highway Bridge currently operates under 33 CFR
117.667(b). It has been closed to vehicular traffic and is now open for
pedestrian and bicycle use only. As the current operating schedule was
created solely to reduce the impact of drawspan openings on vehicular
traffic, it now no longer serves the purpose or needs of the bridge.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Rule

    As noted above, we received 41 comments on our temporary deviation
published on August 30, 2017. Of the 41 comments we received, 37 were
in favor of the new schedule, and 4 were not. Most of the 37 commenters
in favor of the half hour schedule identified as boaters and stated
that the half hour lift schedule represented a good compromise between
boaters and pedestrians. Of the 4 commenters not in favor of the
schedule, two stated that no change was necessary, one requested no
change until a study regarding the schedule impact on bicyclists could
be conducted, and one commenter, the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, the owner of the bridge, requested that the schedule be
adjusted to keep the number of lifts consistent with previous years.
    The Coast Guard finds that there is a need to change the current
schedule as it no longer serves the needs or purpose of the bridge. The
Coast Guard also finds that a study regarding the impact of the new
schedule specifically on bicyclists is not necessary to delay the
schedule change for the upcoming boating season. Finally, while the
Coast Guard understands the Minnesota Department of Transportation's
concerns for keeping a consistent number of openings with previous
years, the Minnesota Department of Transportation did not propose an
alternate schedule, and as described above, the needs and purpose of
the bridge have changed from previous years.
    Approximately 5 of the 37 commenters in favor of the rule also
proposed that the bridge either remain open and close on request of
pedestrians, open on demand, or open every 15 minutes. The Coast Guard
disagrees with these proposals. However, 2 of these 37 commenters
proposed that, at least while the bridge is closed to pedestrian and
bicycle traffic during construction, the bridge should remain open. The
Coast Guard disagrees as the Minnesota Department of Transportation may
have particular needs, such as for maintenance and repair, to keep the
bridge in the closed position even while it is not open to pedestrian
traffic.
    Further, 2 of the 37 commenters in favor of the new schedule also
proposed that the bridge's off-season 24 hour notice requirement be
reduced to 2 hour notice, and another 3 of these 37 commenters also
requested a no-wake zone in the vicinity of the bridge. These proposals
were not part of the temporary deviation and are outside the scope of
this rulemaking.
    Finally, the Minnesota Department of Transportation requested that
the Coast Guard work with the Minnesota and Wisconsin State Historic
Preservation Offices to ensure that the schedule has no adverse effect
under Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act and also that the
Coast Guard hold public meeting before making a permanent change to the
schedule. Neither the Minnesota nor the Wisconsin State Historic
Preservation Office themselves submitted a comment on the temporary
deviation, and the schedule change is merely operational and has no
effect on the aesthetics of the Stillwater Highway Bridge. Moreover,
absent a specific need to hold a public meeting, the Coast Guard finds
that there has been sufficient public comment on this schedule in the
public docket of the temporary deviation. Accordingly, the Coast Guard
finds that it is appropriate to adopt the schedule change that was
implemented during the temporary deviation.
    There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the
temporary deviation. This rule requires the bridge to open daily, every
30 minutes from 8 a.m. until midnight, and upon two hours notice from
midnight until 8 a.m.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the findings from
the test deviation that the final rule will reduce negative impact to
navigation while minimally impacting bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call

1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for a
drawbridge. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L49 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-
001-01, Rev. 01. Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a
Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise 117.667(b) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.667  St. Croix River.

* * * * *
    (b) The draw of the Stillwater Lift Bridge, Mile 23.4, shall open
on signal as follows:
    (1) From May 15 through October 15, daily:
    (i) 8 a.m. to midnight, every half hour;
    (ii) Midnight to 8 a.m., upon two hours notice.
    (2) From October 16 through May 14, if at least 24 hours notice is
given.
* * * * *

    Dated: May 8, 2018.
Paul F. Thomas,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-10186 Filed 5-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 9638]
[DOCID:fr03mr10-105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0046; Notice No. 10-1]

Safety Advisory Notice: Use of Composite Cargo Tanks Manufactured
Under DOT Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

ACTION: Safety advisory notice.

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

SUMMARY: This safety advisory is issued to remind all persons who
manufacture or use composite cargo tank motor vehicles authorized under
DOT special permits of the requirement to conduct testing to ensure
that the material to be transported in the cargo tank is compatible
with the materials used in the construction of the cargo tank.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hochman, Senior Advisor
(Technology), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
(202) 366-4545 or Donald Burger, Chief, Special Permits and General
Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
(202) 366-4535.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49
CFR parts 171-180) contain specifications for the design and
construction of cargo tank motor vehicles in Part 178, Subpart J (see
Sec. Sec.  178.320-178). Currently, the HMR do not contain include a
specification for composite cargo tanks, such as fiber reinforced
plastic (FRP) or glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP) cargo tanks.
    Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law;
49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) authorizes the Department of Transportation to
issue variances--termed special permits--from the HMR in a way that
achieves a safety level at least equal to the safety level required
under Federal hazmat law or consistent with the public interest and
Federal hazmat law, if a required safety level does not exist. That
authority is delegated to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA).
    PHMSA has issued the following special permits (SPs) for the
manufacture, marking, sale, and use of FRP or GFRP cargo tank motor
vehicles:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Expiration
                SP number                           Holder                      Status                 date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9166....................................  Comptank Corp.............  Expired...................      12/31/2009
10878...................................  Tankcon FRP...............  Active....................       9/30/2010
11565...................................  C.P.F. Dualam.............  Active....................       3/31/2010
11903...................................  Comptank Corp.............  Active....................      10/31/2010
12516...................................  Poly-Coat Systems.........  Active....................      11/30/2010
14275...................................  Hawk Corp.................  Active....................      12/31/2011
14277...................................  Ascus Technology..........  Active....................      11/30/2012
14779...................................  Corrosion Companies.......  Active....................      11/30/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 30, 2009, a glass fiber reinforced plastic composite
cargo tank manufactured in accordance with a special permit (DOT-SP
11903) failed catastrophically and released its entire contents onto
the highway. PHMSA's investigation of the accident concluded that the
failure resulted from the carriage of a material in the cargo tank that
was incompatible with the materials used in the manufacture of the
cargo tank. The material in question reacted with and degraded the
corrosion barrier and the structural glass matrix of the tank leading
to catastrophic failure.
    As demonstrated by the by the December 30, 2009 incident, the
shipment of a material that is not compatible with the corrosion
barrier and structural glass matrix of a composite cargo tank can lead
to a catastrophic failure and potentially cause serious injuries,
fatalities, and property and environmental damage. All of the special
permits identified above contain the following requirement:

    The compatibility of the commodities and the (FRP or GFRP) cargo
tank must be based on ASTM C 581 ``Standard Test Method for Chemical
Resistance of Thermosetting Resins Used in Glass Fiber Reinforced
Structures''. Test reports must be maintained by the owner or
manufacturer for as long as the cargo tank remains in active
service.

    PHMSA is concerned that owners and manufacturers of composite cargo
tanks are not performing the required compatibility testing or
maintaining test reports. To prevent another incident similar to the
one that occurred on December 20, 2009, this advisory reminds all
persons involved in the manufacture and use of composite cargo tank
motor vehicles authorized under DOT special permits of the requirement
to perform compatibility testing. Failure to perform the required
compatibility testing and to maintain the test reports may result in
the suspension or termination of the special permit as well as civil or
criminal penalties.
    Persons who offer for transportation or transport hazardous
materials in violation of applicable HMR requirements may be subject to
significant civil penalties and criminal fines and imprisonment. The
maximum penalties depend on several factors, including the nature and
circumstances, extent and gravity, and severity of the consequences of
the violation, but can range up to $100,000 for a civil penalty and
$500,000 and ten years in jail for a criminal penalty.

Magdy El-Sibaie,
Acting Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 2010-4318 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8805-8807]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03405]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1007; Product Identifier 2018-NM-141-AD; Amendment
39-19577; AD 2019-03-25]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212,
-214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -
131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This AD was prompted
by a report that taperloks used in a certain wing-to-fuselage junction
were found to be non-compliant with the applicable specification,
resulting in a loss of pre-tension in the fasteners. This AD requires
repetitive special detailed inspections of the center and outer wing
box lower stiffeners and panels at a certain junction on the left- and
right-hand sides for any cracking, and repair if necessary, as
specified in an European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is
incorporated by reference. This AD also provides an optional
modification, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 16, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 16,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For the incorporation by reference (IBR) material described
in the ``Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR part 51'' section in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION identified in this final rule, contact
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668
Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2018-1007.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations .gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
1007; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model
A318 and A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231,
-232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -
213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on December 11, 2018 (83 FR 63598). The NPRM was prompted by a
report that taperloks used in a certain wing-to-fuselage junction were
found to be non-compliant with the applicable specification, resulting
in a loss of pre-tension in the fasteners. The NPRM proposed to require
repetitive special detailed inspections of the center and outer wing
box lower stiffeners and panels at a certain junction on the left- and
right-hand sides for any cracking, and repair if necessary, as
specified in, and in compliance with, EASA AD 2018-0218, dated October
11, 2018; corrected October 26, 2018 (``EASA AD 2018-0218''). The NPRM
also proposed, as specified in EASA AD 2018-0218, an optional
modification, which would terminate the repetitive inspections.
    We are issuing this AD to address the loss of pre-tension in the
fasteners, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0218 (also referred to as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319
series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -
233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Taperloks used in the wing-to-fuselage junction at Rib 1 were
found to be non-compliant with the applicable specification,
resulting in a loss of pre-tension in the fasteners.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the aeroplane. To address this potential
unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB A320-57-1129 and SB A320-57-1130,
later revised twice, providing instructions for repetitive internal
inspections of the lower stiffeners and for repetitive external
inspections of the lower panels of the center and outer wing box at
the level of Rib 1 junction. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2007-0067,
later revised [which corresponds to FAA AD 2008-02-15, Amendment 39-
15345 (73 FR 4063, January 24, 2008) (``AD 2008-02-15'')], to
require accomplishment of these inspections.
    Since EASA AD 2007-0067R1 was issued, new events and the results
of studies identified an aging effect on these parts. Prompted by
these findings, Airbus revised SB A320-57-1129 (now at Revision 05)
and A320-57-1130 (now at Revision 04), expanding the applicability,
modifying the area to be inspected and updating the inspection
intervals.
    For the reasons stated above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2007-0067R1, which is superseded, expands
the Applicability, modifies the areas to be inspected and revises
the inspection thresholds and intervals.
    This [EASA] AD is republished to correct typographical errors in
paragraph (2) and in Tables 1 and 3.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for

and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-1007.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2018-0218 describes procedures for repetitive special
detailed inspections of the center and outer wing box lower stiffeners
and panels at the level of rib 1 junction on the left- and right-hand
sides for any cracking, and repair if necessary. EASA AD 2018-0218 also
provides procedures for an optional modification, which would terminate
the repetitive inspections. This material is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section
and it is publicly available through the EASA website.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 516 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51 work-hours x $85 per hour = $4,335........................              $0           $4,335       $2,236,860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                      Estimated Costs for Optional Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                                  Labor cost                                       Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
244 work-hours x $85 per hour = $20,740.......................................          $5,120          $25,860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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 the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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):

2019-03-25 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19577; Docket No. FAA-2018-1007;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-141-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 16, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2008-02-15, Amendment 39-15345 (73 FR 4063,
January 24, 2008) (``AD 2008-02-15'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -
122 airplanes, Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232,
and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -
213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-
0218, dated October 11, 2018; corrected October 26, 2018 (``EASA AD
2018-0218'').

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that taperloks used in the
wing-to-fuselage junction at rib 1 were found to be non-compliant
with the applicable specification, resulting in a loss of pre-
tension in the fasteners. We are issuing this AD to address the loss
of pre-tension in the fasteners, which could affect the structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2018-0218.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2018-0218

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2018-0218 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2018-0218 does not apply.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2018-0218 refers to instructions provided by
Airbus, for this AD, the instructions must be approved using a
method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) Terminating Action for AD 2008-02-15

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2008-02-15.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2018-0218 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0218, dated
October 11, 2018; corrected October 26, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2018-0218, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this EASA AD at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. EASA AD
2018-0218 may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2018-1007.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on February 21, 2019.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-03405 Filed 3-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75316-75317]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26081]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2696-052]

Town of Stuyvesant, New York and Albany Engineering Corporation;
Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments,
Motions to Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Non-Capacity Amendment of License.
    b. Project No.: 2696-052.
    c. Date Filed: October 30, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Town of Stuyvesant, New York and Albany Engineering
Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: Stuyvesant Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on Kinderhook Creek in Columbia
County, New York.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Wendy Jo Carey, P.E., Albany Engineering
Corporation, 5 Washington Square, Albany, NY 12205; telephone (518)
456-7712 ext 401 and email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Linda Stewart,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at 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>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2696-052. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The Town of Stuyvesant, New York and
Albany Engineering Corporation (licensees) propose to remove from the
project license the unconstructed 120-kilowatt minimum flow turbine-
generator unit and associated transmission line as authorized in the
April 5, 2013 Order Issuing New License. Article 403 of the license
requires the licensees to provide a continuous minimum flow of 65 cubic
feet per second (cfs) into the bypassed reach, composed of 15 cfs over
the project dam in the form of spill and 50 cfs through the minimum
flow turbine to be installed at the project intake. Until the
authorized minimum flow turbine is installed, the licensees must
release all required minimum flows over the project dam. Because of
ongoing property rights issues at the project, the licensees have not
been able to construct the authorized minimum flow turbine. Therefore,
instead of installing the minimum flow turbine, the licensees propose
to continue to release the required 65-cfs minimum flow over the
project dam as they currently do.
    l. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO
INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting, or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: November 19, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26081 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	DELETION DOCKET

	SPIEGELBERG LANDFILL SITE

GREEN OAK TOWNSHIP, LIVINGSTON COUNTY, MICHIGAN

ORIGINAL

JANUARY 25, 2011

NO.	DATE		AUTHOR		RECIPIENT		TITLE/DESCRIPTION		 PAGES

 1	00/00/00	Caine, H. &		Short, T.,		Memorandum re: Recommen-     7

			J. Kujawa,		U.S. EPA		dation to Sign the Site-

			U.S. EPA					wide Ready for Anticipated

									Use Determination for the

									Spiegelberg Landfill

									Superfund Site

 2	1988-2005	U.S. EPA		Public		Administrative Record       67

									Indexes (Original-Update

									#7)from July 26, 1988

									to January 28, 2005 for

									the Spiegelberg Site

									(DOCUMENTS CONTAINED ON

									INDEXES ARE INCORPORATED

									BY REFERENCE INTO THE

									DELETION DOCKET)

 3	07/19/10	Karl, R.,		File			Final Close Out Report     115

			U.S. EPA					for the Spiegelberg

									Landfill Site

 4	12/17/10	Humphries, R.,	Karl, R.,		Letter re: Concurrence       2

			MDNRE			U.S. EPA		with the Draft Notice of

									Intent to Delete and the

									Draft Direct Final Rule

									for the Proposed Deletion

									of the Spiegelberg Super-

									fund Site from the National

									Priorities List


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27255-27256]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66916; File No. SR-ICC-2012-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Reduce the Current Level of Risk
Mutualization Among Clearing Participants and To Modify the Initial
Margin Risk Model So That It Is Easier for Clearing Participants To
Measure Their Recovery Rate Risk Exposure

May 3, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On March 8, 2012, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change SR-ICC-2012-03 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on March 26, 2012.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters
regarding the proposal. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission
is granting approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-66631 (March 20,
2012), 77 FR 17536 (March 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    This rule change permits ICC to make two modifications to its risk
model for clearing credit default swaps (``CDS'') contracts. For the
first modification (``Modification 1''), ICC is reducing the
current level of risk mutualization among its clearing participants by
modifying its initial margin model to collateralize the loss that would
occur from the single name CDS that causes the greatest loss entering a
state of default. For the second modification (``Modification
2''), ICC is modifying its initial margin model to make
clearing participants' risk requirements more transparent by removing
the conditional recovery rate stress-scenarios and adding a new
standalone recovery rate sensitivity component that is computed by
considering changes in recovery rate assumptions and their impact on
the net asset value of the clearing portfolio.
    ICC represents that Modification 1 will reduce the level
of default resources held in ICC's mutualized guaranty fund and
increase the level of default resources held in initial margin. ICC is
implementing this by incorporating into its initial margin

model the single name CDS that causes the greatest loss when entering a
state of default (i.e., the single name CDS that results in the
greatest amount of loss when stress-tested). This change collateralizes
the loss that would occur from the single name CDS that causes the
greatest loss entering a state of default. Consequently, the amount of
uncollateralized loss that would result from the three single name CDS
contracts causing the greatest cumulative losses when entering a state
of default is reduced, thereby reducing the amount of required guaranty
fund contributions from clearing participants. ICC represents that the
decrease in the guaranty fund and the increase in initial margin
requirements are not symmetrical. Instead, based upon current
portfolios, ICC approximates that for every $1 decrease to the guaranty
fund there will be a corresponding increase to the initial margin
requirements of approximately $5.
    ICC represents that Modification 2 will make it easier for
clearing participants to evaluate the risk of their CDS clearing
portfolio as measured by the impact of changing recovery rate
assumptions. ICC is implementing this by removing the conditional
recovery rate stress-scenarios and adding a new standalone recovery
rate sensitivity component that is computed by considering changes in
recovery rate assumptions that impact the net asset value of the CDS
clearing portfolio. ICC argues that by making it easier for market
participants to measure their risk, Modification 2 is
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to it.

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \4\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \5\
requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be
designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which
it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Modification 1 will require each clearing participant to
collateralize its greatest single name CDS exposure that it creates for
other clearing participants. As such, Modification 1 will
require clearing participants to bear a greater portion of the loss
resulting from their default and also increases the amount of risk
requirements ICC collects, thereby assuring the safeguarding of
securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC or for which it
is responsible. Modification 2 will require ICC to separately
estimate requirements using various recovery rate assumptions and
improve the ability of clearing participants to identify the impact of
considering various changes to recovery rate assumptions on the net
asset value of their CDS clearing portfolios, thereby removing an
impediment to the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\ and the
rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICC-2012-03) be, and
hereby is, approved.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \8\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11131 Filed 5-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P