EPA Meeting with Sulfuryl Fluoride Registrants
Tuesday, July 30, 2019; 1:00  -  2:00 PM ET Potomac Yard South  -  9621
Registrant attendees:  Tim McPherson, Douglas Products; Stephanie Stephens, Exponent (Consultant for Douglas Products); Ellen Thoms, Douglas Products
EPA attendees: David Miller; Aaron Niman; Philip Villanueva; Jeff Dawson; Gerad Thornton; Christina Swartz; Jocelyn Hospital
The EPA and sulfuryl fluoride (SF) registrant Douglas Products discussed the availability of the raw data from the previously submitted SF user survey. The EPA explained the need for access to the raw survey data, as well as how the information could be used in the risk assessment. The registrant will consider what raw data can be shared and how to best provide the agency access to the raw data while ensuring that confidential/identifying information is removed.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70882-70883]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29561]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0842]

Safety Zones; Annual Firework Displays Within the Captain of the
Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a final rule published in the Federal
Register on October 4, 2011, for the Safety Zones; Annual Firework
Displays Within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area of
Responsibility. That document contained an inaccurate Docket Number,
USCG-2010-0842. The correct Docket Number is USCG-2011-0842.

DATES: Effective November 16, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ensign Anthony P. LaBoy, USCG Sector Puget Sound
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    The heading of the final rule published in the Federal Register of
October 4, 2011, in FR Doc. 2011-25344, on page 61263, contained an
incorrect Docket Number, USCG-2010-0842. The correct Docket Number is
USCG-2011-0842. To advise the public of this error, we are publishing
this notice of correction.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the final rule Safety Zones; Annual Firework Displays
Within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility
published in the Federal Register of October 4, 2011, in FR Doc. 2011-
25344, is corrected as follows: On page 61263, in the heading, ``Docket
No. USCG-2010-0842'' is corrected to read ``Docket No. USCG-2011-
0842.''

    Dated: November 9, 2011.
Kathryn A. Sinniger,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law United States Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2011-29561 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 19, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1996-2010

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AEROMUNDO EJECUTIVO, S.A. de C.V.
                         Date Filed: April 24, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  May 7, 2002, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative(s):  Gerardo Gomez G. 011-52-722-273-1372  DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
         Action date:  May 19, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  May 19, 2003, through May 19,
2004.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

湁攠敬瑣潲楮敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬
汢湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩敗瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯
⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 135 (Monday, July 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42060-42061]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16834]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2178-001; ER12-2178-004; ER12-2178-005; ER12-
2178-006; ER10-2172-012; ER10-2172-014; ER10-2172-016; ER10-2172-017;
ER12-2311-003; ER12-2311-004; ER12-2311-005; ER12-2311-006; ER11-2016-
007; ER11-2016-010; ER11-2016-011; ER11-2016-012; ER10-2184-012; ER10-
2184-015; ER10-2184-017; ER10-2184-016; ER10-2183-009; ER10-2183-012;
ER10-2183-013; ER10-2183-014; ER10-1048-009; ER10-1048-012; ER10-1048-
013; ER10-1048-014; ER10-2176-013; ER10-2176-016; ER10-2176-017; ER10-
2176-018; ER10-2192-012; ER10-2192-015; ER10-2192-016; ER10-2192-017;
ER11-2056-006; ER11-2056-009; ER11-2056-010; ER11-2056-011; ER10-2178-
012; ER10-2178-015; ER10-2179-016; ER10-2178-017; ER10-2174-012; ER10-
2174-015; ER10-2174-016; ER10-2174-017; ER11-2014-009; ER11-2014-012;
ER11-2014-013; ER11-2014-014; ER11-2013-009; ER11-2013-012; ER11-2013-
013; ER11-2013-014; ER10-3308-011; ER10-3308-014; ER10-3308-015; ER10-
3308-016; ER10-1017-008; ER10-1020-008; ER10-1020-011; ER10-1020-012;
ER10-1020-013; ER10-1145-008; ER10-1145-011; ER10-1145-012; ER10-1145-
013; ER10-1144-007; ER10-1144-010; ER10-1144-011; ER10-1144-012; ER10-
1078-008; ER10-1078-011; ER10-1078-012; ER10-1078-013; ER10-1079-008;
ER10-1080-008; ER10-1080-011; ER10-1080-012; ER10-1080-013; ER11-2010-
009; ER11-2010-012; ER11-2010-013; ER11-2010-014; ER10-1081-008; ER10-
1081-011; ER10-1081-012; ER10-1081-013; ER10-2180-015; ER10-2180-016;
ER10-2180-017; ER11-2011-007; ER11-2011-011; ER11-2011-012; ER11-2011-
013; ER12-2201-002; ER12-2201-004; ER12-2201-005; ER12-2201-006; ER12-
2528-003; ER12-2528-004; ER12-2528-005; ER11-2009-008; ER11-2009-011;
ER11-2009-012; ER11-2009-013; ER11-3989-007; ER11-3989-009; ER11-3989-
010; ER11-3989-011; ER10-1143-008; ER10-1143-011; ER10-1143-012; ER10-
1143-013; ER11-2780-006; ER11-2780-009; ER11-2780-010; ER11-2780-013;
ER12-1829-004; ER12-1829-005; ER12-1829-006; ER11-2007-007; ER11-2007-
010; ER11-2007-011; ER11-2007-012; ER12-1223-006; ER12-1223-009; ER12-
1223-010; ER12-1223-011; ER11-2005-009; ER11-2005-012; ER11-2005-013;
ER11-2005-014; ER10-2179-014; ER10-2179-016; ER10-2179-017; ER10-2179-
018; ER10-2181-014; ER10-2181-016; ER10-2181-017; ER10-2181-018; ER10-
2182-014; ER10-2182-016; ER10-2182-017; ER10-2182-018.
    Applicants: Wind Capital Holdings, LLC, Wildcat Wind, LLC, Tuana
Springs Energy, LLC, Shooting Star Wind Project, LLC, Safe Harbor Water
Power Corporation, PECO Energy Company, Michigan Wind 1, LLC, Michigan
Wind 2, LLC, Harvest II Wind Farm, LLC, Harvest WindFarm, LLC, Handsome
Lake Energy, LLC, Exelon Wyman, LLC, Exelon Wind 4, LLC, Exelon West
Medway, LLC, Exelon New Boston, LLC, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Exelon Framingham, LLC, Exelon Energy
Company, Criterion Power Partners, LLC, CR Clearing, LLC, Cow Branch
Wind Power, L.L.C., Constellation Power Source Generation Inc.,
Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., Constellation Mystic Power, LLC,
Constellation Energy Commodities Group Maine, LLC, Commonwealth Edison
Company, CER Generation II, LLC, CER Generation, LLC, Cassia Gulch Wind
Park, LLC, Beebe Renewable Energy, LLC, Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company, AV Solar Ranch 1, LLC, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC,
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, High Mesa Energy, LLC, Tuana
Springs Energy, LLC, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Nine Mine
Point Nuclear Station, LLC.
    Description: Revised Appendix B to October 12, 2012, January 31,
March 8 and April 26, 2013 Change in Status Filings of Exelon Entities.
    Filed Date: 7/3/13.
    Accession Number: 20130703-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 7/24/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1901-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 07-08-2013 SA 2477 Corn Belt-MidAm GFA 477 to be
effective 7/9/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/8/13.
    Accession Number: 20130708-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 7/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1902-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 07-08-2013 SA 2527 ITC-Consumers GIA (J161) to be
effective 7/9/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/8/13.
    Accession Number: 20130708-5018.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 7/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1903-000.
    Applicants: MET New York Trading LLC.
    Description: Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be
effective 9/3/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/8/13.
    Accession Number: 20130708-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 7/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1904-000.
    Applicants: MET West Trading LLC.
    Description: Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be
effective 9/3/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/8/13.
    Accession Number: 20130708-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 7/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1905-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
NYISO Joint Amended Restated LGIA No. 1774

Among NYISO, NYPA, and Marble River to be effective 6/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/8/13.
    Accession Number: 20130708-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 7/29/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the Docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 8, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16834 Filed 7-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2805-2808]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00764]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0020; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-039-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace (Operations) Limited
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
British Aerospace (Operations) Limited Model HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1,
Jetstream Series 200, and Jetstream Series 3101 airplanes that would
supersede an existing AD. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as cracking of the forward main landing gear yoke pintle
resulting from corrosion pits leading to stress corrosion. We are
issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact BAE
Systems (Operations) Ltd, Customer Information Department, Prestwick
International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom;
phone: +44 1292 675207, fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.jetstreamcentral.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0020; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0020;
Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-039-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On December 16, 1986, we issued AD 87-02-04, Amendment 39-5497 (51
FR 47211, December 31, 1986). That AD required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 87-02-04, Amendment 39-5497 (51 FR 47211,
December 31, 1986), there has been a reported failure of the main
landing gear (MLG) on a Jetstream Series 3100 airplane. An
investigation revealed stress corrosion cracking of the MLG yoke pintle
housing as a root cause of the MLG failure.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2013-0208, dated September 10, 2013 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by occurrences of the main landing gear (MLG) yoke
pintle housing cracking, the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority
(UK CAA) issued AD G-003-01-86 to require repetitive inspections to
identify any crack in the yoke pintle housing on MLG fitted to
Jetstream 3100 aeroplanes in accordance with BAE Systems
(Operations) Ltd Service Bulletin (SB) 32-A-JA851226, and depending
on findings, corrective action. After that AD was issued, an
occurrence of Jetstream 3100 MLG failure was reported after landing.
The subsequent investigation revealed stress corrosion cracking of
the MLG yoke pintle housing as a root cause of the MLG failure.
Furthermore, the investigation report recommended a review of the
effectiveness of UK CAA AD G-003-01-86 in identifying cracks in the
yoke pintle housing on MLG fitted to Jetstream 3100 aeroplanes.
    Degradation of the surface protection by abrasion can occur when
the forward face of the yoke pintle rotates against the pintle
bearing, which introduces corrosion pits and, consequently, stress
corrosion cracking.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
structural failure of the MLG, possibly resulting in loss of control
of the aeroplane during take-off or landing runs.
    To provide protection of the affected area of the MLG assembly
spigot housing, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued SB 32-JM7862 to
provide instructions for installation of a protective washer, fitted
at the forward spigot on both, left hand (LH) and right hand (RH),
MLG. Consequently, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued SB 32-A-
JA851226 at Revision 5 to provide additional accomplishment
instructions for Non-destructive testing inspection (NDT) of MLG
equipped with the protective washer installed in accordance with BAE
Systems (Operations) Ltd SB 32-JM7862 and to introduce reference to
MLG manufacturer APPH Ltd SB 32-19 at Revision 4, providing
instructions for re-protection of the yoke pintle.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of AD G-003-01-86, which is superseded, and requires
implementation of revised inspection requirements, and depending on
findings, corrective action. This AD introduces an optional
modification, which constitutes terminating action for the
inspections required by this AD.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0020.

Relevant Service Information

    British Aerospace (Operations) Limited issued Jetstream Series 3100
& 3200 Service Bulletin No. 32-A-JA851226, Revision 5, dated April 30,
2013; Jetstream Service Bulletin 32-JA880340, dated January 6, 1989;
which references British Aerospace Dynamics Division Service Bulletin
32-36, dated July 20, 1988; APPH Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 32-19,
Revision 4, dated April 3, 2013; and APPH Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 32-
40, Revision 1, dated February 2003. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 44 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 14 work-hours per
product to comply with the inspection requirements of this proposed AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $52,360, or $1,190 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 10 work-hours and require parts costing $5,000, for a cost
of $5,850 per

product for repairs. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-5497 (51 FR
47211, December 31, 1986), and adding the following new AD:

British Aerospace (Operations) Limited: Docket No. FAA-2014-0020;
Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-039-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 3, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 87-02-04, Amendment 39-5497 (51 FR 47211,
December 31, 1986).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to British Aerospace (Operations) Limited Model
HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1, Jetstream Series 200, and Jetstream Series
3101 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking of the
forward main landing gear (MLG) yoke pintle that resulted from
corrosion pits leading to stress corrosion. We are issuing this AD
to prevent failure of the MLG, which could result in loss of control
of the airplane during take-off or landing.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(11) of this AD:
    (1) For airplanes previously affected by AD 87-02-04, Amendment
39-5497 (51 FR 47211, December 31, 1986): At the next 1,200 MLG
flight cycle repetitive inspection required by AD 87-02-04 or within
the next 12 months after the last 1,200 MLG flight cycle repetitive
inspection required by AD 87-02-04, whichever occurs first, and
repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,200 MLG flight
cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first, do a nondestructive
testing (NDT) inspection of each MLG assembly cylinder attachment
spigot housing following the Accomplishment Instructions in APPH
Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 32-19, Revision 4, dated April 3, 2013, as
referenced in British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service
Bulletin 32-A-JA851226, Revision 5, dated April 30, 2013.
    (2) For airplanes not previously affected by AD 87-02-04,
Amendment 39-5497 (51 FR 47211, December 31, 1986): Within the next
300 MLG flight cycles after the effective date of this AD or within
the next 3 months after the effective date of this AD or at the next
overhaul of the MLG after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed
1,200 MLG flight cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first, do a
NDT inspection of each MLG assembly cylinder attachment spigot
housing following the Accomplishment Instructions in APPH Ltd.
Service Bulletin No. 32-19, Revision 4, dated April 3, 2013, as
referenced in British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service
Bulletin 32-A-JA851226, Revision 5, dated April 30, 2013.
    (3) For all airplanes: Within 300 landings after a heavy or
abnormal landing, conduct a NDT inspection of each MLG assembly
cylinder attachment spigot following Accomplishment Instructions in
APPH Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 32-19, Revision 4, dated April 3,
2013, as referenced in British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 &
3200 Service Bulletin 32-A-JA851226, Revision 5, dated April 30,
2013.
    (4) For all airplanes: If any crack is found during any
inspection required in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this
AD, before further flight, take all necessary corrective actions
following the Accomplishment Instructions in APPH Ltd. Service
Bulletin No. 32-19, Revision 4, dated April 3, 2013, as referenced
in British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin
32-A-JA851226, Revision 5, dated April 30, 2013.
    (5) For all airplanes: Within 300 MLG flight cycles or 3 months,
whichever occurs first after each NDT inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable, and
repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 MLG flight
cycles or 3 months, whichever occurs first, do a visual inspection
of each MLG following the Accomplishment Instructions in APPH Ltd.
Service Bulletin No. 32-19, Revision 4, dated April 3, 2013, as
referenced in British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service
Bulletin 32-A-JA851226, Revision 5, dated April 30, 2013.
    (6) For all airplanes: If any discrepancy is found during any
visual inspection required in paragraph (f)(5) of this AD, before
further flight, take all necessary corrective actions following the
Accomplishment Instructions in APPH Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 32-19,
Revision 4, dated April 3, 2013, as referenced in British Aerospace
Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-A-JA851226,
Revision 5, dated April 30, 2013.
    (7) For all airplanes with a MLG incorporating a microswitch
hole: Within the next 10,600 MLG flight cycles since new and
repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,200 MLG flight
cycles, do a NDT inspection of each MLG microswitch hole following
the Accomplishment Instructions in APPH Ltd. Service Bulletin No.
32-40, Revision 1, dated February 2003 as referenced in Part C,
paragraph (2)(b) of British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200
Service Bulletin 32-A-JA851226, Revision 5, dated April 30, 2013.
    (8) For all airplanes: If any crack is found during any NDT
inspection required in

paragraph (f)(7) of this AD, before further flight, take all
necessary corrective actions following the Accomplishment
Instructions in APPH Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 32-40, Revision 1,
dated February 2003, as referenced in British Aerospace Jetstream
Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-A-JA851226, Revision 5, dated
April 30, 2013.
    (9) For all airplanes: Doing all necessary corrective actions
required in paragraphs (f)(4), (f)(6), and (f)(8) of this AD does
not constitute terminating action for the inspections required by
this AD.
    (10) For all airplanes: Modification of each MLG cylinder
following BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd. Service Bulletin 32-
JA880340, original issue, dated January 6, 1989, constitutes
terminating action for the inspections required by this AD for that
MLG.
    (11) For all airplanes: The compliance times in paragraphs
(f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(5), and (f)(7) of this AD are presented in
flight cycles (landings). If the total flight cycles have not been
kept, multiply the total number of airplane hours time-in-service
(TIS) by 0.75 to calculate the cycles. For the purposes of this AD:
    (i) 100 hours TIS x .75 = 75 cycles; and
    (ii) 1,000 hours TIS x .75 = 750 cycles.

(g) Credit for Actions Done in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    This AD allows credit for the initial inspection required in
paragraph (f)(7) of this AD if done before the effective date of
this AD following APPH Ltd. Service Bulletin 32-40, at Initial Issue
dated June 21, 1989.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2013-0208, dated September 10, 2013, for related information. You
may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0020. For
service information related to this AD, contact BAE Systems
(Operations) Ltd, Customer Information Department, Prestwick
International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom;
phone: +44 1292 675207, fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.jetstreamcentral.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 8, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-00764 Filed 1-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 57)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13084-13086]
[DOCID:fr26mr09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1142; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-060-AD;
Amendment 39-15861; AD 2009-07-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model MU-
300-10 Airplanes and Model 400 and 400A Series Airplanes; and Raytheon
(Mitsubishi) Model MU-300 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to certain BEECH Model 400, 400A, and MU-300-10
airplanes. That AD currently requires installation of an improved
adjustment mechanism on the flightcrew seats and replacement of the
existing aluminum seat reinforcement assemblies with steel assemblies.
This new AD would add airplanes to the applicability of the existing
AD. This AD results from reports of incomplete latching of the existing
adjustment mechanism and cracked reinforcement assemblies, which could
result in sudden shifting of a flightcrew seat. We are issuing this AD
to prevent sudden shifting of a flightcrew seat, which could impair the
flightcrew's ability to control the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 30, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 30,
2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication as of March 13, 1996 (61 FR
5275, February 12, 1996).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, Department 62, P.O. Box 85, Wichita,
Kansas 67201-0085; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/
service_support/pubs.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, 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: William Griffith, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,
1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas
67209; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 96-03-07, amendment 39-
9504 (61 FR 5275, February 12, 1996). The existing AD applies to
certain BEECH Model 400, 400A, and MU-300-10 airplanes. That NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2008 (73 FR 64899).
That NPRM proposed to continue to require

installation of an improved adjustment mechanism on the flightcrew
seats and replacement of the existing aluminum seat reinforcement
assemblies with steel assemblies. That NPRM also proposed to require
the actions on additional airplanes.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. No comments have been received on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Explanation of Changes to NPRM

    The product identification and paragraph (c) of the NPRM have been
revised to correspond to the identity of the type certificate holder
and model designation for the affected airplanes.
    We have re-identified Note 1 as paragraph (h) in this final rule to
emphasize that if deviations occur from the instructions provided in
Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 25-2536, Revision 2, dated March
2002, an alternative method of compliance must be requested under the
provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD. We have re-identified
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The actions specified by this AD were previously required by AD 96-
03-07, which was applicable to approximately 121 airplanes. The actions
required by that AD take about 24 work-hours per airplane at $80 per
work-hour. Required parts cost up to $7,433 per airplane. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of the current requirements of that
AD on U.S. operators to be up to $1,131,713, or $9,353 per airplane. In
consideration of the compliance time and effective date of AD 96-03-07,
we assume that operators of the 121 airplanes subject to that AD have
already initiated the required actions. This AD adds no new costs
associated with those airplanes.
    This AD applies to approximately 76 additional airplanes. The
existing actions required by this AD take about 24 work-hours per
airplane. The manufacturer has updated the cost of required parts; the
required parts now cost up to $24,474 per airplane. Based on the
figures discussed above, we estimate the current costs of the existing
actions required by this AD on U.S. operators of the additional
airplanes to be up to $2,005,944. This figure is based on assumptions
that no operator of these additional airplanes has yet done any of the
requirements of this AD, and that no operator would do those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-9504 (61 FR 5275, February 12, 1996) and by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2009-07-02 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (Formerly Raytheon Aircraft
Company, formerly Beech Aircraft Corporation): Amendment 39-15861.
Docket No. FAA-2008-1142; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-060-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective April 30, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 96-03-07.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes specified in Table 1 of
this AD, certificated in any category.

                         Table 1--Applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Manufacturer                  Model              Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawker Beechcraft             Model 400 series      RJ-1 through RJ-65
 Corporation.                  airplanes.            inclusive.
Hawker Beechcraft             Model 400A series     RK-1 through RK-93
 Corporation.                  airplanes.            inclusive.
Hawker Beechcraft             Model MU-300-10       A1001SA through
 Corporation.                  airplanes.            A1011SA inclusive.
Raytheon (Mitsubishi).......  Model MU-300          A003SA through
                               airplanes.            A091SA inclusive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of incomplete latching of the
existing adjustment mechanism and cracked reinforcement assemblies,
which could result in sudden shifting of a flightcrew seat. We are
issuing this AD to prevent sudden shifting of a flightcrew seat,
which could impair the flightcrew's ability to control the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of the Requirements of AD 96-03-07

    (f) For Hawker Beechcraft Model MU-300-10 airplanes and Model
400 and 400A series airplanes: Within 200 hours time-in-service
after March 13, 1996 (the effective date of AD 96-03-07), install an
improved adjustment mechanism on the flightcrew seat, and replace
the existing aluminum seat reinforcement assemblies with steel
assemblies, in accordance with Beechcraft Service Bulletin No. 2536,
Revision 1, dated April 1995; or Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin
SB 25-2536, Revision 2, dated March 2002.

Requirements for Additional Airplanes

    (g) For Raytheon (Mitsubishi) Model MU-300 airplanes: Within 200
flight hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, install an improved adjustment mechanism on
the flightcrew seats, and replace the existing aluminum seat
reinforcement assemblies with steel assemblies, in accordance with
Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 25-2536, Revision 2, dated
March 2002.
    (h) A note in the Accomplishment Instructions of Raytheon
Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 25-2536, Revision 2, dated March 2002,
instructs operators to contact Raytheon if any difficulty is
encountered while accomplishing the actions specified in that
service bulletin. However, any deviation from the instructions
provided in Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 25-2536, Revision
2, dated March 2002, must be approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) under provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (i)(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: William Griffith, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch,
ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-
Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD,
if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Beechcraft Service Bulletin No. 2536, Revision
1, dated April 1995; or Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 25-
2536, Revision 2, dated March 2002; as applicable; to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB
25-2536, Revision 2, dated March 2002, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Beechcraft Service Bulletin No. 2536,
Revision 1, dated April 1995, as of March 13, 1996 (61 FR 5275,
February 12, 1996).
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, Department 62, P.O. Box 85, Wichita,
Kansas 67201-0085; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://
www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/service_support/pubs.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 16, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-6227 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5749-5750]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01994]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0824; FRL-9941-90-OECA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Application for Registration and Pesticide Report for Pesticide-
Producing and Device-Producing Establishments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Application for
Registration and Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing and Device-
Producing Establishments'' (EPA ICR No. 0160.11, OMB Control No. 2070-
0078) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described
below. This is ICR is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2016. An Agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2011-0824, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Stevenson, Office of
Compliance, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division,
Pesticides, Waste & Toxics Branch (2225A), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) Section 7(a) requires that any person who produces pesticides,
active ingredients or devices subject to the Act must register with the
Administrator of EPA the establishment in which the pesticide, active
ingredient or device is produced. This section further requires that
application for registration of any establishment shall include the
name and address of the establishment and of the producer who operates
such an establishment. EPA Form 3540-8, Application for Registration of
Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments, is used to
collect the establishment registration information required by this
section.
    FIFRA Section 7(c) requires that any producer operating an
establishment registered under Section 7 report to the Administrator
within 30 days after it is registered, and annually thereafter by March
1st for certain pesticide or device production and sales or
distribution information. The producers must report which types and
amounts of pesticides, active ingredients, or devices are currently
being produced, were produced during the past year, sold or distributed
in the past year. The supporting regulations at 40 CFR part 167 provide
the requirements and time schedules for submitting production
information. EPA Form 3540-16, Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing
and Device-Producing Establishments, is used to collect the pesticide

production information required by Section 7(c) of FIFRA.
    Establishment registration information, collected on EPA Form 3540-
8, is a one-time requirement for all pesticide-producing and device-
producing establishments. Pesticide and device production information,
reported on EPA Form 3540-16, is required to be submitted within 30
days after the company is notified of their pesticide-producing or
device-producing establishment number, and annually thereafter on or
before March 1st.
    Form Numbers: 3540-8 and 3540-16.
    Respondents/affected entities: Establishments registering
pesticides.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 167).
    Estimated number of respondents: 13,830.
    Frequency of response: Annually.
    Total estimated burden: 19,987 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,545,104 (per year), includes no annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in hours at present, but
we will be revising the estimates in the 2nd FR notice before we submit
to OMB.

    Dated: January 28, 2016.
Betsy Smidinger,
Acting Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-01994 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 60496]
[DOCID:fr13oc06-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER05-1395-002]

Covanta Delaware Valley, L.P.; Notice of Filings

October 6, 2006.
    On September 18, 2006, Covanta Delaware Valley, LP filed a
triennial market power update, pursuant to the Commission's Order
issued July 14, 2000, demonstrating that it continues to lack market
power in generation and transmission and cannot erect barriers to
entry.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 10, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16961 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 46655-46657]
[DOCID:fr11au08-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58315; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-81]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Temporary Membership Status and Interim Trading
Permit Access Fees

August 6, 2008.
    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 July 31, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE.
CBOE has designated this proposal as one

establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the
Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A),\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to adjust (1) the monthly access fee for persons
granted temporary CBOE membership status (``Temporary Members'')
pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .02 under CBOE Rule 3.19 (``Rule
3.19.02'') and (2) the monthly access fee for Interim Trading Permit
(``ITP'') holders under CBOE Rule 3.27. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/
Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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 CBOE 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The current access fee for Temporary Members under Rule 3.19.02 \5\
and the current access fee for ITP holders under Rule 3.27 \6\ are both
$12,387 per month. Both access fees are currently set at the indicative
lease rate (as defined below) for July 2008. The Exchange proposes to
adjust both access fees effective at the beginning of August 2008 to be
equal to the indicative lease rate for August 2008 (which is $10,653).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to revise both the Temporary Member
access fee and the ITP access fee to be $10,653 per month commencing on
August 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56458 (September 18,
2007), 72 FR 54309 (September 24, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-107) for a
description of the Temporary Membership status under Rule 3.19.02.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58178 (July 17,
2008) 73 FR 42634 (July 22, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-04) for a
description of the Interim Trading Permits under Rule 3.27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The indicative lease rate is defined under Rule 3.27(b) as the
highest clearing firm floating monthly rate \7\ of the CBOE Clearing
Members that assist in facilitating at least 10% of the CBOE
transferable membership leases.\8\ The Exchange determined the
indicative lease rate for August 2008 by polling each of these Clearing
Members and obtaining the clearing firm floating monthly rate
designated by each of these Clearing Members for that month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rule 3.27(b) defines the clearing firm floating monthly rate
as the floating monthly rate that a Clearing Member designates, in
connection with transferable membership leases that the Clearing
Member assisted in facilitating, for leases that utilize that
monthly rate.
    \8\ The concepts of an indicative lease rate (although not
referred to by that term) and of a clearing firm floating month rate
were previously utilized in the CBOE rule filings that set and
adjusted the Temporary Member access fee. Both concepts were also
recently codified in Rule 3.27(b) in relation to ITPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange used the same process to set the proposed Temporary
Member and ITP access fees that it used to set the current Temporary
Member and ITP access fees. The only difference is that the Exchange
used clearing firm floating monthly rate information for the month of
August 2008 to set the proposed access fees (instead of clearing firm
floating monthly rate information for the month of July 2008 as was
used to set the current access fees) in order to take into account
changes in clearing firm floating monthly rates for the month of August
2008.
    The Exchange believes that the process used to set the proposed
Temporary Member access fee and the proposed Temporary Member access
fee itself are appropriate for the same reasons set forth in CBOE rule
filing SR-CBOE-2008-12 with respect to the original Temporary Member
access fee.\9\ Similarly, the Exchange believes that the process used
to set the proposed ITP access fee and the proposed ITP access fee
itself are appropriate for the same reasons set forth in CBOE rule
filing SR-CBOE-2008-77 with respect to the original ITP access fee.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57293 (February 8,
2008), 73 FR 8729 (February 14, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-12), which
established the original Temporary Member access fee, for detail
regarding the rationale in support of the original Temporary Member
access fee and the process used to set that fee, which is also
applicable to this proposed change to the Temporary Member access
fee as well.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58200 (July 21,
2008), 73 FR 43805 (July 28, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-77), which
established the original ITP access fee, for detail regarding the
rationale in support of the original ITP access fee and the process
used to set that fee, which is also applicable to this proposed
change to the ITP access fee as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the proposed access fees will remain in effect until such
time either that the Exchange submits a further rule filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ to modify the applicable access
fee or the applicable status (i.e., the Temporary Membership status or
the ITP status) is terminated. Accordingly, the Exchange may, and
likely will, further adjust the proposed access fees in the future if
the Exchange determines that it would be appropriate to do so taking
into consideration lease rates for transferable CBOE memberships
prevailing at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The procedural provisions of the CBOE Fee Schedule related to the
assessment of each proposed access fee are not proposed to be changed
and will remain the same as the current procedural provisions relating
to the assessment of that access fee.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and subparagraph (f)(2)
of Rule 19b-4 \15\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days

of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-81 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-81. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
am and 3 pm. 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-CBOE-2008-81 and should be
submitted on or before September 2, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-18487 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: January 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 4545-4547]
[DOCID:fr31ja07-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55165]

Order Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 608(e) Thereunder Extending a de minimis Exemption for
Transactions in Certain Exchange-Traded Funds From the Trade-Through
Provisions of the Intermarket Trading System

January 25, 2007.
    This order extends, through March 4, 2007, a de minimis exemption
to the provisions of the Intermarket Trading System Plan (``ITS
Plan''),\1\ a national

market system plan,\2\ governing intermarket trade-throughs that
currently is due to expire on February 4, 2007. The de minimis
exemption was originally issued by the Commission on August 28, 2002
\3\ and extended on May 30, 2003,\4\ on March 3, 2004,\5\ on December
3, 2004,\6\ on September 6, 2005,\7\ and on June 28, 2006.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') participating
in the ITS Plan include the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston
Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., the National Stock Exchange, Inc.
(formerly the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc.), the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), the New York
Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. (formerly the Pacific Exchange,
Inc.), and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (collectively, the
``participants''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 19456
(January 27, 1983), 48 FR 4938 (February 3, 1983).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') Rule 608(c)
(formerly Rule 11Aa3-2(d)), 17 CFR 242.608(c), promulgated under
Section 11A, 15 U.S.C. 78k-1, of the Act requires each SRO to comply
with, and enforce compliance by its members and their associated
persons with, the terms of any effective national market system plan
of which it is a sponsor or participant. Rule 608(e) (formerly Rule
11Aa3-2(f)), 17 CFR 242.608(e), under the Act authorizes the
Commission to exempt, either unconditionally or on specified terms
and conditions, any SRO, member of an SRO, or specified security
from the requirement of the rule if the Commission determines that
such exemption is consistent with the public interest, the
protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets
and the removal of impediments to, and perfection of the mechanisms
of, a national market system.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46428 (August 28,
2002), 67 FR 56607 (September 4, 2002) (the ``August 2002 Order'').
The August 2002 Order granted relief through June 4, 2003.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47950 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 33748 (June 5, 2003) (the ``May 2003 Order''). The May
2003 Order granted relief through March 4, 2004.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49356 (March 3,
2004), 69 FR 11057 (March 9, 2004) (the ``March 2004 Order''). The
March 2004 Order granted relief through December 4, 2004.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50795 (December 3,
2004), 69 FR 71445 (December 9, 2004) (the ``December 2004 Order'').
The December 2004 Order granted relief through September 4, 2005.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52382 (September 6,
2005), 70 FR 53695 (September 9, 2005) (the ``September 2005
Order''). The September 2005 Order granted relief through June 28,
2006.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54063 (June 28,
2006), 71 FR 38433 (July 6, 2006) (the ``June 2006 Order''). The
June 2006 Order granted relief through February 4, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, this order continues the de minimis exemption from
compliance with Section 8(d)(i) of the ITS Plan with respect to two
specific exchange-traded funds (``ETFs''), the Dow Jones Industrial
Average ETF (``DIA'') and the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ETF
(``SPY'').\9\ By its terms, the June 2006 Order continued the exemption
from the trade-through provisions of the ITS Plan of any transactions
in the two ETFs that are effected at prices at or within three cents
away from the best bid and offer quoted in the Consolidated Quote
System (``CQS'') through February 4, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission limited the de minimis exemption to these two
securities because they share certain characteristics that may make
immediate execution of their shares highly desirable to certain
investors. In particular, trading in the two ETFs is highly liquid
and market participants may value an immediate execution at a
displayed price more than the opportunity to obtain a slightly
better price. Unlike prior orders, the December 2004, September
2005, and June 2006 extensions of the de minimis exemption applied
only to the DIA and the SPY, and not the QQQ, because, on December
1, 2004, trading of the QQQ transferred from the American Stock
Exchange to Nasdaq, and thus trades in the QQQ ceased to be subject
to the trade-through provisions of the ITS Plan. Accordingly, an
exemption for the QQQ was no longer necessary. See December 2004
Order, September 2005 Order, and June 2006 Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Commission's previous orders to issue and extend the de
minimis exemption,\10\ the Commission discussed its basis for
determining that the de minimis exemption is consistent with the public
interest, the protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and
orderly markets and the removal of impediments to, and perfection of
the mechanisms of, a national market system. In the June 2006 Order,
the Commission further noted that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra notes 3 to 8.

    In March 2004 and in May 2003, the Commission extended the three
cent de minimis exemption for additional nine-month periods, in
order to assess trading data associated with the de minimis
exemption and to consider whether to adopt the de minimis exemption
on a permanent basis, to adopt some other alternative solution, or
to allow the exemption to expire. As a result of its review of
trading data associated with the de minimis exemption, the
Commission has proposed, as part of its market structure
initiatives, Regulation NMS under the Act, which would include a new
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rule relating to trade-throughs.

    On April 6, 2005, the Commission approved Regulation NMS under the
Act.\11\ In Regulation NMS, the Commission adopted an approach that,
among other things, protects only automated quotations and excludes
manual quotations from trade-through protection, and renders the de
minimis exemption unnecessary. Given the significant systems and other
changes necessary to implement Rule 610 and Rule 611,\12\ the
Commission originally established delayed compliance dates for Rule 610
and Rule 611, the first of which was scheduled to begin on June 29,
2006.\13\ In the September 2005 Order, the Commission stated that until
Regulation NMS is implemented, the reasons for maintaining the de
minimis exemption in effect continue to be valid, and thus the
Commission extended the de minimis exemption though June 28, 2006,
which was the date before the initial compliance date for Rule 610 and
Rule 611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
    \12\ Rule 610 generally prohibits national securities exchanges
and national securities associations from imposing unfairly
discriminatory terms that prevent or inhibit access to quotations,
and establishes a limit on access fees, and requires each national
securities exchange and national securities association to adopt,
maintain, and enforce written rules that prohibit their members from
engaging in a pattern or practice of displaying quotations that lock
or cross protected quotations. Rule 611 requires trading centers to
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent the execution of trades at prices
inferior to protected quotations displayed by other trading centers,
subject to an applicable exception.
    \13\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 18, 2006, the Commission extended the compliance dates for
Rule 610 and Rule 611 to give trading centers additional time to
finalize the development of their new or modified trading systems, and
to give the securities industry sufficient time to establish the
necessary access to such trading systems.\14\ The initial compliance
date was extended to a series of five dates, beginning on October 16,
2006, for different functional stages of compliance, with February 5,
2007 (the ``Trading Phase Date'') being the final date for full
operation of Regulation NMS-compliant trading systems for initial
trade-through protection under Rule 611, as described in the First NMS
Extension Release. The Commission also extended the de minimis
exemption through February 4, 2007, which was the day before the
Trading Phase Date.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53829 (May 18, 2006),
71 FR 30037 (May 24, 2006) (``First NMS Extension Release'').
    \15\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 24, 2007, the Commission extended the Trading Phase Date
to March 5, 2007.\16\ Therefore, to maintain the status quo and avoid
requiring market participants to make short-term trading or programming
changes pending the extended implementation period for Rule 610 and
Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, it is appropriate to extend the de minimis
exemption through March 4, 2007, the day before

the extended Trading Phase Date.\17\ The Commission emphasizes, as it
did in the previous orders,\18\ that the de minimis exemption does not
relieve brokers and dealers of their best execution obligations under
the federal securities laws and SRO rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55160 (January 24,
2007) (``Second NMS Extension Release''). To reflect the extended
Trading Phase Date and avoid coinciding with major trading days in
June 2007, the Commission also extended the Pilot Stocks Phase Date
(as defined in the Second NMS Extension Release) until July 9, 2007,
and the All Stocks Phase Date (as defined in the Second NMS
Extension Release) until August 20, 2007. In contrast, the
Specifications Date (as defined in the Second NMS Extension Release)
of October 16, 2006 has already passed and was not extended. In
addition, the Completion Date (as defined in the Second NMS
Extension Release) of October 8, 2007 was not changed.
    \17\ The Commission expects most trading centers to be operating
consistent with the requirements of Rule 611 by the Trading Phase
Date.
    \18\ See supra notes 3 to 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and
Rule 608(e) thereunder,\19\ that participants of the ITS Plan and their
members are hereby exempt from Section 8(d) of the ITS Plan during the
period covered by this Order with respect to transactions in DIAs and
SPYs that are executed at a price that is no more than three cents
lower than the highest bid displayed in CQS and no more than three
cents higher than the lowest offer displayed in CQS. This Order extends
the de minimis exemption from February 5, 2007 through March 4, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 242.608(e).

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-1475 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46068-46070]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17545]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA 2021-0037]

Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; California High-
Speed Rail Authority Audit Report

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (STPD
Program), often referred to as the ``NEPA Assignment Program,'' allows
a State to assume FRA's responsibilities for Federal environmental
review, consultation, and compliance under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and other Federal environmental laws, for railroad
projects. In accordance with the July 23, 2019, memorandum of
understanding (section 327 MOU) between FRA and the California High-
speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), CHSRA assumed the environmental review
process, in lieu of FRA. The STPD Program mandates annual audits by FRA
for the first four years of a State's involvement in the STPD Program,
ensuring CHSRA's compliance with program requirements. This notice
finalizes FRA's findings of the first-year audit of CHSRA participation
in the STPD Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andr[eacute]a Martin, Senior
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Railroad Policy and
Development (RPD), telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Marlys Osterhues, Chief Environment and
Project Engineering, RPD, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Electronic Access: An electronic copy of this notice and all
comments received may be downloaded from the docket page for FRA-2021-
0037 at www.regulations.gov.
    Background: FRA's annual audits are the primary mechanism to: (1)
Oversee CHSRA's compliance with the STPD Program, the section 327 MOU,
and applicable Federal laws and policies under NEPA; (2) determine
CHSRA's attainment of the performance measures identified in part 10 of
the section 327 MOU; and (3) collect information needed for the
Secretary of Transportation's annual report to Congress pursuant to 23
U.S.C. 327(i).
    FRA will conduct three more annual audits consistent with 23 U.S.C.
327(g) and part 11 of the section 327 MOU. FRA must present the results
of each audit in a report and make the draft report available for
public comment in the Federal Register, before finalizing.
    FRA received one response during public comment period between
April 21, 2021, and May 21, 2021. The comment, available in the docket,
was submitted by the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association and outlined its general support for the STPD Program. FRA
considered this comment and determined that it did not require changes
in the content of the draft report. This notice includes the final
version of the audit report.

Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program Audit of the California
High-Speed Rail Authority: December 8-10, 2020

Executive Summary

    This report summarizes the results of FRA's first audit of the
CHSRA's conduct of its environmental review responsibilities under 23
U.S.C. 327, in accordance with the section 327 MOU executed July 23,
2019, between CHSRA and FRA.
    To carry out its audit responsibilities under the section 327 MOU,
FRA formed a team (Audit Team) in April 2020. The Audit Team consisted
of NEPA subject matter experts (SMEs) from FRA's environmental and
project management divisions and the John A. Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center. In addition, FRA designated a Senior
Environmental Protection Specialist to serve as a NEPA Assignment
Program liaison to CHSRA. The Audit Team reviewed certain NEPA project
documentation completed by CHSRA during the first year of the NEPA
Assignment Program, and CHSRA's self-assessment of its NEPA Assignment
Program. In addition, the Audit Team reviewed documents related to
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and conducted interviews with
relevant CHSRA staff between December 8 and 10, 2020.
    The purpose of this report is to describe the results of the audit.
Overall, the Audit Team found that CHSRA is carrying out the
responsibilities it has assumed and complies with the provisions of the
section 327 MOU.

Background

    The STPD Program, codified at 23 U.S.C. 327, allows a State to
assume FRA's environmental responsibilities for review, consultation,
and compliance for railroad projects. When a State assumes these
Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely liable for carrying
out the responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu of the FRA. CHSRA
published its application under the STPD Program on November 9, 2017
and made it available for public comment for 30 days. After considering
public comments, CHSRA submitted its application to FRA on January 31,
2018. The application served as the basis for developing an MOU
identifying the responsibilities and obligations that CHSRA would
assume.
    FRA published a notice of the draft MOU in the Federal Register on
May 2, 2018, with a 30-day comment period to solicit the views of the
public and Federal agencies. After the close of the comment period, FRA
and CHSRA considered comments and proceeded to execute the MOU. On July
23, 2019, CHSRA assumed FRA's responsibilities under NEPA, and the
responsibilities for NEPA-related Federal environmental laws described
in the section 327 MOU.
    Section 327(g) requires the Secretary to conduct annual audits
during each of the first four years of State participation. Audits are
the primary mechanism for FRA to oversee CHSRA's compliance with the
provisions set forth in the section 327 MOU. FRA's annual audits,
conducted pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(g), will be the primary mechanism
to: (1) Determine the State's compliance with this MOU and applicable
Federal laws and policies; (2) confirm the State's attainment of the
performance measures identified in part 10 of the section 327 MOU; and
(3) collect information needed for the Secretary of Transportation's
annual report to Congress pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(i). FRA will
conduct three more annual audits consistent with 23 U.S.C. 327(g) and
part 11 of the section 327 MOU. FRA will present the results of each
audit in a report and make the report available for public comment in
the Federal Register, before finalizing.

Scope and Methodology

    Consistent with the section 327 MOU, the Audit Team examined a
sampling of CHSRA's NEPA project files; CHSRA's self-assessment report;
and CHSRA policies, guidance, and manuals relating to NEPA
responsibilities. The scope of the project file portion of the audit
included a review of six reexaminations for previously approved Final
Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and one Final EIS/Record of
Decision (ROD), representing all projects in process or initiated after
the section 327 MOU's effective date through June 30, 2020. In
conducting the audit, and to determine compliance with the section 327
MOU, the FRA Audit Team focused on objectives related to six NEPA

Assignment Program Elements: Program management, documentation and
records management, QA/QC, training, performance measurement, and legal
sufficiency. Each NEPA Assignment Program Element is described further
below.
    The Audit Team interviewed 11 CHSRA staff, in one of CHSRA's three
regional offices and at its headquarters office. In addition, the Audit
Team interviewed one staff member from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The Audit Team invited CHSRA staff, middle
management, counsel, and executive management to participate in the
interview process to ensure representation of a diverse range of staff
expertise, experience, and program responsibility.
    The Audit Team compared the procedures outlined in CHSRA
environmental manuals and policies to the information obtained during
staff interviews and project file reviews to evaluate CHSRA's
performance against its documented procedures. The Audit Team
documented observations under the six NEPA Assignment Program Elements.

Audit Results

    Overall, CHSRA has carried out the environmental responsibilities
assumed through the section 327 MOU and the Audit Team found that CHSRA
is complying with the section 327 MOU.

Program Management

    Consistent with part 4 of the section 327 MOU, CHSRA has developed
and implemented the updated Environmental Policies and Procedures
Handbook, Environmental Compliance Program Manual, a QA/QC Plan, and
the NEPA Assignment Training Course. CHSRA has also conducted the
required self-assessment.
    CHSRA has incorporated the NEPA Assignment Program into its overall
project development process included in CHSRA's environmental manuals
and policies. CHSRA has also created a NEPA assignment team in its
headquarters office to support the new responsibilities under the NEPA
Assignment Program. CHSRA staff at the headquarters office responsible
for ensuring NEPA Assignment responsibilities are fulfilled review
projects for compliance with assigned environmental laws and
regulations independently from those responsible for developing the
NEPA and related documentation, as required in part 3 of the section
327 MOU.
    CHSRA environmental staff at the three regional offices coordinate
their NEPA related project-work with headquarters staff through NEPA
Coordinators. Prior to assuming responsibilities under the NEPA
Assignment Program, CHSRA regional staff reported to their regional
office. However, following assumption of NEPA responsibilities, CHSRA
hired a NEPA Assignment Manager located in the headquarters office who
is responsible for overseeing CHSRA's policies, manuals, guidance, and
training under the NEPA Assignment Program. CHSRA also has assigned a
team of attorneys to advise on the environmental review process. This
team includes CHSRA in-house counsel as well as outside counsel who
advise on issues relate to the assigned responsibilities.
    Since the NEPA Assignment Program became effective, CHSRA staff
noted that their relationship with resource agencies has not changed,
and the overall environmental and consultation process has continued
without significant change. FRA's Audit Team's review of project files
supports this conclusion.

Documentation and Records Management

    Between July 23, 2019, and June 30, 2020, CHSRA made 22 auditable
NEPA actions. Employing judgmental sampling, the Audit Team reviewed
seven NEPA project files, including six reexaminations of previously
approved Final EISs and one combined Final EIS/ROD. These projects
represented a sampling of CHSRA environmental review efforts in process
or initiated after the section 327 MOU's effective date through June
30, 2020, covering a range of resource considerations and agency
coordination requirements. The Audit Team found that CHSRA maintained a
complete electronic record, including all NEPA-related documentation.
    The Audit Team recognized several CHSRA efforts to ensure
consistency of project documentation through CHSRA's use of an
accessible file database. Interviews with CHSRA staff indicated that
the regional staff consistently manage project files, including working
files. In addition, CHSRA uses a software program to document public
and resource agency comments, allowing CHSRA to track comments,
responses, and resolution.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

    Under part 10.2.B of the section 327 MOU, CHSRA has agreed to carry
out regular QA/QC activities to ensure the assumed responsibilities are
conducted in accordance with applicable law and the section 327 MOU.
The Audit Team noted that CHSRA has implemented a QA/QC program where
environmental staff in the three regions coordinate with the NEPA
assignment team in the headquarters office. The NEPA assignment team is
responsible for reviewing all NEPA documentation and technical reports
to ensure compliance. CHSRA staff also have access to SMEs for various
environmental resources and regulations. During interviews, CHSRA noted
that the NEPA assignment team acts independently to provide unbiased
and objective reviews of work products. The Audit Team also found that
regional staff understands how to implement the QA/QC process
throughout the environmental review process.
    During subsequent audits, the FRA Audit Team will require that
supporting QA/QC documentation associated with project files be
provided to FRA. This will allow the Audit Team to confirm QA/QC
measures are being fully implemented for the projects under review. The
Audit Team also recommends that CHSRA review a judgmental or random
sampling of projects between FRA's annual audits to check compliance
and identify potential improvements that can be made to the QA/QC
process.

Training Program

    CHSRA committed to implementing training necessary to meet its
environmental obligations under the section 327 MOU. The training
covers all topics related to CHSRA's responsibilities under NEPA
assignment. Based on interviews and a review of training documentation
and records, all CHSRA staff received the training in accordance with
the training plan after the MOU was executed.
    The FRA Audit Team recommends that CHSRA expand its training plan
to include additional training opportunities. This training could
include formal or informal training with State and Federal resource
agencies in addition to the regularly scheduled agency coordination
meetings.

Performance Measures

    In accordance with part 10.1.1 of the section 327 MOU, FRA and
CHSRA have established performance measures that CHSRA will seek to
attain and that FRA will consider during FRA's audits.
    CHSRA is still in the early stages of developing metrics to track
attainment of performance measures outlined in the section 327 MOU.
However, based on results of the audit review and interviews, the FRA
Audit Team found that CHSRA is implementing the performances measures.
CHSRA

environmental leadership staff indicated they will continue to
implement the performances measures found in part 10 of the section 327
MOU.

Legal Sufficiency

    CHSRA conducts a legal sufficiency review at various stages of the
environmental review process, consistent with existing internal
procedures. This review is generally conducted by outside counsel and
CHSRA attorneys. CHSRA attorneys are responsible for making the final
written determination regarding legal sufficiency of EISs prior to
their publication.

Finalizing the Report

    FRA published the draft version of this report in the Federal
Register on April 21, 2021, (86 FR 20787), and made it available for
public review and comment for 30 days in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
327(g). FRA received one response to the Federal Register notice during
the public comment period for the draft report, from the American Road
and Transportation Builders Association. This comment outlined its
general support for the STPD Program. FRA considered this comment and
determined that it did not require changes in the content of the draft
report. This is FRA's final version of the audit report.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Amitabha Bose,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-17545 Filed 8-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P