[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52712-52714]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20715]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0700; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-102-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 &
440) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fractured
rudder pedal tubes installed on the pilot-side rudder bar assembly.
This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking and
damage of both pilot-side rudder pedal tubes, and replacement of
affected pilot-side rudder bar assemblies if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of both pilot-side
rudder pedal tubes, which could result in loss of pilot rudder pedal
input causing reduced yaw controllability or a runway excursion.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 10,
2013.

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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ricardo Garcia, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0700;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-102-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-12, dated May 14, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    There have been two in-service reports of fracture of rudder
pedal tubes installed on the pilot-side rudder bar assembly.
    Laboratory examination of the fractured rudder pedal tubes found
that in both cases, the fatigue cracks initiated at the aft taper
pin holes where the connecting rod fitting is attached. Fatigue
testing of the rudder pedal tubes confirmed that the fatigue
cracking is due to loads induced during parking brake application.
Therefore, only the rudder pedal tubes on the pilot's side are
vulnerable to fatigue cracking as the parking brake is primarily
applied by the pilot.
    Loss of pilot rudder pedal input during flight would result in
reduced yaw controllability of the aeroplane. Loss of pilot rudder
pedal input during takeoff or landing may lead to a runway
excursion.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates initial and repetitive [detailed or
eddy current] inspections [for cracking and damage and replacement
if necessary] of the pilot-side rudder * * * [bar assembly], until
the terminating action is accomplished.

Required actions also include repairing damage. The terminating action
is replacement of both pilot-side rudder bar assemblies. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-27-162, including
Appendix A, dated April 5, 2013. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the

MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD
because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design.

Clarification of Inspection Terminology

    In this proposed AD, the ``detailed visual inspection'' specified
in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-162, including Appendix A, dated
April 5, 2013, is referred to as a ``detailed inspection.'' We have
included the definition for a detailed inspection in paragraph (h) of
the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 529 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
                              Action                                      Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection........................................................  3 work-hours x $85                 $0   $255 per inspection    $134,895 per
                                                                     per hour = $255 per                     cycle.                 inspection cycle.
                                                                     inspection cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
this repair:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement..................................  6 work-hours x $85 per hour =            $2,850           $3,360
                                                $510.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the repair specified in this proposed AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2013-0700; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-102-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 10, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category,
serial numbers 7003 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of fractured rudder pedal tubes
installed on the pilot-side rudder bar assembly. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct cracking of both pilot-side rudder pedal
tubes, which could result in loss of pilot rudder pedal input
causing reduced yaw controllability or a runway excursion.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the

compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been
done.

(g) Initial Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) through
(g)(6) of this AD, do a detailed or eddy current inspection for
cracking and damage (i.e., corrosion or cracking) of both pilot-side
rudder pedal tubes having part number (P/N) 600-90204-3, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 601R-27-162, including Appendix A, dated April 5,
2013.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 20,000 total
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection
before the accumulation of 23,000 total flight cycles.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated 20,000 total flight
cycles or more, but less than 25,000 total flight cycles as of the
effective date of this AD: Do the inspection within 3,000 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, but not to exceed 26,300
total flight cycles.
    (3) For airplanes that have accumulated 25,000 total flight
cycles or more, but less than 30,000 total flight cycles as of the
effective date of this AD: Do the inspection within 1,300 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, but not to exceed 30,800
total flight cycles.
    (4) For airplanes that have accumulated 30,000 total flight
cycles or more, but less than 33,000 total flight cycles as of the
effective date of this AD: Do the inspection within 800 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, but not to exceed 33,500
total flight cycles.
    (5) For airplanes that have accumulated 33,000 total flight
cycles or more, but less than 37,000 total flight cycles as of the
effective date of this AD: Do the inspection within 500 flight
cycles after the effective of this AD, but not to exceed 37,300
total flight cycles.
    (6) For airplanes that have accumulated 37,000 total flight
cycles or more as of the effective date of this AD: Do the
inspection within 300 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD.

(h) Inspection Definition

    For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is an
intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly
to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is
normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an
intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and
elaborate procedures may be required.

(i) Repetitive Inspections

    For any tube on which no cracking and no damage is found during
any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: At the
applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD,
repeat the detailed or eddy current inspection for cracking of the
pilot-side rudder pedal tubes, specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD, until the terminating action specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD has been accomplished.
    (1) If the most recent inspection was a detailed inspection:
Repeat the inspection within 600 flight cycles thereafter.
    (2) If the most recent inspection was an eddy current
inspection: Repeat the inspection within 1,000 flight cycles
thereafter.

(j) Corrective Actions

    (1) If any cracking is found around the aft tapered holes during
any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD, before
further flight, replace the affected rudder bar assemblies, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 601R-27-162, including Appendix A, dated April 5,
2013.
    (2) If any other damage (i.e., corrosion or cracking), other
than that specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, is found during
any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD, before
further flight, repair using a method approved by either the
Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA;
or the Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) (or its delegated
agent).

(k) Optional Terminating Action

    Replacement of both pilot-side rudder bar assemblies, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 601R-27-162, including Appendix A, dated April 5,
2013, terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (i)
of this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (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.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-12, dated May 14,
2013, for related information, which can be found in the AD docket
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 16, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-20715 Filed 8-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 110 (Friday, June 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26832-26835]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11998]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0054]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From United Parcel Service Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
requests public comment on an application from United Parcel Service,
Inc. (UPS) for exemption from various provisions of the mandate to use
electronic logging devices (ELDs). Specifically, UPS is requesting an
exemption (1) to allow an alternative ELD phase-in method for fleets
using compliant automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs); (2) from
the requirement that an ELD automatically record certain data elements
upon a duty status change when a driver is not in the vehicle; (3) to
allow ELDs to be configured with a special driving mode for yard moves
that does not require the driver to re-input yard move status every
time the tractor is powered off; and (4) to allow vehicle movements of
less than one mile on UPS property by non-CDL UPS drivers to be
annotated as ``on property--other.'' UPS believes that the requested
temporary exemptions will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the
exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2017-0054 using any of the
following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this notice. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the exemption process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act''
heading for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to Room W12-140,
DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You may find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site as well as
the DOT's http://docketsinfo.dot.gov Web site. If you would like
notification that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment
page that appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Amina Fisher, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle
Safety, MC-PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA- 21) [Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 401] amended 49
U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). On August 20,
2004, FMCSA published a final rule (69 FR 51589) implementing section
4007. Under this rule, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public with an opportunity to inspect the information
relevant to the application, including any safety analyses that have
been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305).
    The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If the Agency denies the request, it must
state the reason for doing so. If the decision is to grant the
exemption, the notice must specify the person or class of persons
receiving the exemption and the regulatory provision or provisions from
which an exemption is granted. The notice must specify the effective
period of the exemption (up to 5 years) and explain the terms and
conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR
381.315(c) and 49 CFR 381.300(b)).

UPS Application for Exemption

    UPS has applied for an exemption from various provisions of 49 CFR
part 395 regarding the use of ELDs. Specifically, UPS has requested a
temporary exemption (1) to allow an alternative ELD phase-in method for
fleets using compliant automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs);
(2) from the requirement that an ELD automatically record certain data
elements upon a duty status change when a driver is not in the vehicle;
(3) to allow ELDs to be configured with a special driving mode for yard
moves that does not require the driver to re-input yard move status
every time the tractor is powered off; and (4) to allow vehicle
movements of less than one mile conducted on UPS property by non-CDL
UPS drivers to be annotated as ``on property--other.'' A copy of the
application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of
this notice.

Alternative ELD Phase-In Method

    Subject to limited exceptions, section 395.8(a)(1)(i) of the FMCSRs
requires motor carriers to install and use ELDs that comply with the
technical specifications prescribed for those devices no later than
December 18, 2017. However, section 395.8(a)(1)(ii) allows a motor
carrier that installs, and requires its drivers to use, compliant
AOBRDs before the December 18, 2017, compliance date to continue to use
those AOBRDs until December 16, 2019, thereby providing a 2-year
grandfather period for devices installed prior to the compliance date.
    In support of its application, UPS states:

    UPS firmly believes that the best way to transition its
operations from AOBRDs to ELDs will be on a site-by-site basis. UPS
currently plans to convert approximately 2800 tractors at
approximately 35 sites from AOBRDs to ELDs in 2017, and plans to
convert the remaining tractors (at 141 sites) during 2018. Deploying
ELDs by site will minimize the significant costs, including training
costs, related to moving the fleet and workforce from AOBRDs to
ELDs. A site-by-site approach will also minimize the risk of errors
and confusion that would be encountered if two different types of
devices were used simultaneously at a given location.
    The difficulty large motor carriers like UPS face is with
FMCSA's decision to permit grandfathering only on a vehicle, and not
a fleet-wide basis. UPS plans to purchase approximately 1530 new
tractors in 2018, i.e., after the grandfathering deadline but before
the ELD implementation date for grandfathered vehicles. Of these,
1061 will replace existing tractors (the majority of which are
currently using AOBRDs) that have reached the end of life, and 469
will be new tractors to accommodate projected growth. These new
tractors will be delivered to UPS facilities across the country
consistent with operational needs. At a typical location,
approximately 12 percent of tractors would be newly purchased.
    If no temporary exemption were granted, large carriers would be
required to use ELDs in all of the new tractors delivered after 12/
18/2017. The result would be that UPS facilities that had not been
converted as of that date would have both vehicles using ELDs at the
same time.
    It is routine for all UPS drivers at a given location to use
multiple tractors in the course of a week or month. If a site had
both vehicles using AOBRDs and vehicles using ELDs, under UPS's
current business practices, drivers would necessarily be using both
types of devices. This would create complex and difficult situations
to manage. For example, if a driver used both an AOBRD and an ELD
during the course of a week, there would not be a single, complete
log reflecting the driver's hours of service. If, on the other hand,
each driver at a given location were restricted to only the vehicles

at that location using AOBRDs or only the vehicles at that location
using ELDs, that would cause significant operational disruption and
inefficiency.
    In addition to drivers, UPS exempt employees' fuel, shift and
work on tractors in the yard. If vehicles using ELDs were deployed
to a site where the majority of vehicles still used AOBRDs, these
employees would have to be trained to identify ELD tractors and
comply with ELD requirements, while simultaneously working with
vehicles using AOBRDs. Furthermore, UPS would incur significant cost
to train and deploy ELDs for these few exceptions, and the
deployment team would also need to return to the site at a later
date to finish ELD deployment on the rest of the fleet.

    Based on the above, UPS requests an exemption from section
395.8(a)(1)(i) to allow the installation of AOBRDs on new truck
tractors delivered to UPS sites after the December 18, 2017 compliance
date, where the existing vehicles at that site are equipped with
compliant AOBRDs. UPS believes that using a site-based approach, as
described above, will (1) eliminate confusion on the part of drivers
and other personnel that would result from using both ELDs and AOBRDs
at the same location, and (2) avoid operational and potential
enforcement issues that could arise from a driver using different types
of devices to record hour-of-service over a given period of time. UPS
states that under the proposed temporary exemption, all vehicles will
be fully ELD-compliant by the expiration date of the AOBRD grandfather
period specified in section 395.8(a)(1)(ii), December 16, 2019.

Recording of ELD Data Elements

    An ELD is required to automatically record a number of specific
data elements at certain events, to include (1) when a driver indicates
a change of duty status under section 395.24(b) (see section
395.26(c)), and (2) when an authorized user logs into or out of an ELD
(see section 395.26(g)).
    In support of its application, UPS states:

    All UPS drivers are covered under a bargaining unit agreement
between the Teamsters Union and UPS. Under that agreement, UPS
drivers are, for the most part, paid by the hour. UPS drivers use
electronic devices and punch in for work on those devices while they
are still in the dispatch building. They then walk to their vehicle
and inspect the vehicle prior to moving the tractor. Upon
implementation of the ELD rule UPS will be using FMCSR-compliant
portable, driver-based ELD devices.
    Similarly, at the end of a work day all UPS drivers walk from
their vehicles to a UPS dispatch office and then clock out using the
AOBRD devices once all work is done. UPS drivers perform many other
duties away from the tractor including training, attending safety
meetings and working in the facility. In a typical UPS location, UPS
drivers spend an average of 24 minutes prior to entering the vehicle
and 22 minutes after exiting the vehicle on the clock.
Significantly, in many situations the vehicle an employee will be,
or was, using will be occupied by another employee while the
employee is still on duty for UPS.
    UPS cannot both comply with the requirement that an ELD record
tractor data when a driver logs in or out (or otherwise changes duty
status while outside of the vehicle) and also comply with our
bargaining unit contract and pay guidelines for our drivers.

    Based on the above, UPS requests an exemption from the requirement
to record the specific data elements identified in sections 395.26(c)
and 395.26(g) if the driver is not in the vehicle when (1) the driver
indicates a change of duty status, or (2) an authorized user logs into
or out of an ELD, respectively. Instead, to assure accurate recording
of on-duty, not driving time, UPS proposes that it will
``systematically annotate that the driver was performing other work.''
UPS believes that the proposed exemption ``will have no impact on the
recordation of driving time'' as all required vehicle data will be
recorded when the driver is in the vehicle, and ``the tractor data that
would not be recorded when the driver is not in the vehicle is not
relevant to assessing the accurate recordation of `on-duty, not
driving' time.''

Special Driving Mode for Yard Moves

    Section 395.28(a) of the FMCSRs permits a motor carrier to
configure an ELD to authorize a driver to indicate that the driver is
operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) under certain special
driving categories, including (1) authorized personal use, and (2) and
yard moves. Section 395.28(a)(2) requires a driver to select the
applicable special driving category on the ELD before the start of the
status, and to deselect it when the indicated status ends.
    In support of its application, UPS states:

    UPS is requesting a temporary exemption to allow a special
driving mode for yard moves that will not require a driver to
repeatedly indicate that status.
    Most of UPS's feeder drivers are required to complete yard moves
as part of their scheduled work. This entails the driver moving
trailers that are already sitting uncoupled on a yard as well as
coupling or uncoupling inbound and outbound trailers. Not only do
feeder drivers perform yard moves at the beginning or end of trips,
they sometimes are assigned to yard duty for a portion of their
shifts, which can entail moving as many as 10 loads per hour within
the yard.
    As a safety precaution, UPS requires our drivers to remove the
keys each time they exit the tractor. Consistent with this
requirement, they driver will power the tractor down to couple a
trailer and then power the tractor down again to uncouple. An
average UPS site has over 100 drivers, with the majority of drivers
completing several yard moves in the course of a day. The ELD rule
would require drivers to manually change duty status twice for every
move they complete in the yard, which could mean entering manual
changes as many as 20 times in an hour. The average UPS RODS driver
completes a minimum of 9 yard moves per day. This will impose costs
on UPS in time spent by drivers manually inputting the yard move
mode. UPS estimates that the yearly cost to UPS for a single button
push (.35 sec) at each of these yard move ignition cycles would come
to approximately $460,000. In addition, driver and administrative
time would need to be spent reconciling records if drivers fail to
appropriately record yard move time.

    Based on the above, UPS requests an exemption from section
395.28(a)(2)(i) to allow its drivers to select ``yard move'' status and
remain in that status even if the vehicle's ignition is cycled off and
back on. Under the proposed temporary exemption, and assuming that the
driver does not go off duty after performing the yard moves, UPS states
that the ELD would switch to a ``driving'' duty status under section
395.24 if (1) the driver inputs ``driving,'' (2) the vehicle exceeds 20
mph, or (3) the vehicle exits the geo-fenced yard. UPS notes that there
is a posted speed limit of 15 mph on all of its yards, and that it
already uses the proposed 20 mph threshold described above to trigger a
designation of ``driving'' duty status in its AOBRDs as a means to
identify drivers that do not manually annotate their departure from a
UPS property.

Vehicle Use by Exempt Employees Operating on UPS Property

    Section 395.26(h) of the FMCSRs requires an ELD to automatically
record certain data elements when a CMV's engine is powered up or
powered down.
    In support of its application, UPS states:

    In addition to its drivers, UPS currently employs 1434 people
that wash or fuel vehicles. In the course of performing their
duties, most of these employees operate vehicles in our fleet, but
this operation is strictly limited to movements within UPS yards. A
fuel employee will fuel as many as 60 vehicles during a shift.
    Because they do not operate commercial motor vehicles on
highways/public roads, UPS's wash and fuel employees are not
``drivers'' and, in turn, are not required to comply with the hours
of service rules . . .
    The final ELD rule requires that the ELD automatically record
certain data when a

CMV's engine is powered up or powered down. See Sec.  395.26(h).
Because UPS will be using portable, driver-based ELDs, there will
not be ELDs permanently installed in UPS vehicles. Therefore,
insofar as the ELD regulations would require recordation of engine
data for in yard operation of UPS vehicles by non-driver employees,
that requirement would impose a significant burden on UPS. While it
would be possible to provide these employees with portable ELDs to
record engine data, doing so would be extremely costly. In addition
to purchasing devices for each of these employees, UPS would have to
purchase and maintain secure cabinets to store and charge these
devices. In addition, UPS would have to develop a solution to
reconcile these hours in a live environment. UPS would also have to
employ individuals to annotate logs for data that was not
reconciled.
    UPS's technology group has had several meetings to explore
options to account for engine miles and hours for operation of UPS
vehicles by non-driver employees. In each solution, an employee
would be required to enter a tractor number for each tractor and to
log out of each tractor when they are finished even though they
would be driving the vehicle less than 1 mile and within the yard.
The employees would be doing this for as many as 10 hours a day and
on a large number of tractors. When all factors are considered, the
expense to account for a very small number of miles is extremely
costly. UPS estimates that the cost would exceed $1,000,000 dollars
per year in added equipment and hourly expense.

    Based on the above, UPS requests an exemption from section 395.26,
and proposes to allow an alternative approach to track vehicle usage by
wash and fuel employees on UPS property. Specifically, UPS proposes
that vehicle usage of less than 1 mile by these exempt employees,
conducted entirely on UPS property, be annotated on an ELD as ``on
property--other.'' UPS states that these miles could be easily
identified using geo-fencing and time-card information for road drivers
and other employees.
    As noted in its application, UPS believes that each of the
requested exemptions will result in substantial operational
efficiencies, and will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the
exemptions.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on UPS's application for an
exemption from 49 CFR part 395. All comments received before the close
of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of
this notice will be considered and will be available for examination in
the docket at the location listed under the Addresses section of this
notice. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed
in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.
In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the
public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the
comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the
public docket for new material.

    Issued on: June 1, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-11998 Filed 6-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53897-53898]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22137]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0178; FRL-9457-5]

EPA Seeking Input Materials Measurement; Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW), Recycling, and Source Reduction Measurement in the U.S.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) issued
a notice in the Federal Register of August 2, 2011 soliciting
stakeholder input regarding the efficacy and scope of the MSW
Characterization Report called ``Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States'' as part of a broader discussion about sustainable materials
management. This information will be used to develop new measurement
definitions and protocols for measurement of these materials, as well
as the possible addition of construction and demolition (C&D) materials
and non-hazardous industrial materials to the list of materials
addressed in future efforts. This effort could lead to the creation of
a new measurement report that the EPA will make publicly available.
This document is extending the comment period from August 31, 2011 to
September 30, 2011.

DATES: All written comments must be received on or before September 30,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2011-0178 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments using the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2011-0178.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: RCRA Docket (28221T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: EPA West Building Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays) and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2011-0178. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. The http://www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hope Pillsbury, Mail Code (5306P),
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This document extends the public comment period established in the
Federal Register of August 2, 2011 (76 FR 46290?) (FRL-9446-9). In that
document, EPA sought comments regarding the efficacy and scope of the
MSW Characterization Report called ``Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States'' as part of a broader discussion about sustainable
materials management. Several requests were received from potential
commenters, to extend the comment period by 30 days. EPA is hereby
extending the comment period, which was set to end on August 31, 2011,
to September 30, 2011. EPA will consider all comments received by

September 30, 2011 to be timely and given full consideration.
    To submit comments, please follow the detailed instructions as
provided under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. If you have
questions, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, municipal solid waste (MSW)
characterization, MSW management, recycling, measurement, data, data
collection, construction and demolition (C&D) recycling, source
reduction, life cycle, life cycle systems approach, sustainable
materials management.

    Dated: August 18, 2011.
Suzanne Rudzinski,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2011-22137 Filed 8-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IV

Technical Support Document

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

For

μg/m3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations.  At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3 (today’s action does not address the 24-hour standard).  See 40 CFR 50.7.  On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published its air quality designations and classifications for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from those monitors for calendar years 2001–2003.  These designations became effective on April 5, 2005.  The Cincinnati Area was designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  See 40 CFR 81.336 (Ohio), 40 CFR 81.318 (Kentucky), and 40 CFR 81.315 (Indiana).

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations.  On November 13, 2009, EPA clarified the designations for the NAAQS promulgated in 1997, stating that the Cincinnati Area was designated as nonattainment for the annual standard.

B.  EPA REQUIREMENTS

A nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is determined to have attaining data when the design value for the annual standard meets the requirements stipulated in 40 CFR Part 50, section 50.13 as follows:

The annual primary and secondary PM2.5standards are met when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with appendix N of this part, is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3 .

Upon determination by EPA that an area designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS has attained the standard, 40 CFR section 51.1004(c) provides that the requirement for such area to submit attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS shall be suspended until the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the requirement no longer applies.  However, if EPA subsequently determines that the area has violated the PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirement to submit such plans is reinstated.

C.  EPA’S ANALYSIS OF MONITORED DATA

EPA’s determination that the Cincinnati nonattainment Area is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is based upon complete, quality assured, quality controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 period, as measured by Federal reference method, Federal equivalent method, or Approved Regional Method monitors described in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N.  The monitors and data used to determine the 2007-2009 annual PM2.5 design value for the Cincinnati nonattainment area are included in the table below.

Annual PM2.5 Design Values for Monitors in the Cincinnati Nonattainment Area

Location

AQS site ID	2007

98th

Percentile	2008

98th

Percentile	2009

98th

Percentile	2007-2009

Design Value

Verity	39-017-0003	15.4	13.8	12.8	14.0

Sacred Heart School	39-017-0016	14.9	13.8	13.1	13.9

Batavia	39-025-0022	14.0	11.7	11.0	12.3

Sycamore	39-061-0006	14.6	12.5	12.1	13.1

Carthage	39-061-0014	16.6	15.1	13.4	15.0

Taft	39-061-0040	15.1	12.6	12.7	13.5

Lower Price Hill	39-061-0042	15.9	14.4	13.7	14.7

Norwood	39-061-7001	15.1	13.7	13.0	13.9

Murray Rd	39-061-8001	16.1	14.4	13.4	14.6

Lebanon	39-165-0007	14.0	11.9	11.7	12.5

NKU	21-037-3002	14.4	11.8	11.3	12.5

Covington	21-117-0007	14.2	12.0	11.0	12.4

 μg/m3 in 2007, and an annual average concentration in 2008 of 13.3 μg/m3.  The average concentration for the most recent three years of available data, i.e., 2006-2008, was 14.2 μg/m3.  This average concentration is consistent with attainment of the NAAQS.

The Hook Field Airport site monitored an annual average concentration of 14.6 μg/m3 for 2007.  The average concentration for the most recent three years of available data, i.e., 2005-2007, was 15.0 μg/m3.  This average concentration is consistent with attainment of the NAAQS.

.4 μg/m3, the annual average of concentrations in 2008 was 11.8 μg/m3, and the annual average of concentrations in 2009 was 11.3 μg/m3.  The average concentration using available data in 2007 to indicate 2007 concentrations and using complete data in 2008 and 2009 is 12.5 μg/m3.

$

y

{

¤

¦

6

B

L

`

j

w

x

y

z

{

¸

»

({

õ	m

萑ː葠ː摧㩭

hm:

hm:

hm:

hm:

hm:

hm:

hm:

hm:

hm:

hm:

<μg/m3, except for the Murray Road site in Cincinnati.  The Murray Road site has a preliminary 2008-2010 design value of 15.1 μg/m3; however, the site was shut down in February of the first quarter of 2010 due to safety issues.  Region 5 approved the shut down in a letter dated December 21, 2010.  The partial first quarter of 2010 data before the monitor shut down showed the only data above the NAAQS for the 2008-2010 period.  The 2008 design value was 14.4 μg/m3 and the 2009 design value was 13.4 μg/m3.  Approval was granted for the site to be shut down because the Carthage Fire site registered a higher design value and is located approximately a mile from the Murray Road site.  A comparison of the 2007-2009 data showed the sites were well correlated with each other.

The available data for 2010 are consistent with the finding, based on 2007 - 2009 data, that the Cincinnati Area is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.  On the basis of this review, EPA has concluded that this area has met and continues to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

D.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

	Quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data for 2007-2009 shows that the design value for the Cincinnati PM2.5 nonattainment Area is 15.0 µg/m3.  Because this value is less than or equal the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 µg/m3, the area has monitored attainment for this NAAQS.  I recommend the Cincinnati Area be determined to have attaining data for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

 Design values are the metrics that are compared to the NAAQS levels to determine attainment.  The annual design value is calculated as the 3-year average of annual means (referred to as the “annual standard design value ”).  (See 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N.)

 PAGE

 PAGE

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  4


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56882-56884]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23058]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87339; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-061]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Extend the Pilot Related to the Market-Wide Circuit Breaker in Rule
11.16

October 17, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 15, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
````EDGX'''') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposal to extend the pilot related to the market-wide circuit breaker
in Rule 11.16. The text of the proposed rule change is enclosed as
Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), 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, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    EDGX Rules 11.16(a) through (d), (f) and (g) describe the
methodology for determining when to halt trading in all stocks due to
extraordinary market volatility, i.e., market-wide circuit breakers.
The market-wide circuit breaker (``MWCB'') mechanism was approved by
the Commission to operate on a pilot basis, the term of which was to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS (the ``LULD
Plan''),\5\ including any extensions to the pilot period for the LULD
Plan. The Commission recently approved an amendment to the LULD Plan
for it to operate on a permanent, rather than pilot, basis.\6\ In light
of the proposal to make the LULD Plan permanent, the Exchange amended
Rule 11.16 to untie the pilot's effectiveness from that of the LULD
Plan and to extend the pilot's effectiveness to the close of business
on October 18, 2019.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012). The LULD Plan provides a
mechanism to address extraordinary market volatility in individual
securities.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85667 (April 16,
2019), 84 FR 16736 (April 22, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 11.16 to extend the pilot
to the close of business on October 18, 2020. This filing does not
propose any substantive or additional changes to Rule 11.16. The
Exchange will use the extension period to develop with the other SROs
rules and procedures that would allow for the periodic testing of the
performance of the MWCB mechanism, with industry member participation
in such testing. The

extension will also permit the exchanges to consider enhancements to
the MWCB processes such as modifications to the Level 3 process.
    The market-wide circuit breaker under Rule 11.16 provides an
important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and
investor confidence during a period of significant stress when
securities markets experience extreme broad-based declines. All U.S.
equity exchanges and FINRA adopted uniform rules on a pilot basis
relating to market-wide circuit breakers in 2012 (``MWCB Rules''),
which are designed to slow the effects of extreme price movement
through coordinated trading halts across securities markets when severe
price declines reach levels that may exhaust market liquidity. Market-
wide circuit breakers provide for trading halts in all equities and
options markets during a severe market decline as measured by a single-
day decline in the S&P 500 Index.
    Pursuant to Rule 11.16, a market-wide trading halt will be
triggered if the S&P 500 Index declines in price by specified
percentages from the prior day's closing price of that index.
Currently, the triggers are set at three circuit breaker thresholds: 7%
(Level 1), 13% (Level 2), and 20% (Level 3). A market decline that
triggers a Level 1 or Level 2 halt after 9:30 a.m. ET and before 3:25
p.m. ET would halt market-wide trading for 15 minutes, while a similar
market decline at or after 3:25 p.m. ET would not halt market-wide
trading. A market decline that triggers a Level 3 halt, at any time
during the trading day, would halt market-wide trading until the
primary listing market opens the next trading day.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
The market-wide circuit breaker mechanism under Rule 11.16 is an
important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and
investor confidence during a period of significant stress when
securities markets experience extreme broad-based declines. Extending
the market-wide circuit breaker pilot for an additional year would
ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of a consistent mechanism
to halt trading across the U.S. markets while the Exchange, with the
other SROs, consider and develop rules and procedures that would allow
for the periodic testing of the performance of the MWCB mechanism,
which would include industry member participation in such testing. The
extension will also permit the exchanges to consider enhancements to
the MWCB processes such as modifications to the Level 3 process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change promotes
just and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes transparency
and uniformity across markets concerning when and how to halt trading
in all stocks as a result of extraordinary market volatility. Based on
the foregoing, the Exchange believes the benefits to market
participants from the MWCB under Rule 11.16 should continue on a pilot
basis because the MWCB will promote fair and orderly markets, and
protect investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposal would
ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of a consistent mechanism
to halt trading across the U.S. markets while the Exchange, in
conjunction with the other SROs, consider and develop rules and
procedures that would allow for the periodic testing of the performance
of the MWCB mechanism. In addition, as noted above, the extension will
permit the exchanges to consider enhancements to the MWCB processes
such as modifications to the Level 3 process. Further, the Exchange
understands that FINRA and other national securities exchanges will
file proposals to extend their rules regarding the market-wide circuit
breaker pilot. Thus, the proposed rule change will help to ensure
consistency across market centers without implicating any competitive
issues.

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

    No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \11\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative upon filing. Extending the pilot for an additional
year will allow the uninterrupted operation of the existing pilot to
halt trading across the U.S. markets. Therefore, the Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission hereby
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-061on 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-CboeEDGX-2019-061. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-061
and should be submitted on or before November 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23058 Filed 10-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 28655]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10176]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4500-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Connecticut; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Connecticut (FEMA-4500-DR), dated March 28, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued April 30, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Connecticut is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program for those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 28, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program
for all areas in the State of Connecticut (already designated for
emergency protective measures [Category B] not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct Federal assistance).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-10176 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

03/13/2008 09:26 AM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Lydia Wegman, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, rosalina rodriguez

Subject

process for today?

Heidi, I hope you got a chance to rest.   You should have clean copies of all chapters in your e-mail.   Please give me a call when you get settled in to talk about process.   My goal is to get this document closed out no later than 5:00pm today.  Talk to you soon.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72624-72626]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30299]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0476; FRL-9495-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Maryland; Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals
from the State of Maryland pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Whenever new or revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is
required to address basic program elements, including, but not limited
to regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and
adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure
requirements. Maryland has made submittals addressing the
infrastructure requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. This action approves portions of those
submittals.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on December 27,
2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0476. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the
Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

    On September 12, 2011 (76 FR 56130), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed
approval of Maryland submittals that provide the infrastructure
elements specified in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof, necessary
to implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The formal
submittals by the State of Maryland dated July 27, 2007 and November
30, 2007 addressed the section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS; the submittals dated April 3, 2008 and April 16, 2010
addressed the section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 1997
p.m.2.5 NAAQS; and the submittals dated April 16, 2010 and
July 21, 2010 addressed the section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The submittals referenced in the Background section of this
rulemaking action address the infrastructure elements specified in CAA
section 110(a)(2). These submittals provide for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
rationale supporting EPA's proposed action, including the scope of
infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in the NPR and the
technical support document (TSD) and will not be restated here. The TSD
is available online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number
EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0476. No public comments were received on the NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the State of Maryland submittals that provide the
infrastructure elements specified in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions
thereof, necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    This final rule is limited to the infrastructure elements which
were subject to EPA's completeness findings pursuant to CAA section
110(k)(1) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS dated March 27, 2008 (73 FR
16205) and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS dated October 22, 2008 (73
FR 62902). These findings pertained only to whether the submissions
were complete, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A), and did not constitute
EPA approval or disapproval of such submissions. With respect to this
permit program, on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), EPA promulgated a
change that made nitrogen oxides (NOX) a precursor for ozone
in the part C regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21. In the
March 27, 2008 completeness findings, EPA determined that Maryland
failed to submit a SIP revision to its part C Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit program to fully incorporate NOX
as a precursor for ozone. EPA will take separate action on the portions
of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as they
relate to Maryland's part C PSD permit program.
    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs
incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but
rather are due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are
due pursuant to CAA section 172. This action does not cover these
specific elements. This action also does not address the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements have been addressed by separate
findings issued by EPA (70 FR 21147, April 25, 2005 and 75 FR 32673,
June 9, 2010), and a Federal implementation plan (FIP) (75 FR 45210,
August 2, 2010). The 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) portion of these requirements
are addressed through 110(a)(2) SIP submittals that EPA will take
separate action on.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not

impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 24, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
    This action, pertaining to Maryland's section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS, may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 14, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
entries at the end of the table for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS, and
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
p.m.2.5 NAAQS. The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable        submittal     EPA approval date        Additional
             revision                 geographic area        date                                explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure   Statewide...........  7/27/07, 11/ 11/25/11, [Insert     This action
 Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour                              30/07   page number where     addresses the
 Ozone NAAQS.                                                          the document          following CAA
                                                                       begins].              elements or
                                                                                portions thereof:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure   Statewide...........   4/3/08, 4/  11/25/11, [Insert     This action
 Requirements for the, 1997 PM2.5                              16/10   page number where     addresses the
 NAAQS.                                                                the document          following CAA
                                                                       begins].              elements or
                                                                                portions thereof:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A),, (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure   Statewide...........  4/16/10, 7/  11/25/11, [Insert     This action
 Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5                               21/10   page number where     addresses the
 NAAQS.                                                                the document          following CAA
                                                                       begins].              elements or
                                                                                portions thereof:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-30299 Filed 11-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P