			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 26, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2004-17412

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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:  POLET AIRLINES, LTD.
                                   Date Filed:  March 25, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g) to permit
the applicant to operate one, one-way, cargo charter flight from
Columbus, Ohio, to Boeing Field, Washington, on March 27, 2004, using
its AN-124-100 aircraft to transport one GE 90 aircraft engine, on
behalf of General Electric Aircraft Engines.  The applicant stated that
General Electric urgently requires delivery of the engine on that date
for immediate installation on an aircraft being produced by the Boeing
Commercial Aircraft Company for completion and delivery; that the cargo
is too large for transportation on U.S.-carrier aircraft; and that
surface transportation would take ten days.

Applicant representative:  Lester M. Bridgeman,<PHONE_NUMBER>        DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  Polet Airlines served its application on those
U.S. carriers operating large all-cargo aircraft.  Each carrier
indicated that it did not have aircraft available to conduct the
proposed operations and that it had no comment or did not oppose grant
of the requested authority to Polet Airlines.

Statutory Standards:  Under 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g), we may authorize
a foreign air carrier to carry commercial traffic between U.S. points
(i.e., cabotage traffic) under limited circumstances.  Specifically, we
must find that the authority is required in the public interest; that
because of an emergency created by unusual circumstances not arising in
the normal course of business the traffic cannot be accommodated by U.S.
carriers holding certificates under 49 U.S.C. section 41102; that all
possible efforts have been made to place the traffic on U.S. carriers;
and that the transportation is necessary to avoid unreasonable hardship
to the traffic involved (an additional required finding, concerning
emergency transportation during labor disputes, was not relevant here).

        DISPOSITION

Action: Approved
                                               Action date:  March 26,
2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  March 26, 2004, through March 27,
2004.

Basis for approval:  We are granting Polet Airlines’ request to
operate its proposed flight today from Columbus to Boeing Field.  We
found that its request met all the relevant criteria of 49 U.S.C.
section 40109(g) for the grant of an exemption of this type and that the
grant was required in the public interest.  Specifically, we were
persuaded of the urgent need to move the cargo promptly in order to meet
the delivery schedule, the potential negative impact of delivery delay;
and the unique, outsized nature of the cargo, constituted an emergency
not arising in the normal course of business.  Moreover, based on the
representations of the U.S. carriers, we concluded that no U.S. carrier
had aircraft available which could be used to conduct the operation at
issue here.  We also found that grant of this authority was necessary to
prevent unreasonable hardship to General Electric and Boeing.  Finally,
we found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operation.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to our
standard exemption conditions and to the condition that the applicant
must comply with an FAA-approved flight routing for the authorized
flight.

Action taken by:         Karan K. Bhatia

                                    Assistant Secretary

                       for Aviation and International Affairs

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register: December 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 71988-71989]
[DOCID:fr19de07-137]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56957; File No. SR-ISE-2007-115]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Historical ISE Open/Close Trade Profile Fees

December 13, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 11, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
ISE. The Exchange filed the proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 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 persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to: (1) Clarify the
terms on which it offers the ISE Open/Close Trade Profile, a market
data product described below; and (2) adopt a subscription fee for the
sale of historical ISE Open/Close Trade Profile. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.ise.com, 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
    ISE currently creates volume data for each ISE listed option that
consists of opening buys and opening sells and closing buys and closing
sells.\5\ ISE currently uses a subset of this data, the customer
``opening only'' trade data, for its calculation of investor sentiment,
the ISE Sentiment Index[reg], or ISEE[reg], and for ISEE Select[reg].
The Commission recently approved a broader market data offering
comprised of the entire opening and closing trade data of ISE listed
options of both customers and firms, referred to by the Exchange as the
ISE Open/Close Trade Profile.\6\ The ISE Open/Close Trade Profile
offering is subdivided by origin code (i.e., customer or firm) and the
customer data is then further subdivided by order size. The volume data
is summarized by day and series (i.e., symbol, expiration date, strike
price, call or put). ISE Open/Close Trade Profile is a subscription
service, available to both members and non-members, and that enables
subscribers to create their own proprietary put/call calculations. The
data is compiled and formatted by ISE as an end of day file. The
Exchange charges both members and non-members $600 per month based on
an annual subscription \7\ for the ISE Open/Close Trade Profile market
data offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An opening buy is a transaction that creates or increases a
long position and an opening sell is a transaction that creates or
increases a short position. A closing buy is a transaction made to
close out an existing position. A closing sell is a transaction to
reduce or eliminate a long position.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56254 (August 15,
2007), 72 FR 47104 (August 22, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-70).
    \7\ The Exchange notes that while historical ISE Open/Close
Trade Profile is available on a month to month basis, the non-
historical ISE Open/Close Trade Profile offering is available only
on an annual subscription basis, which the Exchange proposes to
clarify by adding the words ``With an annual subscription'' under
the Notes section on its Schedule of Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE now proposes to sell historical ISE Open/Close Trade Profile, a
market data offering comprised of the entire opening and closing trade
data of both customers and firms that dates back to May 2005, to both
members and non-members, on an ad-hoc basis or as a complete set that
dates back to May 2005. Ad-hoc subscribers will be able to purchase
this data for any number of months, beginning from May 2005 through the
current month. Alternatively, subscribers will be able to purchase the
entire set of this data, beginning from May 2005 through the

current month. The data will be compiled and formatted by ISE and sold
as a zipped file. ISE proposes to charge ad-hoc subscribers $600 per
request for each month of data. For subscribers that want the compete
set of the data from May 2005 to the present, ISE proposes to charge a
discounted fee of $500.00 for each month of data.
 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ which requires that a national
securities exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange states that the proposed rule filing will
provide members and non-members with valuable market data, and that it
has expended considerable resources, i.e., internal development costs,
purchase of servers, etc., to bring this offering to market. The
Exchange states that it took these costs into account in setting the
fees proposed for the historical ISE Open/Close Trade Profile market
data offering. This product is identical to one that the Chicago Board
Options Exchange (``CBOE'') currently sells to the marketplace called
Open/Close Data.\9\ Further, ISE states that its proposed fees for this
new historical product are cheaper than or identical to the fees that
CBOE currently charges for its Open/Close Data offering.\10\ Finally,
the Exchange notes that the fees proposed by ISE for this product,
which is available for purchase on a voluntary basis, are not
discriminatory in that the Exchange proposes to charge both members and
non-members an identical fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(4).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55062 (January 8,
2007), 72 FR 2048 (January 17, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-88).
    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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
    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory
organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and
text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior
to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter
time as designated by the Commission. ISE has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it will allow ISE to
immediately offer the historical ISE Open/Close Trade Profile data to
investors interested in subscribing.\12\ This market data product is
substantially similar to one offered by CBOE, and it appears that it
does not raise any novel regulatory issues. For these reasons, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be effective and
operative upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has 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 such 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.

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-ISE-2007-115 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-115. 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 on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 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; 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 Number SR-ISE-2007-115 and should be submitted on or before
January 9, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24583 Filed 12-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41400-41405]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13468]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0557; FRL-10011-17-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Redesignation of the Inland
Sheboygan, WI Area to Attainment of the 2008 Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds that the
Inland Sheboygan County, Wisconsin area is attaining the 2008 primary
and secondary ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and
is approving a request from the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) to redesignate the area to attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS because the request meets the statutory requirements for
redesignation under

the Clean Air Act (CAA). WDNR submitted this request on October 9,
2019. EPA is approving, as a revision to the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's plan for maintaining the 2008
ozone NAAQS through 2030 in the Inland Sheboygan area. EPA finds
adequate and is approving Wisconsin's 2020 and 2030 volatile organic
compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Inland Sheboygan. Finally, EPA is
approving the Wisconsin SIP submission as meeting the applicable base
year inventory requirement, emission statement requirements, VOC
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements, motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program requirements, and
NOX RACT requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0557. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, 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
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID 19. We recommend that you telephone Eric Svingen,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    This rule approves the October 9, 2019 submission from Wisconsin
requesting redesignation of the Inland Sheboygan area to attainment for
the 2008 ozone standard. The background for this action is discussed in
detail in EPA's proposal, dated April 27, 2020 (85 FR 23274). In that
rulemaking, we noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the
2008 ozone NAAQS is attained in an area when the 3-year average of the
annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration is
equal to or less than 0.075 ppm, when truncated after the thousandth
decimal place, at all ozone monitoring sites in the area. (See 40 CFR
50.15 and appendix P to 40 CFR part 50.) Under the CAA, EPA may
redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment if complete, quality-
assured data are available to determine that the area has attained the
standard and meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section
107(d)(3)(E). The proposed rule provides a detailed discussion of how
Wisconsin has met these CAA requirements, and EPA's rationale for
approving the redesignation request and related SIP submissions.
    As discussed in the proposed rule, quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for 2017-2019 show that the area has attained the 2008
ozone standard, and EPA has determined that the attainment is due to
permanent and enforceable measures. Preliminary data for 2020 show that
the area continues to attain the standard. In the maintenance plan
submitted for the area, Wisconsin has demonstrated that the ozone
standard will be maintained in the area through 2030. Wisconsin has
adopted 2020 and 2030 VOC and NOX MVEBs for the area that
are supported by Wisconsin's maintenance demonstration. With these
approvals of Wisconsin's SIP submissions, EPA finds that the applicable
requirements of the SIP are fully approved.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?

    Public comments on the April 27, 2020 proposed rule were due by May
27, 2020. During the comment period EPA received three comments in
support of our action, as well as one adverse comment. EPA received an
additional supportive comment from Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce;
however, this comment was submitted on May 29, 2020, after the comment
period had ended. Because EPA is obligated to respond only to comments
that are both adverse and timely, the supportive comment submitted
after the close of the comment period is not relevant to this action. A
summary of the adverse comment and EPA's response is provided below.
    Comment: Sheboygan Ozone Reduction Alliance (SORA), a citizen group
focused on reducing air pollution and advocating for public health,
provided three reasons for opposing this action.
    First, SORA contends that the Inland Sheboygan area was created
retroactively in 2019 without adequate scientific basis. The commenter
writes that the boundary of the Inland Sheboygan area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS was based on the boundary for the Sheboygan County
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\1\ The commenter contends
that the boundary for the Sheboygan County nonattainment area for the
2015 ozone NAAQS was created without adequate basis, that the
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS excludes several major
point sources, and that EPA must resolve litigation regarding
designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS before EPA can make a
determination of attainment for areas created as a result of, or based
on, designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that the commenter also cited the revised boundary
for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS, but that standard is not at issue
in this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, SORA contends that the Sheboygan Haven monitor may not be
properly sited to capture maximum ozone concentrations. The commenter
contends that neither WDNR nor EPA have demonstrated that the Sheboygan
Haven monitor is capable of capturing maximum ozone concentrations in
the nonattainment area, and that such a capability was never
scrutinized because the Sheboygan Haven monitor was originally sited as
a secondary monitor for the original full-county nonattainment area.
The commenter states that on six days during the 1991 Lake Michigan
Ozone Study (LMOS), a monitor 8.6 miles inland from the shoreline
recorded ozone values greater than or equal to the values recorded at
the shoreline monitor. Similarly, from 1999 to 2003, a monitor 5.3
miles from the shoreline also recorded numerous ozone values greater
than or equal to the values recorded at the shoreline monitor. The
commenter acknowledges that ozone chemistry may have changed over the
last three decades but contends that the burden of proof should rest on
EPA and WDNR to demonstrate that values recorded at the Sheboygan Haven

monitor are representative of maximum ozone concentrations in the
Inland Sheboygan area.
    Third, SORA contends that emissions from the Inland Sheboygan area
contribute to the nonattainment of downwind areas. The commenter states
that a redesignation to attainment would reduce permitting
requirements, which could exacerbate the effects of emissions from the
Inland Sheboygan area on downwind nonattainment areas. The commenter
believes that the existence of two separate nonattainment areas in
Sheboygan County makes it more difficult to effectively manage air
quality issues.
    Response: EPA thanks SORA for its comments. As discussed below, EPA
finds that approval of Wisconsin's request to redesignate the Inland
Sheboygan area is consistent with the requirements of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E).
    First, EPA disagrees that the Inland Sheboygan area was created
retroactively without adequate scientific basis. On July 15, 2019, EPA
revised the 2008 ozone NAAQS designation for the original full-county
Sheboygan nonattainment area, by splitting the original area into two
distinct nonattainment areas that together cover the identical
geographic area of the original nonattainment area (84 FR 33699). In
determining whether to take this action under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D),
EPA considered the same factors Congress directed EPA to consider under
CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), including ``air quality data, planning and
control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations
the Administrator deems appropriate.'' In a 22-page Technical Support
Document (TSD) contained in the docket for that rulemaking, EPA
provided the technical basis for its revision, which was based on an
analysis of factors including air quality data, emissions and
emissions-related data, meteorology, geography/topography, and
jurisdictional boundaries.
    In defining the boundaries of the Inland Sheboygan area and
Shoreline Sheboygan area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA considered
existing jurisdictional boundaries, which can provide easily
identifiable and recognized boundaries for purposes of implementing the
NAAQS. After considering all relevant factors, EPA chose to adopt a
boundary for the two separate areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that
aligned with the jurisdictional boundary established by the partial-
county Sheboygan County area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. However, the
July 15, 2019 action was based on EPA's technical analysis specific to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as provided in the TSD. During the public comment
period on that rulemaking, EPA received no adverse comments, and EPA's
final action was not challenged in court.
    We therefore disagree that the current litigation in the D.C.
Circuit regarding the 2015 ozone designations (Clean Wisconsin et al.
v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., Case No. 18-1203 (D.C.
Cir.)) has any bearing on this redesignation. One of the claims at
issue in the litigation is whether EPA's partial-county designation of
the Sheboygan area under the 2015 ozone NAAQS was supported by law. But
even if the court were to grant challenges to the designation for the
2015 ozone NAAQS, that finding would not impact the existing boundaries
of the Inland Sheboygan nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The claims raised regarding EPA's technical analysis associated with
designations for the 2015 standard are irrelevant to this redesignation
action, which is focused on whether the Inland Sheboygan area has met
the statutory criteria of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
    Second, EPA disagrees that it may not rely on quality-assured,
certified air quality monitoring data from the Sheboygan Haven monitor
to determine whether the Inland Sheboygan area is attaining. The
Sheboygan Haven monitor began operation in 2014, has been in continuous
operation since, and in the many opportunities for public comment
regarding this monitor, nobody has raised any concerns about the
monitor site.
    Each year the state submits to EPA an Air Monitoring Network Plan,
which is subject to public comment (see 40 CFR 58.10 \2\), and in none
of five plan reviews conducted since the monitor was sited did any
member of the public raise concerns regarding the representativeness or
location of the Sheboygan Haven monitor. In 2019 SORA commented on
Wisconsin's most recent Air Monitoring Network Plan, but only raised
concerns regarding the proposed discontinuation of the Sheboygan Kohler
Andrae monitor along the Lake Michigan shoreline. Their comment did not
indicate any concerns about the Sheboygan Haven monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``The annual monitoring network plan must be made available
for public inspection and comment for at least 30 days prior to
submission to the EPA and the submitted plan shall include and
address, as appropriate, any received comments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also stated in its proposal to split Sheboygan County into two
nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that only one air quality
monitor would be in each of the two new nonattainment areas (84 FR
4422, 4424 and 4425 \3\), and received no comments. In that action, EPA
also relied on the Sheboygan Haven monitor to propose a clean data
determination for the Inland Sheboygan area, based on the monitor's
attaining 2015-2017 design value, which we later finalized based on the
area's 2016-2018 attaining design value. EPA received no comments on
its proposed determination that the area was attaining based on air
quality monitoring data from the Sheboygan Haven monitor. We therefore
do not agree that it is unreasonable for EPA to rely on data from the
Sheboygan Haven monitor as representative of air quality in the Inland
Sheboygan area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 84 FR at 4424 and 4425 (``The Sheboygan Haven monitor with
site ID 55-117-009 is the only FRM ozone monitor within the proposed
separate Inland Sheboygan area.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also do not agree that the Sheboygan Haven monitor's original
siting as a secondary monitor in the full-county 2008 ozone NAAQS area
is dispositive of whether it can be relied upon now as the Inland
Sheboygan area's sole monitor. As provided in the 2015 Air Monitoring
Network Plan, the Sheboygan Haven site's objective was population
exposure, and its area of representativeness was ``exposure on a
neighborhood scale for ozone.'' The representativeness ``neighborhood
scale'' is defined in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 as representative of
``conditions throughout some reasonably homogenous urban sub-region''
and the definition further provides that ``a site located in the
neighborhood scale may also experience peak concentration levels within
a metropolitan area.''
    We do not agree that the two nonextant Sheboygan County monitors
raised by the commenter indicate that the Sheboygan Haven monitor is an
unreliable indicator of ozone concentrations in the Inland Sheboygan
area. The first, from the 1991 LMOS study, was located 8.6 miles inland
from the shoreline; the second, which operated from 1999 to 2003, was
located 5.3 miles from the shoreline. During the time that these
monitors were active, they observed ozone concentrations that would
have been exceedances of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On several days these
monitors recorded ozone values greater than or equal to the values
recorded at the shoreline monitor. However, we do not think these
isolated, outdated readings at monitors

that are no longer operational are more representative or should
overrule the Sheboygan Haven monitor, which is part of the state's
approved Air Monitoring Network. Ozone values in Sheboygan County have
decreased significantly over the past three decades. EPA's April 27,
2020 proposed rule includes a discussion of the permanent and
enforceable regulatory control measures, including reductions from
vehicle emissions standards and stationary source NOX
trading programs implemented since 2000, which caused the improvement
in air quality. Given those major changes in emissions, and without a
technical basis to do so, we do not think it is reasonable to assume
that ozone chemistry in this region necessarily behaves in the same way
it may have in the 1990s and early 2000s. Nor do we think it advisable
to rely on inferences from old data over newer monitored air quality
data.
    Importantly, EPA notes that the commenter does not allege that any
part of the area is not currently meeting the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Consistent with the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), EPA finds
that the Inland Sheboygan area is attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Third, although the commenter did not specify, we assume the
``reduced permitting requirements'' cited by SORA that would result
from the area's redesignation is the change from the nonattainment new
source review (NNSR) program to the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program for new or modified major stationary
sources. An area's designation status dictates which of these programs
apply (NNSR for nonattainment areas and PSD for attainment areas), and
nothing in the CAA allows EPA to continue to impose NNSR in an area
where all five statutory criteria for redesignation of that area to
attainment have been met. Nor does the CAA suggest that a potential
impact from the change in an area's permitting regime after that area
is redesignated, on other in-state, downwind nonattainment areas is a
valid basis for disapproving that area's request for redesignation.
Finally, we note that while EPA's technical analysis for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS did indicate some contribution from the Inland Sheboygan area to
the Door County, WI area, the Manitowoc County, WI area, as well as the
Sheboygan County, WI area (which covers the identical geographic area
as the Shoreline Sheboygan area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS), that
analysis was performed for a more stringent standard, and with respect
to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, all three of those areas have attaining design
values for the 2017-2019 period.
    Finally, as stated in our April 27, 2020 proposed rule, EPA did not
reopen our final July 15, 2019 action to split the original Sheboygan
nonattainment area into two distinct nonattainment areas, so comments
to that effect are beyond the scope of this action. In this action, EPA
is only evaluating the State's redesignation request under the criteria
at CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is determining that the Inland Sheboygan nonattainment area is
attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based on quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for 2017-2019. EPA is approving Wisconsin's 2011 base
year emissions inventory, emission statement certification SIP, VOC
RACT SIP, I/M certification SIP, and NOX RACT certification
SIP, and is determining that the area meets the requirements for
redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus
changing the legal designation of the Inland Sheboygan area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
approving, as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP, the State's maintenance
plan for the area. The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Inland
Sheboygan area in attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS through 2030. EPA
finds adequate and is approving the newly-established 2020 and 2030
MVEBs for the Inland Sheboygan area.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), EPA finds there is good cause for these actions to become
effective immediately upon publication. The immediate effective date
for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and section
553(d)(3).
    Section 553(d)(1) of the APA provides that final rules shall not
become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register ``except . . . a substantive rule which grants or recognizes
an exemption or relieves a restriction.'' The purpose of this provision
is to ``give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior before the final rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed.
Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United
States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting
legislative history). However, when the agency grants or recognizes an
exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a
reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. EPA has
determined that this rule relieves a restriction because this rule
relieves sources in the area of NNSR permitting requirements; instead,
upon the effective date of this action, sources will be subject to less
restrictive PSD permitting requirements.
    Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that final rules shall not
become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register ``except . . . as otherwise provided by the agency for good
cause.'' The purpose of this provision is to ``give affected parties a
reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes
effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630
(D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099,
1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). Thus, in
determining whether good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay, an
agency should ``balance the necessity for immediate implementation
against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all
affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for
the effective date of its ruling.'' Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105. EPA
has determined that there is good cause for making this final rule
effective immediately because this rule does not create any new
regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to
prepare before the rule takes effect. On balance, EPA finds affected
parties would benefit from the immediate ability to comply with PSD
requirements, instead of delaying by 30 days the transition from NNSR
to PSD.
    For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under both 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1) and U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to become effective on
the date of publication of these actions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866;
     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 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because redesignation is an action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements
on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal
lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality
standards in tribal lands.
    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).
    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 September 8, 2020. 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 15, 2020.
Cheryl Newton,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends Title 40 CFR
parts 52 and 81 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. Section 52.2585 is amended by adding paragraph (ll) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2585  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (ll) Redesignation. Approval--On October 9, 2019, Wisconsin
submitted a request to redesignate the Inland Sheboygan County area to
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. As part of the
redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as
required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act. Elements of the section
175 maintenance plan include a contingency plan and an obligation to
submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in eight years as
required by the Clean Air Act. The ozone maintenance plan also
establishes 2020 and 2030 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for
the area. The 2020 MVEBs for the Inland Sheboygan County area are 0.65
tons per hot summer day for VOC and 1.16 tons per hot summer day for
NOX. The 2030 MVEBs for the Inland Sheboygan County area are
0.34 tons per hot summer day for VOC and 0.54 tons per hot summer day
for NOX.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Section 81.350, amend the table ``Wisconsin--2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry for ``Inland
Sheboygan County, WI'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.350  Wisconsin.

* * * * *

                                       Wisconsin--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation                           Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Date \1\              Type                Date \1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Inland Sheboygan County, WI \25\       7/10/2020  Attainment............
    Sheboygan County (part):
        Exclusive and west of
         the following roadways
         going from the northern
         county boundary to the
         southern county
         boundary: Highway 43,
         Wilson Lima Road,
         Minderhaud Road, County
         Road KK/Town Line Road,
         N 10th Street, County
         Road A S/Center Avenue,
         Gibbons Road, Hoftiezer
         Road, Highway 32,
         Palmer Road/Smies Road/
         Palmer Road, Amsterdam
         Road/County Road RR,
         Termaat Road.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\5\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2019 for both Inland Sheboygan County, WI, and Shoreline Sheboygan
  County, WI, nonattainment areas.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-13468 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45322-45324]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18163]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0514; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-027-AD;
Amendment 39-17925; AD 2014-16-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters, Inc., Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for MD
Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI), Model MD900 helicopters. This AD requires an
eddy current inspection of the main rotor upper hub assembly (upper
hub) for a crack and replacing the upper hub with an airworthy upper
hub before further flight if there is a crack. This AD is prompted by a
report of cracks on an upper hub at the blade attach holes. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to detect a crack in the upper hub to
prevent failure of the upper hub and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 20, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of August 20,
2014.
    We must receive comments on this AD by October 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any incorporated by reference
service information, the economic 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 service information identified in this AD, contact MD
Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell
Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734; telephone 1-800-388-3378; fax
480-346-6813; or at http://www.mdhelicopters.com. You may review the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Schrieber, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    We are adopting a new AD for MDHI Model MD900 helicopters. This AD
requires cleaning the upper hub and performing an eddy current
inspection of the upper hub for a crack. If there is a crack, this AD
requires replacing the upper hub with an airworthy upper hub before
further flight. This AD is prompted by a report that four cracks were
found at the blade attach holes on a high-time upper hub. This is the
first time a crack has been reported in an upper hub at this location
in the MD900 fleet. We are issuing this AD to detect a crack on the
upper hub, which if not corrected could result in failure of the upper
hub and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other helicopters of the same type
design.

Related Service Information

    MDHI has issued Service Bulletin SB900-122, dated April 8, 2014.
The service bulletin specifies a one-time visual inspection of the
upper hub for a crack and damage. If there is damage, the service
bulletin specifies replacing the upper hub with an airworthy upper hub.
If there are no visible cracks or damage, the service bulletin
specifies performing a one-time eddy current inspection. If there is a
crack, the service bulletin specifies removing the upper hub, tagging
it as unairworthy and returning it to MDHI, and replacing it with an
airworthy upper hub.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, within the next 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or
at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, cleaning the
upper hub inspection areas and eddy current inspecting the upper hub
for a crack. The eddy current inspection must be done by a level II or
higher technician with the National Aerospace Standard 410 or
equivalent certification who has performed an eddy current inspection
in the last 12 months. If there is a crack, before further flight, this
AD requires replacing the upper hub with an airworthy upper hub.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    This AD does not require you to contact the manufacturer, return a
cracked upper hub to the manufacturer, or do a visual inspection of the
upper hub, as does the service information.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 23 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. We estimate $85 for labor costs. We estimate 1 work hour to
do an eddy current inspection for a cost of $85 per helicopter and a
total fleet cost of $1,955. We estimate 11 work hours to replace an
upper hub with a required parts cost of $15,998 for a total cost of
$16,933 per helicopter.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments before adopting these
AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to
correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk
to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment before
adopting this rule because the required corrective actions must be done
within 25 hours TIS, which will be accumulated in about one month based
on the average flight-hour utilization rate of these helicopters that
are mostly used for emergency medical service.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice an opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to
the public interest and that good cause exists for making this
amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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 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, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-16-01 MD Helicopters, Inc.: Amendment 39-17925; Docket No. FAA-
2014-0514; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-027-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model MD900 helicopters, serial numbers 900-
00008 through 900-00140, with main rotor upper hub assembly (upper
hub) part number 900R2101006-105, -107, -109, or -111 installed,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a cracked upper hub.
This condition could result in failure of the upper hub and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 20, 2014.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    Within the next 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or at the next
annual inspection, whichever occurs first:
    (1) Clean each upper hub inspection area as shown in Figure 1 of
MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB900-122, dated April 8, 2014
(SB900-122).
    (2) Eddy current inspect the upper hub for a crack by following
the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 2.A.(3) through 2.A.(11)
of SB900-122. This eddy current inspection must be performed by a
Level II or higher technician with the National Aerospace Standard
410 or equivalent certification who has performed an eddy current
inspection within the last 12 months. If there is a crack, before
further flight, replace the upper hub with an airworthy upper hub.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Eric
Schrieber, Aviation Safety Engineer, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone
(562) 627-5348; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

 (g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220 Main Rotor
Head.

 (h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB900-122, dated April 8,
2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For MD Helicopters, Inc. service information identified in
this AD, contact MD Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer Support
Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734;
telephone 1-800-388-3378; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.mdhelicopters.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 24, 2014.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-18163 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36634-36635]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13321]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension: Form S-1, SEC File No. 270-058, OMB Control No. 3235-0065

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form S-1 (17 CFR 239.11) is used by domestic issuers who are not
eligible to use other forms to register a public offering of their
securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.).
The information collected is intended to ensure that the information
required to be filed by the Commission permits verification of
compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public
availability of such information. Form S-1 takes approximately 667
hours per response and is filed by approximately 901 respondents. We
estimate that 25% of the 667 hours per response (166.75 hours) is
prepared by the registrant for a total annual reporting burden of
150,242 hours (166.75 hours per response x 901 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    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 control number.

    Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 1, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13321 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 16, 2002

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2002-12983

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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:  LINEAS AEREAS AZTECA, S.A. de C.V.
                    Date Filed:  July 30, 2002

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to conduct scheduled, combination service between Guadalajara,
Mexico, and Chicago, Illinois.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority.

Applicant representative(s):  Pierre Murphy,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.			       			                              Action
date:  August 16, 2002

Effective dates of authority granted:  August 16, 2002, through August
16, 2003.

Basis for approval:  United States-Mexico Air Transport Services
Agreement

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

Special conditions/Remarks:

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.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp