[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7291-7292]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03367]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0352]

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Recreation Vehicle
Industry Association Application for Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; renewal of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA reaffirms its renewal of the Recreation Vehicle Industry
Association's (RVIA) exemption from the Federal commercial driver's
license (CDL) requirements for drivers who deliver certain newly
manufactured motorhomes and recreational vehicles (RV) to dealers or
trade shows before retail sale (driveaway operations). The FMCSA
announced its decision to renew RVIA's exemption on April 12, 2017,
pending a review of any comments received in response to that notice.
Three comments were submitted, none opposing the renewal. The Agency
has determined that RVIA's operations may continue in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the exemption renewal announced in April.
The Agency believes that drivers who qualify for the exemption will
maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the CDL
requirements.

DATES: This renewed exemption expires on April 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES:
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected]. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2014-0352 in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    The FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to renew
exemptions for up to 5 years if it finds that ``such exemption would
likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater
than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption'' (49
U.S.C. 31315(b)(1)). The FMCSA evaluated RVIA's application on its
merits and decided to renew the exemption from 49 CFR 383.91(a)(1)-(2)
for a 5-year period, as previously announced in the Federal Register on
April 12, 2017 (82 FR 17734).

III. Application for Renewal Exemption

    The RVIA requested renewal of an exemption from the CDL requirement
under 49 CFR 383.91(a)(1)-(2) to allow drivers engaged in driveaway
deliveries of RVs with gross vehicle weight ratings of 26,001 pounds or
more not be required to have a CDL as long as the empty RVs have gross
vehicle weights or gross combination weights that do not meet or exceed
26,001 pounds, and any RV trailers towed by other vehicles weigh 10,000
pounds or less. The initial exemption was granted on April 6, 2015 (80
FR 18493) and expired on April 6, 2017.

V. Public Comments

    On April 12, 2017, FMCSA published its decision to grant a 5-year
renewal (until 2022) of RVIA's original exemption, and asked for public
comment (82 FR 17734). Three comments supported the exemption renewal;
none opposed it. There were no opposing comments. Mr. Scott Munson in
collaboration with Mr. Jack Alexander wrote, ``We believe a change to
the wording of this regulation could add significant clarity to the
portion describing required weight ratings.''
    An anonymous commenter stated that ``This exemption should be
promulgated as an amendment to 49 CFR 383.3.''
    The American Truck Dealers Division of the National Automobile
Dealers Association (ATD) also commented. The ATD wrote, ``In lieu of
renewing the existing exemption, ATD petitions the FMCSA to issue a
direct final rule amending its CDL applicability regulation (49 CFR
383.3) to codify a permanent exception. In addition, ATD urges the
FMCSA to expand the exemption/exception to cover all new and empty CMVs
with actual unloaded (curb) weights or combination weights of less than
26,000 lbs. As with RVs, an expanded exemption/exception would be
limited to empty new vehicles, including trucks and tractors
transported from vehicle manufacturer or importer facilities and
holding areas to dealerships, and from dealerships to first
purchasers.''
    All comments are available for review in the docket for this
notice.

Response to Public Comments and Agency Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated the public comments, and affirms its
decision to renew the exemption. The RVs covered by the exemption all
have gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) above the 26,001-pound
threshold for a CDL, but their actual weights, i.e., their gross
vehicle weights (GVWs), will remain below that level during the
driveaway or towaway operation of these vehicles. The Agency has held
since 1993 that the CDL regulations do not apply to drivers of RVs,
``if the vehicle is used strictly for non-business purposes'' [Guidance
to Q. 3 under 49 CFR 383.3, 58 FR 60734, at 60735, Nov. 17, 1993;
posted on www.fmcsa.dot.gov]. For decades private owners and drivers of
larger RVs, like those addressed in this exemption, have operated
without CDLs, often at GVWs well above the 26,001-pound threshold,
without generating any concern among law enforcement professionals that
they pose a risk to highway safety. Furthermore, most private RV owners
almost certainly have less experience behind the wheel of the RV than
drivers employed specifically to deliver such vehicles to a dealer or
customer. While RVIA demonstrated that the manufacturers and dealers
who now employ CDL-holders in driveaway/towaway operations have a
recordable accident rate far below the level that

would require an unsatisfactory safety rating, the Agency's experience
with private RV owners suggests that the absence of a CDL would have no
discernible effect on safety. That is especially likely because the
drivers covered by this exemption are required to comply with all other
applicable safety regulations, including medical standards and hours-
of-service limits. The FMCSA continues to believe that it is
impracticable for these drivers to obtain a CDL with a representative
vehicle when the actual vehicle they will operate is an RV.
    With regard to ATD's recommendation to issue a direct final rule to
make this exception permanent, FMCSA does not believe such an action is
appropriate at this time.
    The Agency does not believe that drivers covered by this exemption
will experience any deterioration of their safety record.
    Unless exempt motor carriers fail to maintain the terms and
conditions specified in the April 12, 2017, decision, the exemption
will remain in effect through April 6, 2022.

    Issued on: February 6, 2018.
Cathy F. Gautreaux,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-03367 Filed 2-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 43697]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15762]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Membership in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group
Aviation Rulemaking Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: By Federal Register notice (See 81 FR 24686-24687, April 26,
2016) the National Park Service (NPS) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) invited interested persons to apply to fill one
current vacancy on the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group
(NPOAG) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). The notice invited
interested persons to apply to fill the opening to represent
environmental concerns. This notice informs the public of the person
selected to fill that current opening.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk, Special Programs Staff,
Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters,
P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was
enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181, and subsequently
amended in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Act
required the establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after
its enactment. The NPOAG was established in March 2001. The advisory
group is comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general
aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and
Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director
of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group.
Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-
year terms as chairman of the advisory group.
    In accordance with the Act, the advisory group provides ``advice,
information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the
Director--
    (1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the
amendments made by this title;
    (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in
commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands,
which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour
management plan;
    (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the
interests of visitors to national parks; and
    (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety,
environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour
operations over a national park or tribal lands.''

Membership

    The current NPOAG ARC is made up of one member representing general
aviation, three members representing the commercial air tour industry,
four members representing environmental concerns, and two members
representing Native American interests. Current members of the NPOAG
ARC are as follows:
    Melissa Rudinger representing general aviation; Alan Stephen, Matt
Zuccaro, and Mark Francis representing commercial air tour operators;
Mark Belles, Nicholas Miller, and Dick Hingson representing
environmental interests with one open seat; and Leigh Kuwanwisiwma and
Martin Begaye representing Native American tribes.

Selection

    The person selected to fill the current open seat representing
environmental concerns is Rob Smith. Mr Smith's 3-year terms will begin
on the publication date of this notice.

    Issued in Hawthorne, CA on June 27, 2016.
Keith Lusk,
Program Manager, Special Programs Staff, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-15762 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 38239]
[DOCID:fr03jy08-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1768-DR]

Wisconsin; Amendment No. 6 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 Wisconsin (FEMA-1768-DR), dated June 14, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 24, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, 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 Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of June 14, 2008.

    Adams, Calumet, Green Lake, Jefferson, La Crosse, and Walworth
Counties for Individual 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
Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-15127 Filed 7-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66473]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3592-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

California; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of California (FEMA-3592-EM), dated March 10, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued July 14, 2023.

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: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective July 10, 2023.

    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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-20984 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6615-6618]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2831]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66309; File No. SR-MSRB-2012-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Amendments to Rule G-14, on Reports of Sales
or Purchases, Including the Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures, and Amendments
to the Real-Time Transaction Reporting System

February 2, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on January 20, 2012, the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB is filing with the SEC a proposed rule change consisting
of amendments to Rule G-14, Reports of Sales or Purchases, including
the Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures, and amendments to the Real-Time
Transaction Reporting System (``RTRS'') information system and
subscription service (the ``RTRS Facility''; collectively, ``proposed
rule change''). The proposed changes to Rule G-14 would remove certain
outdated information. The proposed changes to the RTRS Facility would
(A) remove certain outdated information and amend certain definitions
to reflect current system operating hours and business days; (B) add an
RTRS-calculated yield to the information disseminated for inter-dealer
transactions; (C) remove certain infrequently used data reporting
requirements; (D) require dealers to submit dollar prices for certain
trades; and (E) reduce the number of customer trades suppressed from
dissemination because of potentially erroneous price/yield
calculations. The MSRB proposes that the proposed rule change be
implemented in three phases, as further described herein.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-

Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2012-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal
office, 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 MSRB 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 MSRB 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
    Amendments to Rule G-14, on Reports of Sales or Purchases, and Rule
G-14 RTRS Procedures. MSRB Rule G-14 requires brokers, dealers, and
municipal securities dealers (collectively, ``dealers'') to report
certain information about each purchase and sale transaction effected
in municipal securities to RTRS. Such transaction information is made
available to the public, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'') and certain federal bank regulatory agencies to
assist in the inspection for compliance with and enforcement of MSRB
rules. The reporting requirements are further outlined in Rule G-14
RTRS Procedures and the RTRS Users Manual.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures are included in the text of MSRB
Rule G-14, and the RTRS Users Manual is available on the MSRB Web
site at www.msrb.org. The RTRS Users Manual will be revised as
necessary to reflect the changes made by the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would amend Rule G-14 and the Rule G-14
RTRS Procedures to update certain references (such as references to the
National Association of Securities Dealers, the predecessor of FINRA);
eliminate certain provisions that are no longer relevant (such as
provisions relating to testing during the original RTRS start-up
period) or that, by their original terms, have expired; and conform
terms in certain definitions.
    Amendments to the RTRS Facility. The RTRS Facility provides for the
collection and dissemination of information about transactions
occurring in the municipal securities market, and requires dealers to
submit information about each purchase and sale transaction effected in
municipal securities. The proposed rule change would (A) remove certain
outdated information and reporting requirements and amend certain
definitions to reflect current system operating hours and business
days; (B) modify RTRS specifications to perform certain yield
calculations for inter-dealer transactions; (C) remove certain
infrequently used data reporting requirements; (D) require dealers to
submit dollar prices for certain trades; and (E) modify RTRS
specifications to reduce the number of trades suppressed from
dissemination because of erroneous price and yield calculations.
    Remove certain outdated information and conform definitions to
reflect current system operating hours and business days. The proposed
rule change would remove references throughout the text of the RTRS
Facility to prior amendments to Rule G-14, to certain testing
requirements and to the implementation plan relevant to the initial
phases of the RTRS system; update current hours of operation; conform
certain definitions to reflect such change; and make non-substantive
revisions to the language of certain portions of the RTRS Facility to
reflect the passage of time since its initial approval.
    Yields on inter-dealer transactions. Inter-dealer transaction
reporting is accomplished by both the purchasing and selling dealers
submitting information about the transaction to the DTCC's real-time
trade matching system (``RTTM''). Information submitted to RTTM is
forwarded to RTRS for trade reporting. For most inter-dealer
transactions, dealers report final money, par amount and accrued
interest to RTTM--as opposed to a dollar price and yield \4\ as is done
for customer trades--and RTRS computes a dollar price from these values
for inter-dealer transaction price dissemination.\5\ Currently, RTRS
does not compute a corresponding yield from the RTRS-computed dollar
price for dissemination, resulting in a disparity between what is
disseminated for inter-dealer and customer transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Dollar price and yield on customer transactions are required
to be computed in the same manner as required under MSRB Rule G-
15(a), on customer confirmations. Accordingly, from the transaction
dollar price, dealers report yield calculated to the lower of an in-
whole call feature or maturity.
    \5\ For transactions in new issue securities traded on a when,
as and if issued basis prior to the closing date being known,
dealers only report a dollar price or yield since a final money and
accrued interest calculation cannot be performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To facilitate yield-based comparisons of transaction data across
securities, the proposed rule change would cause RTRS to be
reprogrammed to perform this calculation so that a yield for most
inter-dealer transactions would be added to the information
disseminated from RTRS, thereby improving the usefulness of the inter-
dealer data disseminated to subscribers and displayed on the MSRB's
Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA[reg]) Web site.\6\ Since
EMMA[reg] is a subscriber to the RTRS real-time subscription service,
the yield disseminated for inter-dealer transactions also would be
displayed on EMMA[reg] in the same manner as it would be provided to
RTRS subscribers.\7\ This amendment to the RTRS Facility is reflected
in the changes under the heading ``Price Dissemination by RTRS--List of
Information Items to be Disseminated'' and ``MSRB Real-Time Transaction
Data Subscription Service--Description--Transaction Data Disseminated--
Yield (if applicable),'' and conforming changes to the RTRS Users
Manual will be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In addition to calculating and disseminating yield for
future inter-dealer transactions, amendments to RTRS specifications
would calculate and disseminate yields for historical inter-dealer
transactions in RTRS to the extent that such calculations can be
accurately performed.
    \7\ Since the RTRS subscription service already includes a field
for yield, no significant system changes should be necessary for
existing RTRS subscribers to receive yields on inter-dealer
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transaction reporting requirements. MSRB rules on transaction
reporting contain two requirements that were included in the original
design for RTRS in 2005 to provide additional details about certain
transactions for use in market surveillance. These requirements have
applied to few transactions, yet continue to generate questions from
dealers, and have provided only limited value for use in market
surveillance. The proposed rule change would revise the RTRS
specifications to remove these requirements.
    The first of these two requirements relates to inter-dealer
transactions and requires the identity of an ``intermediate dealer,''
or correspondent of a clearing broker that passes data to the clearing
broker about transactions effected by a third dealer (``effecting
dealer''), to be included on applicable trade reports. One of the
original purposes of having the intermediate dealer included in a trade
report was to assist market surveillance staff by having an additional
dealer associated with a transaction reported in the event that the
effecting dealer's identity was erroneously reported. However, few

transaction reports contain such an intermediate dealer and, since the
November 2009 enhancement to transaction reporting to add the effecting
broker to the matching criteria in RTTM, the identity of the effecting
dealer is rarely, if ever, erroneous. The proposed rule change would
delete the requirement for dealers to identify the intermediate dealer.
This amendment to the RTRS Facility is reflected by the deletion of the
penultimate paragraph under the heading ``RTRS Facility--Enhancement of
Information Available to Regulators,'' and conforming changes to the
RTRS Users Manual will be made.
    The second requirement applies to any transaction effected at a
price that substantially differs from the market price as a result of
the parties to the transaction agreeing to significantly deviate from a
normal settlement cycle. For such transactions, dealers are required to
include an identifier on the trade report that allows the trade report
to be entered into the RTRS audit trail yet suppressed from price
dissemination. Since a small number of transactions are reported with
this identifier, for example only .01% of trade reports were identified
with this indicator in August 2011, these transactions could be
reported using the generic ``away from market'' indicator used for
reporting any transaction at a price that differs from the current
market price for the security to simplify transaction reporting
requirements. Thus, concurrently with the elimination of the
intermediate dealer reporting requirement, the RTRS Users Manual would
be revised to delete the ``away from market--extraordinary settlement''
special condition indicator from RTRS and require that such
transactions be reported using the generic ``away from market''
indicator.
    Reporting dollar price for all inter-dealer transactions. RTRS
currently computes a dollar price for inter-dealer transactions using
the final money, par amount and accrued interest submitted to DTCC.
Since the information reported for inter-dealer transactions also is
used by DTCC for purposes of clearance and settlement, DTCC procedures
require dealers to report par value as an expression of the number of
bonds traded as opposed to the actual par amount traded. If the par
value of a security is no longer a $1,000 multiple because, for
example, the issuer has prepaid a portion of the principal on a
security on a pro rata basis, dealers continue to report for inter-
dealer transactions par value expressed as the number of bonds (i.e.
ten bonds would be reported as $10,000 par value). Transactions between
dealers in this security would result in erroneous RTRS-calculated
dollar prices since the final money reported by the dealers would be
based on a transaction in a security for which each bond costs less
than $1,000.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, if an issuer has prepaid 50% of the principal
on a $1,000 denominated security, each bond would cost $500 so a
transaction of 10 bonds at ``par'' would be reported with a par
value of $10,000 and final money of $5000 resulting in an RTRS-
computed dollar price of $50. This anomaly only occurs on inter-
dealer transactions since customer transactions are reported with a
dollar price and yield. In this example, the dollar price on a
customer transaction in this security would be reported as $100, or
100% of the principal amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since MSRB transaction reporting for inter-dealer transactions
began in 1994, a very small portion of inter-dealer transactions have
been in securities with a non-standard $1,000 par multiple.\9\ However,
primarily since many Build America Bonds issued in recent years
included partial call features with a pro-rata redemption provision,
there is a likelihood that many more securities may contain par values
that are no longer $1,000 multiples. In addition, there have been press
reports that more securities may be issued in nontraditional
denominations, such as securities issued in $25 par amounts similar to
preferred stock and other ``mini bonds'' with sub-$1,000 principal
values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Historically, this problem primarily has been limited to
transactions in certain municipal collateralized mortgage
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that the dollar price disseminated for inter-dealer
transactions remains accurate and to minimize the impact on dealer
operations as well as the clearance and settlement use of the data
submitted to DTCC, the MSRB proposes to require dealers to report--in
addition to the information currently reported for inter-dealer
transactions--the contractual dollar price at which the transaction was
executed.\10\ This amendment to the RTRS Facility is reflected in the
changes under the heading ``MSRB Real-Time Transaction Data
Subscription Service--Description--Transaction Data Disseminated--
Dollar Price,'' and conforming changes to the RTRS Users Manual will be
made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For data quality purposes, RTRS would compare the buy and
sell-side contractual dollar prices and return errors to dealers in
the event of a material difference between the two reported dollar
prices and continue to calculate a dollar price from the reported
final money, par value and accrued interest. Since the dealer
reported dollar price would not be used for clearance or settlement
at DTCC, this data field would be able to be modified in RTRS by
dealers to correct errors, even after trade matching had occurred.
In the event that the dollar prices disagree between dealers, RTRS
would disseminate the RTRS-calculated dollar price and if the dealer
reported dollar prices agree yet differ from the RTRS-calculated
dollar price (which would occur if the security par value is no
longer a $1,000 multiple) RTRS would disseminate the dealer reported
dollar price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increase dissemination of customer transactions. As described
above, dealer reports of customer transactions include both a dollar
price and yield. Depending on whether the transaction was executed on
the basis of a dollar price or yield, a corresponding value must be
computed and reported to RTRS by the dealer consistent with the
customer confirmation requirements so that the corresponding value
reflects a value to the lower of an in-whole call feature or maturity.
RTRS also computes the dollar price from the reported yield on customer
transactions using security descriptive information from the RTRS
security master as a data quality check to ensure that the reported
information is accurate. Currently, this data quality check returns an
error to dealers and suppresses the transaction from being disseminated
in the event that the dollar price computed by RTRS does not exactly
match the dollar price reported by the dealer. Dealers receiving this
error are required to review the information reported and, if
incorrect, modify the transaction information in RTRS. However, in some
cases, dealers submit correct information yet RTRS computes an
erroneous dollar price as a result of an error in the security
descriptive information used by RTRS.\11\
    In 2010, of those trades receiving this error, over 75% of the
reported dollar prices disagreed with the RTRS-calculated dollar price
by less than one dollar. To increase the number of customer
transactions disseminated, the proposed rule change would cause RTRS to
be reprogrammed to adjust the tolerance of the error code so that the
error would continue to be returned to dealers for customer
transactions where the reported dollar price disagrees with the RTRS
calculated price but allow the trade report to be disseminated so long
as the dealer and RTRS-calculated dollar prices are within $1 of each
other. Further, since the disseminated dollar price would be unable to
be exactly verified, RTRS would also be programmed to include with the
disseminated trade report an indicator that the dollar price of these
trades was unable to be verified. Thus, concurrently with the amendment
to require dollar price reporting for all inter-dealer transactions,
the RTRS

Users Manual would be revised to reflect these changes in programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In these cases, there is no action the dealer can take to
disseminate the trade report and, to ensure the integrity of RTRS,
the MSRB does not manually manipulate trade data or security
descriptive information to cause the trade to meet the criteria of
the error code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phased Effective Dates of Proposed Rule Change. The MSRB proposes
that the proposed rule change be implemented in three phases. Those
changes to Rule G-14, the Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures, and the RTRS
Facility removing outdated provisions and amending certain definitions,
as described above under the caption ``Amendments to the RTRS
Facility--Remove certain outdated information and conform definitions
to reflect current system operating hours and business days'', would be
made effective upon approval by the SEC. Those changes to the RTRS
Facility not requiring dealers to perform significant system changes,
as described above under the captions ``Amendments to the RTRS
Facility--Yields on inter-dealer transactions'' and ``Amendments to the
RTRS Facility--Transaction reporting requirements'', would be made
effective on April 30, 2012. Those changes to the RTRS Facility
requiring dealers and subscribers to the RTRS subscription service to
make significant system changes, as described above under the captions
``Amendments to the RTRS Facility--Reporting dollar price for all
inter-dealer transactions'' and ``Amendments to the RTRS Facility--
Increase dissemination of customer transactions'', would be made
effective on a date to be announced by the MSRB in a notice published
on the MSRB Web site, which date shall be no later than November 30,
2012 and shall be announced no later than 30 days prior to the
effective date thereof.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act, which provides that the
MSRB's rules shall:

be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, and, in general, to protect investors,
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal
securities by improving trade reporting and market transparency. The
proposed rule change would facilitate comparison of trade data across
securities and within data for a security, thereby contributing to
fairer pricing; improve the reliability and accuracy of price
information disseminated for inter-dealer transactions, and increase
the number of customer transactions disseminated to the market. These
changes would contribute to the MSRB's continuing efforts to improve
market transparency and to protect investors and the public interest.

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

    The MSRB 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 Exchange Act. The proposed rule change would be
applicable to all dealers and would be made effective over a period of
time, thereby allowing dealers sufficient time to make the necessary
changes to their systems. The improved reliability of inter-dealer
price information, the improved ability to compare prices, and the
increase in customer trades disseminated to the market would outweigh
any potential negative impact on dealers.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange 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-MSRB-2012-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2012-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the MSRB's offices. 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-MSRB-2012-01 and should be submitted on
or before February 29, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2012-2831 Filed 2-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57320-57321]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25977]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-423, OMB Control No. 3235-0472]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 15c1-6.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 15c1-6 (17 CFR
240.15c1-6) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.) (Exchange Act).
    Rule 15c1-6 states that any broker-dealer trying to sell to or buy
from a customer a security in a primary or secondary distribution in
which the broker-dealer is participating or is otherwise financially
interested must give the customer written notification of the broker-
dealer's participation or interest at or before completion of the
transaction. The Commission estimates that 394 respondents collect
information annually under Rule 15c1-6 and that

each respondent would spend approximately 10 hours annually complying
with the collection of information requirement (approximately 3,940
hours in aggregate).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: November 28, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25977 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 29491]
[DOCID:fr29my07-32]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-362-001]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance
Filing

May 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 15, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia Gas) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised sheet No. 283A,
with an effective date of April 26, 2007.
    Columbia states that the filing is being made in compliance with
the Commission's Order on April 25, 2007, in Docket No. RP07-362-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-10186 Filed 5-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


(Response) Regarding the proposals for alternate approaches
suggesting a threshold for trans fat in food or oils or suggesting that
FDA declare some uses of PHOs as GRAS, no comments provided evidence
that any uses of PHOs meet the GRAS standard, or evidence that would
establish a safe threshold exposure level. Further, although the intake
from such minor uses may be low, adequate data (e.g., specific
conditions of use, use level, trans fat content of the PHOs used) were
not provided so that intake from these uses could be estimated.
Therefore we are not setting a threshold for trans fat. If industry or
other interested individuals believe that safe conditions of use for
PHOs can be demonstrated, it or they may submit a food additive

petition or food contact notification to FDA for review.
    Interim food additive regulations are appropriate only when there
is a reasonable certainty that a substance is not harmful. See 21 CFR
180.1(a). As discussed throughout this section, the available
scientific evidence raises substantial concerns about the safety of
PHOs. Based on the currently available data and information, FDA cannot
conclude that there is a reasonable certainty that PHOs are not
harmful, nor did any comments provide information that would allow FDA
to establish conditions of safe use at this time. Therefore, an interim
food additive regulation would not be appropriate.
    (Comment 37) Several comments suggested various changes to our
labeling regulations to encourage industry to reformulate products to
contain less trans fat and help consumers reduce trans fat intake. In
addition, one comment stated that a 0 g trans fat declaration should
not be allowed on a label if a PHO is in the ingredient list. Some
comments indicated that a statement recommending that consumers limit
their intake of trans fat should be added to the Nutrition Facts Panel.
A few comments suggested we set a Daily Value for trans fat and
consider establishing disclosure or disqualifying levels of trans fat
for nutrient content and health claims. Many comments noted that the
risk of developing CHD is dependent on many factors, and therefore, the
association between intake of macronutrients, such as PHOs, and adverse
health outcomes is best addressed through nutrition labeling and
consumer education.
    (Response) FDA disagrees that labeling is the best approach to
address the use of PHOs because FDA has determined that PHOs are not
GRAS for any use in human food and therefore are food additives subject
to the requirement of premarket approval under section 409 of the FD&C
Act. Although we recognize that the requirement to label trans fat
content led to significant reduction in trans fat levels in products,
further changes to labeling are outside the scope of this
determination, which relates to ingredient safety.
    (Comment 38) Some comments suggested that we should work with
industry to encourage voluntary reductions in PHO use and to foster the
development of innovative hydrogenation technologies that produce PHOs
containing low levels of trans fat.
    (Response) FDA disagrees that a voluntary program is the best way
to remove PHOs from the food supply, given our conclusion on the GRAS
status of PHOs. FDA has determined that PHOs are not GRAS for any use
in human food. FDA agrees, however, that we should work with the food
industry to review new regulatory submissions or data as new
technologies and/or ingredients are developed that may serve as
alternatives to PHOs, and we will continue to do so.

V. Citizen Petitions

    As discussed in the tentative determination (78 FR 67169 at 67173),
we received two citizen petitions regarding the safety of PHOs. In
2004, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) submitted a
citizen petition (``CSPI citizen petition'' which can be found under
Docket No. FDA-2004-P-0279) requesting that we revoke the GRAS status
of PHOs, and consequently declare that PHOs are food additives. The
petition also asked us to revoke the safe conditions of use for
partially hydrogenated products that are currently considered food
additives,\3\ to prohibit the use of partially hydrogenated vegetable
oils that are prior sanctioned, and to initiate a program to encourage
manufacturers and restaurants to switch to more healthy oils (CSPI
citizen petition at pp. 3 through 5, 29 through 30). The CSPI citizen
petition excluded trans fat that occurs naturally in meat from ruminant
animals and dairy fats, and that forms during the production of non-
hydrogenated oils (Id. at pp. 2 through 3). It also did not include
FHOs, which contain negligible amounts of trans fat, and PHOs that may
be produced by new technologies that result in negligible amounts of
trans fat in the final product (Id. at p. 3). The CSPI citizen petition
stated that trans fat promotes CHD by increasing LDL-C and also by
lowering HDL-C, and therefore has greater adverse effects on serum
lipids (and possibly CHD) than saturated fats (Id., at pp. 15 through
18). The CSPI citizen petition also stated that, beyond its adverse
effects on serum lipids, trans fat may promote heart disease in
additional ways. Based on these findings, CSPI asserted that PHOs can
no longer be considered GRAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The petition from CSPI provided, as an example, partially
hydrogenated methyl ester of rosin, which is approved as a food
additive for use as a synthetic flavoring substance (32 FR 7946,
June 2, 1967; 21 CFR 172.515) and as a masticatory substance in
chewing gum base (29 FR 13894, October 8, 1964; 21 CFR 172.615).
Partially hydrogenated methyl ester of rosin is not a PHO as
discussed in section II; accordingly, this this substance is outside
the scope of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2009, Dr. Fred Kummerow submitted a citizen petition (``Kummerow
citizen petition,'' which can be found at Docket No. FDA-2009-P-0382)
requesting that we ban partially hydrogenated fat from the American
diet. The Kummerow citizen petition cited studies linking intake of IP-
TFA to the prevalence of CHD in the United States. The Kummerow citizen
petition also asserted that trans fat may be passed to infants via
breast milk and that the daily intake of trans fat related to the
health of children has been ignored since children do not exhibit overt
heart disease (Id. at p. 6). The Kummerow citizen petition further
stated that inflammation in the arteries is believed to be a risk
factor in CHD and studies have shown that trans fatty acids elicit an
inflammatory response (Id.).
    This order constitutes a response, in part, to the citizen
petitions. As discussed above in section III.C (response to Comment
10), we plan to amend the regulations regarding LEAR and menhaden PHOs
in a future action, and we will consider taking future action regarding
related regulations. As discussed in section III.B, we intend to
address any claims of prior sanction for specific uses of PHO in a
future action.

VI. Environmental Impact

    We have carefully considered the potential environmental effects of
this action. We have determined, under 21 CFR 25.32(m), that this
action ``is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment'' such that neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
    FDA received some comments on the tentative determination relating
to potential environmental impacts of removing PHOs from the human food
supply. We considered these comments in determining whether
extraordinary circumstances existed under 21 CFR 25.21. Our discussion
is contained in a review memorandum (Ref. 66).

VII. Economic Analysis

    This notice is not a rulemaking. It is a declaratory order under 5
U.S.C. 554(e) to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty. We have
prepared a memorandum updating our previous estimate published in the
November 2013 notice, using information available to us as well as
information we received during the comment period. We estimated the 20-
year costs and benefits of removing PHOs from the U.S. human food
supply, an outcome that could result from this order (Ref. 17). We
estimated the costs of all significant effects of the removal,
including

packaged food reformulation and relabeling, increased costs for
substitute ingredients, and consumer, restaurant, and bakery recipe
changes. We monetized the expected health gains from the removal of
PHOs from the food supply using information presented in FDA's safety
assessment (Ref. 17) and the peer-reviewed literature, and added this
to expected medical expenditure savings to determine the expected
benefits of this order.
    We estimate the net present value (NPV) (over 20 years; Table 2) of
quantified costs of this action to be $6.2 billion, with a 90 percent
confidence interval of $2.8 billion to $11 billion. We estimate the net
present value of 20 years of benefits to be $140 billion, with a 90
percent confidence interval of $11 billion to $440 billion. Expected
NPV of 20 years of net benefits (benefits reduced by quantified costs)
are $130 billion, with a 90 percent confidence interval of $5 billion
to $430 billion.

                            Table 2--Costs and Benefits of PHO Removal, USD Billions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  20-Year net present value of                     Low  Estimate       Mean       High  Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs *.........................................................            $2.8            $6.2             $11
Benefits........................................................              11             140             440
Net Benefits *..................................................               5             130             430
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This does not include some unquantified costs, see the economic estimate memo (Ref. 17) for discussion.

VIII. Compliance Date and Related Comments With FDA Responses

    We received numerous comments about the time needed to reformulate
products to remove PHOs should FDA make a final determination that PHOs
are not GRAS. We also received comments about challenges to
reformulation, specific product types that will be difficult to
reformulate, and effects on small businesses.
    (Comment 39) The comments recommended compliance dates ranging from
immediate to over 10 years. Several comments stated that fried foods
should have less time (i.e., 6 months) to phase out the use of PHOs.
One comment stated that if the use of low levels of PHOs were to remain
permissible by virtue of being GRAS or through food additive approval,
then the estimated time to reformulate would be 5 years; however, if
FDA does not authorize low level uses of PHOs, the timeline would need
to be 10 years. In general, the food industry urged FDA to provide
sufficient time for all companies to secure a supply of alternatives
and transition to new formulations. Some comments stated that FDA
should coordinate the compliance date with updates to the Nutrition
Facts Panel.
    Some comments stated that domestically grown oilseed crops must be
planted about 18 months prior to their expected usage in order for the
crop to be grown, harvested, stored, crushed, oil extracted, processed,
refined, delivered, and used in foods. One comment stated that the oil
industry will need a minimum of 3 years to fully commercialize the
various oils capable of replacing PHOs in food. A number of comments
stated that it could take several additional years to reformulate after
the development of the new oils.
    Several comments expressed concern about adequate availability of
alternative oils, especially palm oil. One comment stated that the food
industry would prefer to replace PHOs with domestically produced
vegetable oils (e.g., high-oleic soybean oil) rather than palm oil, but
time is needed to commercialize these options. Some comments stated
that sudden demand for palm oil would pose challenges for obtaining
sustainably-sourced palm oil, as the current market would likely not be
able to meet the demand.
    Other comments indicated that the time needed for removal of PHOs
is dependent on the product category. A number of comments indicated
that the baking industry will have difficulty replacing the solid
shortenings used in bakery products. Other comments indicated
difficulties in the categories of cakes and frostings, fillings for
candies, chewing gum, snack bars, and as a component of what the
comments termed minor use ingredients, such as for use in coatings,
anti-caking agents, encapsulates, emulsifiers, release agents, flavors,
and colors.
    Several comments indicated that other challenges to PHO removal
include the need for new transportation infrastructure (e.g.,
terminals, rail cars, barges, and storage facilities), packaging
changes, and disruption of international trade.
    A number of comments noted challenges faced by small businesses,
such as access to alternative oils, inability to compete for supply,
fewer resources to commit to research and development, and effect of
ingredient costs on growth of the business. Some comments noted that
small businesses represent a relatively small contribution to overall
IP-TFA intake. One comment recommended that we allow small businesses
an additional 2 years beyond the rest of industry. Another comment
stated that small businesses would need at least 5 years due to their
limitations in research and development expertise, inability to command
supply of scarce ingredients, and economic pressures of labeling
changes. A related comment requested that FDA take into consideration
the magnitude of private label products impacted. Other comments stated
that small businesses should not be given special consideration or
longer times for implementation.
    (Response) Based on our experience and on the changes we have
already seen in the market, we believe that 3 years is sufficient time
for submission and review and, if applicable requirements are met,
approval of food additive petitions for uses of PHOs for which industry
or other interested individuals believe that safe conditions of use may
be prescribed. For this reason, we are establishing a compliance date
for this order of June 18, 2018. We recognize that the use of PHOs in
the food supply is already declining and expect this to continue even
prior to the compliance date. Regarding the use of ``low levels'' of
PHOs, no comments provided a basis upon which we can currently conclude
that any use of PHO is GRAS (discussed in section IV). We recognize the
challenges faced by small businesses, however, considering our
determination that PHOs are not GRAS for any use in human food, we
conclude that providing 3 years for submission and review of food
additive petitions and/or food contact notifications is reasonable, and
will have the additional benefit of allowing small businesses time to
address these challenges. We understand the difficulties faced by small
businesses due to limited research and development resources and

potential challenges to gain timely access to suitable alternatives.
    The compliance date will have the additional benefit of minimizing
market disruptions by providing industry sufficient time to identify
suitable replacement ingredients for PHOs, to exhaust existing product
inventories, and to reformulate and modify labeling of affected
products. Three years also provides time for the growing, harvesting,
and processing of new varieties of edible oilseeds to meet the expected
demands for alternative oil products and to address the supply chain
issues associated with transition to new oils.
    (Comment 40) Several comments stated that how FDA defines PHOs and
FHOs will affect reformulation efforts and the time needed to
reformulate. These comments suggested it was unclear from the tentative
determination whether FHOs would be subject to this final
determination.
    (Response) As discussed in section II, we have defined PHOs, the
subjects of this order, as fats and oils that have been hydrogenated,
but not to complete or near complete saturation, and with an IV greater
than 4 as determined by an appropriate method. We have also defined
FHOs as those fats and oils that have been hydrogenated to complete or
near complete saturation, and with an IV of 4 or less, as determined by
an appropriate method. Thus, FHOs are outside the scope of this order
and there is no need to allow additional time for reformulation of
products containing FHO.

IX. Conclusion and Order

    As discussed in this document, for a substance to be GRAS, there
must be consensus among qualified experts based on generally available
information that the substance is safe under the intended conditions of
use. In accordance with the process set forth in FDA's regulations in
Sec.  170.38, FDA has determined that there is no longer a consensus
that PHOs, the primary source of industrially-produced trans fat, are
generally recognized as safe for use in human food, based on current
scientific evidence discussed in section IV.B regarding the health
risks associated with consumption of trans fat. FDA considers this
order a partial response to the citizen petitions from CSPI and Dr.
Kummerow.

X. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. (FDA
has verified the Web site addresses in this reference section, but we
are not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after
this document publishes in the (Federal Register.)

1. Tarrago-Trani, M., K. M. Philips, L. E. Lemar, et al.,``New and
Existing Oils and Fats Used in Products With Reduced Trans-Fatty
Acid Content,'' Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
106:867-877, 2006.
2. Kodali, D. R. and G. R. List, Eds., Trans Fats Alternatives, AOCS
Press, Champaign, IL, p. 34-35, 2005.
3. USDA National Nutrition Database for Standard Reference, Release
23, 2010; http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8964.
4. Kodali, D. R. and G. R. List, Eds., Trans Fats Alternatives, AOCS
Press, Champaign, IL, pp. 4, 2005.
5. Memorandum from J. Park to M. Honigfort, August 10, 2005.
6. Memorandum from J. Park to M. Honigfort, August 19, 2010.
7. IOM/NAS, ``Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy Carbohydrate,
Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients),''
chapters 8 and 11, National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2002/
2005; http://www.nap.edu.
8. American Heart Association, http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Trans-Fats_UCM_301120_Article.jsp.
9. Eckel, R.H., S. Borra, A.H. Lichtenstein, et al., ``Understanding
the Complexity of Trans Fatty Acid Reduction in the American Diet,''
Circulation, 115:2220-2235, 2007.
10. Kris-Etherton, P. M., S. Innis, ``Position of the American
Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Dietary Fatty
Acids,'' Journal of the American Dietetic Association, pp. 1599-
1611, 2007.
11. WHO, ``Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Disease,''
Technical Series Report 916, pp. 81-85, Geneva, 2003.
12. USDA and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, 2005, 6th ed., pp. 29-34, Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, January 2005.
13. USDA and HHS, Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, 7th ed.,
pp. 24-27, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December
2010.
14. HHS/FDA/Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Food
Advisory Committee, Nutrition Subcommittee Meeting, Total Fat and
Trans Fat, April 27-28, 2004.
15. Dietz, W. H. and K. S. Scanlon, ``Eliminating the Use of
Partially Hydrogenated Oil in Food Production and Preparation,''
Journal of the American Medical Association, 108:143-144, 2012.
16. Memorandum from D. Doell, D. Folmer, and H. Lee to M. Honigfort,
June 11, 2015.
17. Memorandum from R. Bruns to M. Honigfort, June 11, 2015.
18. Memorandum from J. Park to M. Honigfort, Scientific Update on
Experimental and Observational Studies of Trans Fat Intake and
Coronary Heart Disease Risk, June 11, 2015.
19. IOM, ``Evaluation of Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints in
Chronic Disease'', Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2010.
20. Rasnake, C. M., P. R. Trumbo, and T. M. Heinonen, ``Surrogate
Endpoints and Emerging Surrogate Endpoints for Risk Reduction of
Cardiovascular Disease,'' Nutrition Reviews, 66:76-81, 2008.
21. Baigent C., A. Keech, P. M. Kearney, et al., ``Efficacy and
Safety of Cholesterol-lowering Treatment: Prospective Meta-analysis
of Data from 90,056 Participants in 14 Randomised Trials of
Statins,'' Lancet, 366:1267-1278, 2005.
22. Lewington S., G. Whitlock, R. Clarke, et al., ``Blood
Cholesterol and Vascular Mortality by Age, Sex, and Blood Pressure:
A Meta-analysis of Individual Data from 61 Prospective Studies with
55,000 Vascular Deaths,'' Lancet, 370:1829-1839, 2007.
23. Memorandum from J. Park to M. Honigfort, Literature Review, June
11, 2015.
24. Kiage J. N., P. D. Merrill, S. E. Judd, et al., ``Intake of
Trans Fat and Incidence of Stroke in the Reasons for Geographic And
Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Cohort,'' American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 99:1071-1076, 2014.
25. Memorandum from J. Park to M. Honigfort, Quantitative Estimate
of Industrial Trans Fat Intake and Coronary Heart Disease Risk, June
11, 2015.
26. Mozaffarian, D. and R. Clarke, ``Quantitative Effects on
Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Coronary Heart Disease Risk of
Replacing Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils With Other Fats and
Oils,'' European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 63:S22-S33, 2009.
27. Go A. S., Mozaffarian, D., Roger, V. L., et al., on behalf of
the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke
Statistics Subcommittee, ``Executive Summary: Heart Disease and
Stroke Statistics--2014 Update: A Report from the American Heart
Association,'' Circulation, 129:399-410, 2014.
28. Lefevre, M., R. P. Mensink, P. M. Kris-Etherton, et al.,
``Predicted Changes in Fatty Acid Intakes, Plasma Lipids, and
Cardiovascular Disease Risk Following Replacement of Trans Fatty
Acid-Containing Soybean Oil with Application-Appropriate
Alternatives,'' Lipds, 47:951-962, 2012.
29. Mozaffarian, D., M. F. Jacobson, J. S. Greenstein, ``Food
Reformulations to Reduce Trans Fatty Acids'' [Letter to the editor],
New England Journal of Medicine, 362:2037-2039, 2010.
30. Brouwer, I. A., A. J. Wanders, M. B. Katan, ``Effect of Animal
and Industrial Trans Fatty Acids on HDL and LDL Cholesterol Levels
in Humans--A

Quantitative Review,'' PLoS One, 5(3):e9434, 2010.
31. Ascherio, A., M. B. Katan, P. L. Zock, et al., ``Trans Fatty
Acids and Coronary Heart Disease,'' New England Journal of Medicine,
340:1994-1998, 1999.
32. Zock, P. L., M. B. Katan, and R. P. Mensink, ``Dietary Trans
Fatty Acids and Lipoprotein Cholesterol'' [Letter to the editor],
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61:617, 1995.
33. Mensink, R. P., P. L. Zock, A. D. Kester, et al., ``Effects of
Dietary Fatty Acids and Carbohydrates on the Ratio of Serum Total to
HDL Cholesterol and on Serum Lipids and Apolipoproteins: A Meta-
Analysis of 60 Controlled Trials,'' American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 77:1146-1155, 2003.
34. Mozaffarian, D., M. B., Katan, A. Asherio, et al., ``Trans Fatty
Acids and Cardiovascular Disease,'' New England Journal of Medicine,
354:1601-1613, 2006.
35. Dourson, M. ``Mode of Action and Dose-Response Evaluation of the
Effect of Partially Hydrogenated Oils on LDL-Cholesterol,''
Presented at the SOT FDA Colloquia on Emerging Toxicological Science
Challenges in Food and Ingredient Safety, November 7, 2014.
36. National Research Council, Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk
Assessment, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009; http://www.nap.edu).
37. Keys, A., J. T. Anderson, F. Grande, ``Serum Cholesterol
Response to Changes in the Diet: I. Iodine Value of Dietary Fat
Versus 2S-P,'' Metabolism, 14:747-758, 1965.
38. Hegsted, D. M., R. B. McGandy, M. L. Myers, et al.,
``Quantitative Effects of Dietary Fat on Serum Cholesterol in Man,''
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 17:281-295, 1965.
39. Keys, A. and R. W. Parlin, ``Serum Cholesterol Response to
Changes in Dietary Lipids,'' American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
19:175-181, 1966.
40. Page, I. H., E. V. Allen, F. L. Chamberlain, et al., ``Dietary
Fat and Its Relation to Heart Attacks and Strokes,'' Circulation,
23:133-136, 1961.
41. Clarke, R., C. Frost, R. Collins, et al. ``Dietary Lipids and
Blood Cholesterol: Quantitative Meta-Analysis of Metabolic Ward
Studies,'' BMJ, 314:112-117, 1997.
42. Mensink R. P. and M. B. Katan, ``Effect of Dietary Fatty Acids
on Serum Lipids and Lipoproteins. A Meta-Analysis of 27 Trials,''
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 12:911-919,
1992.
43. Reeves, R. M., ``Effect of Dietary Trans Fatty Acids on
Cholesterol Levels'' [Letter to the editor], New England Journal of
Medicine, 324:338-339, 1991.
44. Katan M. B., P. L. Zock, R. P. Mensink, ``Trans Fatty Acids and
their Effects on Lipoproteins in Humans,'' Annual Review of
Nutrition, 15:473-493, 1995.
45. Zock P. L. and R. P. Mensink, ``Dietary Trans-Fatty Acids and
Serum Lipoproteins in Humans,'' Current Opinion in Lipidology, 7:34-
37, 1996.
46. Oh, K., F. B. Hu, J. E. Manson, et al., ``Dietary Fat Intake and
Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women: 20 Years of Follow-up of
the Nurses' Health Study,'' American Journal of Epidemiology,
161:672-679, 2005.
47. Ascherio A., E. B. Rimm, E. L. Giovannucci, et al., ``Dietary
Fat and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Men: Cohort Follow Up
Study in the United States,'' BMJ, 313:84-90, 1996.
48. Willett W. C., M. J. Stampfer, J. E. Manson, et al., ``Intake of
Trans Fatty Acids and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease Among Women,''
Lancet, 341:581-585, 1993.
49. Hu, F. B., M. J. Stampfer, J. E. Manson, et al., ``Dietary Fat
Intake and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women,'' New
England Journal of Medicine, 337:1491-1499, 1997.
50. Pietinen, P., A. Ascherio, P. Korhonen, et al., ``Intake of
Fatty Acids and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in a Cohort of
Finnish Men. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention
Study,'' American Journal of Epidemiology, 145:876-887, 1997.
51. Oomen, C. M., M. C. Ocke, E. J. Feskens, et al., ``Association
Between Trans Fatty Acid Intake and 10-year Risk of Coronary Heart
Disease in the Zutphen Elderly Study: A Prospective Population-Based
Study,'' Lancet, 357:746-751, 2001.
52. Mozaffarian D., A. Aro, W. C. Willett, ``Health Effects of
Trans-fatty Acids: Experimental and Observational Evidence,''
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 63:S5-21, 2009.
53. Skeaff C. M. and J. Miller, ``Dietary Fat and Coronary Heart
Disease: Summary of Evidence from Prospective Cohort and Randomised
Controlled Trials,'' Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism, 55:173-201,
2009.
54. Bendsen N. T., R. Christensen, E. M. Bartels, et al.,
``Consumption of Industrial and Ruminant Trans Fatty Acids and Risk
of Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of
Cohort Studies,'' European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 65:773-
783, 2011.
55. Chowdhury R., S. Warnakula, S. Kunutsor, et al., ``Association
of Dietary, Circulating, and Supplement Fatty Acids with Coronary
Risk. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,'' Annals of Internal
Medicine, 160:398-406, 2014.
56. Trumbo, P. R. and T. Shimakawa, ``Tolerable Upper Intake Levels
for Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, and Cholesterol,'' Nutrition Reviews,
69:270-278, 2011.
57. Willett W. C., ``Dietary Fats and Coronary Heart Disease,''
Journal of Internal Medicine, 272:13-24, 2012.
58. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, ``Lifestyle
Interventions to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk: Systematic Evidence
Review From the Lifestyle Work Group,'' Bethesda, MD: HHS, National
Institutes of Health, 2013 (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/lifestyle).
59. Burlingame B., C. Nishida, R. Uauy, et al., ``Fats and Fatty
Acids in Human Nutrition: Introduction,'' Annals of Nutrition &
Metabolism, 55:5-7, 2009.
60. Uauy, R., A. Aro, R. Clarke, et al., ``WHO Scientific Update on
Trans Fatty Acids: Summary and Conclusions,'' European Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 63: S68-S75, 2009.
61. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
and WHO, Fats and Fatty Acids in Human Nutrition. Report of an
Expert Consultation. Rome: FAO; 2010.
62. Eckel, R. H., J. M. Jakicic, J. D. Ard, et al. ``2013 AHA/ACC
Guideline on Lifestyle Management to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk: A
Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart
Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines,'' Circulation,
129:S76-S99, 2014.
63. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), ``Opinion of the
Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies on a
Request from the Commission Related to the Presence of Trans Fatty
Acids in Foods and the Effect on Human Health of the Consumption of
Trans Fatty Acids,'' EFSA Journal, 81:1-49, 2004.
64. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Report of the Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee on Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
2005, Washington, DC: HHS, 2005; http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/default.htm.
65. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Report of the Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee on Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
2010, Washington, DC: USDA, Agricultural Research Service, 2010;
http://origin.www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.htm.
66. Memorandum from M. Pfeil to M. Honigfort, June 11, 2015.

    Dated: June 12, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-14883 Filed 6-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3209-3210]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00872]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0319]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Guidance for Industry and Food and
Drug Administration Staff on Dear Health Care Provider Letters:
Improving Communication of Important Safety Information

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing

that a collection of information entitled ``Guidance for Industry and
Food and Drug Administration Staff on Dear Health Care Provider
Letters: Improving Communication of Important Safety Information'' has
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 13, 2012, the Agency submitted
a proposed collection of information entitled ``Guidance for Industry
and Food and Drug Administration Staff on Dear Health Care Provider
Letters: Improving Communication of Important Safety Information'' to
OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has
assigned OMB control number 0910-0754. The approval expires on December
31, 2016. A copy of the supporting statement for this information
collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: January 13, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-00872 Filed 1-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63015-63017]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24712]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 34 and 45

[Docket No.: FAA-2012-1333; Amendment No. 34-5A]
RIN 2120-AK15

Exhaust Emissions Standards for New Aircraft Gas Turbine Engines
and Identification Plate for Aircraft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is making technical changes to a final rule published
in the Federal Register on December 31, 2012. That final rule amended
the emission standards for certain turbine engine powered airplanes to
incorporate the standards promulgated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June 18, 2012. The final rule
contained six minor technical errors: One in the authority citation,
and five

in tables listing the emissions standards for engines manufactured on
and after July 18, 2012. In addition, we are correcting an error in a
definition that existed before the final rule and was overlooked. The
FAA is issuing this technical amendment to correct these errors.

DATES: This amendment is effective October 23, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Aimee Fisher, Emissions Division (AEE-300), Office
of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
7705; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action contact Karen Petronis,
International Law, Legislation and Regulations Division (AGC-200),
Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3073, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7571)
directs the Administrator of the EPA to propose aircraft emission
standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from classes
of aircraft engines which, in the EPA Administrator's judgment, causes
or contributes to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. These emission standards have been
promulgated by the EPA in 40 CFR part 87.
    Section 232 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7572) then directs the FAA to
prescribe regulations to ensure compliance with the EPA's standards.
The FAA has promulgated these emission standards in 14 CFR part 34, and
in the engine marking requirements in part 45.
    The EPA initially regulated gaseous exhaust emissions, smoke and
fuel venting from aircraft in 1973, with occasional revision. Since the
EPA's adoption of the initial regulations, the FAA has taken subsequent
action to ensure that the regulations in 14 CFR are kept current with
the EPA's standards.
    On July 27, 2011, the EPA proposed new aircraft engine emission
standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOX), compliance
flexibilities, and other regulatory requirements for aircraft turbofan
or turbojet engines with rated thrusts greater than 26.7 kilonewtons
(kN) (76 FR 45012). The EPA also proposed adopting the gas turbine
engine test procedures of the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO). The final rule adopting these proposals was published on June
18, 2012 (77 FR 36342), and was effective July 18, 2012.
    On December 31, 2012, the FAA published a final rule with a request
for comments (77 FR 76842) adopting the EPA's new emissions standards
in part 34. Although the EPA's NPRM presented an opportunity to comment
on the proposed regulations and the EPA addressed them in its final
rule, the FAA sought public comment on its final rule.
    The FAA received three comments on the final rule. Concurrent with
the publication of this technical amendment, the FAA is publishing a
disposition of comments to address the comments received. No changes
are being made to the final rule based on those comments, and the
comments did not affect the corrections adopted here.

Discussion of Technical Amendments

1. Authority Citation

    In the amendatory language of the final rule, we inadvertently
changed the authority citation for section 34 by replacing the
semicolon after ``42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 7572'' with the letter ``1.''
No change to the authority citation was intended. We are correcting
this error and returning the authority citation to what was in place
prior to the final rule.

2. Sec.  34.1--Definitions

    In the definition of ``Standard day conditions,'' the value for
``specific humidity'' is incorrectly listed as ``0.00 kg
H2O/kg dry air.'' The correct value is ``0.00634 kg
H2O/kg dry air.'' This error has existed in Sec.  34.1 for
some time, and the FAA is unable to determine when this error was
introduced. In contrast, the EPA's rule correctly defines the term.
    The FAA can find no evidence that the existence of this error has
caused any significant adverse impact on engine manufacturers. These
manufacturers have been using the EPA's definition to establish
compliance with the exhaust emission requirements. However, any
inconsistency between the regulations of the EPA and the FAA could
cause confusion. The FAA intended to correct this error in the final
rule, but inadvertently left this change out.
    Since this correction is not expected to impose any additional
burden on the manufacturers subject to these regulations, the FAA is
adopting this change in this document.

3. Sec.  34.23--Exhaust Emission Standards for Engines Manufactured On
and After July 18, 2012

    In Sec.  34.23, there are two tables that were published with
errors that create inconsistencies with similar tables in the EPA's
rule. In the NPRM, the FAA stated its intent to adopt the standards
promulgated by the EPA. The FAA is correcting these errors.
    A table in Sec.  34.23(a)(2) entitled ``Tier 6 Oxides of Nitrogen
Emission Standards for Subsonic Engines'' was published with two errors
in the column labeled ``Rated output rO (kN).'' The FAA is correcting
these errors as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Current language                        Correction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.7 < rO < 89.0.....................  26.7 < rO <= 89.0.
rO > 89.0............................  No change.
26.7 < rO <= 89.0....................  No change.
rO > 89.0............................  No change.
All..................................  rO >= 26.7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  34.23(b)(1), the table entitled ``Tier 8 Oxides of
Nitrogen Emission Standards for Subsonic Engines'' was published with
three errors in the column labeled ``Rated output rO (kN).'' The FAA is
correcting these errors as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Current language                        Correction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.7 < rO < 89.0.....................  26.7 < rO <= 89.0.
rO > 89.0............................  No change.
26.7 < rO < 89.0.....................  26.7 < rO <= 89.0.
rO > 89.0............................  No change.
All..................................  rO >= 26.7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 34

    Air pollution control, Aircraft.

The Amendments

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends Chapter I of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
as follows:

PART 34--FUEL VENTING AND EXHAUST EMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR TURBINE
ENGINE POWERED AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 34 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g),
40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44714.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Amend Sec.  34.1 by revising the definition for ``Standard day
conditions'' to read as follows:

Sec.  34.1  Definitions.

* * * * *

    Standard day conditions means the following ambient conditions:
temperature = 15 [deg]C, specific humidity = 0.00634 kg H2O/
kg dry air, and pressure = 101.325 kPa.
* * * * *

Subpart C--Exhaust Emissions (New Aircraft Gas Turbine Engines)

0
3. Amend Sec.  34.23 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(1) to read
as follows:

Sec.  34.23  Exhaust Emission Standards for Engines Manufactured on and
after July 18, 2012.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  34.9(b) and 34.21(c), for
Classes TF, T3 and T8 engines manufactured on and after July 18, 2012,
and for which the first individual production model was manufactured on
or before December 31, 2013 (Tier 6):

                        Tier 6 Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Standards for Subsonic Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Rated pressure ratio--
               Class                           rPR            Rated output rO (kN)            NOX (g/kN)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF, T3, T8.........................  rPR <= 30.............  26.7 < rO <= 89.0.....  38.5486 + 1.6823 (rPR) -
                                                                                0.2453 (rO) - (0.00308
                                                                                (rPR) (rO)).
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
                                                             rO > 89.0.............  16.72 + 1.4080 (rPR).
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     30 < rPR < 82.6.......  26.7 < rO <= 89.0.....  46.1600 + 1.4286 (rPR) -
                                                                                0.5303 (rO) + (0.00642
                                                                                (rPR) (rO)).
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             rO > 89.0.............  -1.04 + 2.0 (rPR).
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
                                     rPR >= 82.6...........  rO > 26.7.............  32 + 1.6 (rPR).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) For Classes TF, T3 and T8 engines of a type or model of which
the first individual production model was manufactured after December
31, 2013 (Tier 8):

                        Tier 8 Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Standards for Subsonic Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Rated pressure ratio--
               Class                           rPR            Rated output rO  (kN)          NOX  (g/kN)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF, T3, T8.........................  rPR <= 30.............  26.7 < rO <= 89.0.....  40.052 + 1.5681 (rPR) -
                                                                                0.3615 (rO) - (0.0018
                                                                                (rPR) (rO)).
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
                                                             rO > 89.0.............  7.88 + 1.4080 (rPR).
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     30 < rPR < 104.7......  26.7 < rO <= 89.0.....  41.9435 + 1.505 (rPR) -
                                                                                0.5823 (rO) + (0.005562
                                                                                (rPR) (rO)).
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
                                                             rO > 89.0.............  -9.88 + 2.0 (rPR).
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     rPR >= 104.7..........  rO >= 26.7............  32 + 1.6 (rPR).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Issued under authority of 49 U.S.C. 106 and section 232 of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7571) in Washington, DC, on October 1,
2013.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-24712 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P