[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37015-37017]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-FAA-2021-0583; Special Conditions No. FAA-2021-0583-F]

Special Conditions: Archeion Holdings, LLC, Boeing Model No. 777-
200/-200LR/-300/-300ER Series Airplanes; Electronic-System Security
Protection From Unauthorized Internal Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model No.
777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes. These airplanes, as
modified by Archeion Holdings, LLC (Archeion), will have a novel or
unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category
airplanes. This design feature is a digital systems architecture for
the installation of a system with wireless network and hosted
application functionality that allows access, from sources internal to
the airplane, to the airplane's internal electronic components. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Archeion on July 14, 2021. Send
comments on or before August 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2021-0583 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as
described in the following paragraph, and other information as
described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received
without change to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing
each substantive verbal contact received about this proposal.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this Notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this Notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and the indicated comments
will not be placed in the public docket of this Notice. Submissions
containing CBI should be sent to Varun Khanna, Airplane and Flight Crew
Interface Section, AIR-622, Aircraft Information Systems, Technical
Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-
3159; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments the FAA receives, which are
not specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Varun Khanna, Airplane and Flight Crew
Interface Section, AIR-622, Aircraft Information Systems, Technical
Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-
3159; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in
several prior instances with no substantive comments received.
Therefore, the FAA finds, pursuant to 14 CFR 11.38(b), that new
comments are unlikely and prior public notice and comment are
unnecessary.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for
comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the
comments received.

Background

    On July 14, 2020, Archeion applied for a change to Type Certificate
No.

T00001SE for the installation of an Avionica avWIFI system with
wireless network and hosted application functionality in Boeing Model
777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes. These airplanes, currently
approved under Type Certificate No. T00001SE, are twin-engine,
transport category airplanes, with a maximum takeoff weight between
535,000 lbs and 775,000 lbs pounds, and a maximum passenger capacity of
550 persons.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Archeion must show that the Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-
300/-300ER series airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the
applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No.
T00001SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed
upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-
300ER series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature,
special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
these special conditions would also apply to the other model under
Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series
airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission
requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements
of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

    The Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes will
incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
    A digital systems architecture for the installation of a system
with wireless network and hosted application functionality that allows
access, from sources internal to the airplane, to the airplane's
internal electronic components.

Discussion

    The digital systems architecture for the installation of an
Avionica avWIFI system with wireless network and hosted application
functionality on these Boeing Model 777 airplanes is a novel or unusual
design feature for transport category airplanes because it is composed
of several connected networks. This proposed network architecture is
used for a diverse set of airplane functions, including:
     Flight-safety related control and navigation systems,
     airline business and administrative support, and
     passenger entertainment.
    The airplane control domain and airline information-services domain
of these networks perform functions required for the safe operation and
maintenance of the airplane. Previously, these domains had very limited
connectivity with other network sources. This network architecture
creates a potential for unauthorized persons to access the aircraft
control domain and airline information-services domain from sources
internal to the airplane, and presents security vulnerabilities related
to the introduction of computer viruses and worms, user errors, and
intentional sabotage of airplane electronic assets (networks, systems,
and databases) critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.
    The existing FAA regulations did not anticipate these networked
airplane system architectures. Furthermore, these regulations and the
current guidance material do not address potential security
vulnerabilities, which could be exploited by unauthorized access to
airplane networks, data buses, and servers. Therefore, these special
conditions ensure that the security (i.e., confidentiality, integrity,
and availability) of airplane systems will not be compromised by
unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections from within the
airplane. These special conditions also require the applicant to
provide appropriate instructions to the operator to maintain all
electronic-system safeguards that have been implemented as part of the
original network design so that this feature does not allow or
reintroduce security threats.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes. Should
Archeion apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to
modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. T00001SE to
incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes. It is not
a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-
300ER series airplanes, as modified by Archeion Holdings, LLC, for
airplane electronic-system security protection from unauthorized
internal access.
    (a) The applicant must ensure that the design provides isolation
from, or airplane electronic-system security protection against, access
by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must
prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts
upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, or other assets required
for safe flight and operations.
    (b) The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow
the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the aircraft is
maintained, including all post type certification modifications that
may have an impact on the approved electronic-system security
safeguards.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 7, 2021.
Mary A. Schooley,
Acting Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-14975 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 12810]
[DOCID:fr17mr10-119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Marquette Rail, LLC

[Docket Number FRA-2008-0081]

    The Marquette Rail, LLC, has submitted a waiver request to permit
field testing of the software-based dispatch system for low density
lines identified as TrackAccess System. The waiver request addresses
the requirements under 49 CFR 211.51.
    TrackAccess is an electronic track occupancy system similar to the
conventional block register. It is designed to protect the area of
exclusive track occupancy given to roadway workers or train crew
members by excluding the possibility of electronic issuance of
conflicting track occupancy authorities. TrackAccess aims to reduce the
potential for human errors associated with issuance of track occupancy
authorities to roadway workers and train crews by the dispatcher. In
its autonomous mode of operation, the TrackAccess System assumes
electronic delivery of track occupancy authorities to roadway workers
and train crews.
    Marquette Rail, LLC, desires to commence field testing of the
product on or about March 1, 2010, or as soon thereafter as
practicable, contingent upon FRA's acceptance and approval of this
waiver request. Marquette Rail, LLC, is requesting a petition of
regulatory relief from the following Federal regulation: 49 CFR
214.321(a)(1) Exclusive Track Occupancy.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2008-0081) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 30 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 2010.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-5752 Filed 3-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3126-3127]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00968]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL16-6-001, ER16-121-000]

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Technical Conference

    By order dated December 28, 2015,\1\ the Commission directed its
staff to convene a technical conference in this proceeding, based on
its finding that the issues raised by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM)
in its filing, regarding the allocation of Auction Revenue Rights (ARR)
and Financial Transmission Rights (FTR), required the development of a
more complete record. As directed by the December 28 Order, the
technical conference will focus on whether PJM's existing ARR/FTR
tariff provisions are unjust and unreasonable and whether PJM's
proposed revisions to its tariff addressing these matters are just and
reasonable. As further specified by the Commission, issues to be
addressed at the technical conference will include, but are not limited
to: (i) PJM's ARR modeling and allocation processes; (ii) treatment of
portfolio positions in allocating underfunding or surplus among FTR
holders and the potential for market manipulation; and (iii) balancing
congestion in ARR/FTR product design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 153 FERC ] 61,344 (2015)
(December 28 Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that the technical conference will be held on February
4, 2016, in the Commission Meeting Room, at 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, between 9:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard
Time).\2\ The Chairman and Commissioners may attend and participate in
the technical conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ If the technical conference cannot be held on February 4,
2016 due to unavoidable circumstances, including inclement weather,
February 9, 2016 is reserved as the back-up date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The technical conference will be led by Commission staff. All
interested participants are invited to attend, and participants who
wish to contribute are invited to nominate themselves to speak at the
conference by contacting a member of the staff listed below and

submitting a speaker nomination form.\3\ Due to time constraints, we
may not be able to accommodate all those interested in speaking.
Further details and a formal agenda will be issued prior to the
technical conference. The technical conference will be open for the
public to attend. Advanced registration is not required, but we
encourage those planning to attend the conference to register through
the Commission's Web site.\4\ We will provide nametags for those who
register on or before January 28, 2016. Attendees should allow time to
pass through building security procedures before the 9:30 a.m. (EST)
start time of the technical conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The speaker nomination form is located at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/02-04-16-speaker-form.asp.
    \4\ The registration form is located at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/02-04-16-form.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information regarding the technical conference will be posted on
the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site, prior to the
event.\5\ The technical conference will also be webcast, via the
Calendar of Events, and transcribed. Transcripts will be available for
a fee from Ace-Federal Reports, Inc.\6\ The webcast will remain
available on the Commission's Web site for three months following the
technical conference. The Capitol Connection provides technical support
for the webcast and offers the option of listening to the technical
conference via phone-bridge for a fee.\7\ The webcast will allow
persons to listen to the technical conference, but not participate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The FERC Calendar of Events site may be accessed at:
www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx?View=monthview.
    \6\ The Web site for ACE-Federal Reports, Inc. is
www.acefederal.com and the phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    \7\ If you have any questions, visit Capitol Connection's Web
site at www.CapitolConnection.org, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
_____________________________________-

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY); or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact:

Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Pamela Quinlan (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kent Carter (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Daniel Kheloussi (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 13, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00968 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47211-47213]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19308]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0497; FRL-9999-35-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality
Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD)
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions
concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate
matter (PM) from brick and structural clay products manufacturing,
rubber sports ball manufacturing, and vegetable oil extraction
processes. We are proposing approval of the rescission of local rules
that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow
with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0497 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the County rescind?
    B. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?
    B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the County rescind?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were most recently adopted by MCAQD and approved by the EPA.
MCAQD rescinded these rules on December 13, 2017, from the local
rulebook, and forwarded the rescissions to the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for adoption and submittal to the EPA for
approval. On December 18, 2017, ADEQ adopted the rule rescissions and
submitted them to the EPA for approval.

                    Table 1--MCAQD Rules for Which Rescission Has Been Submitted for Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adopted/      SIP approval
             Local  agency                 Rule No.            Rule title             revised          date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD.................................             325  Brick and Structural          08/10/2005      08/21/2007
                                                         Clay Products (BSCP)
                                                         Manufacturing.
MCAQD.................................             334  Rubber Sports Ball            06/19/1996      02/09/1998
                                                         Manufacturing.
MCAQD.................................             339  Vegetable Oil Extraction      11/16/1992      02/09/1998
                                                         Processes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 18, 2018, the submittal of the rescission of MCAQD Rules
325, 334, and 339 was deemed by operation of law to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.

B. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules?

    Emissions of VOCs contribute to ground-level ozone, smog and PM,
which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule
334 and Rule 339 were adopted to meet reasonably available control
measures (RACM)/reasonably available control technology (RACT)
requirements as a result of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA),
and they address specific, single sources in each rule that were
emitting >=100 tons of VOC/year. The purpose of Rule 334 is to limit
VOC emissions from natural and synthetic rubber adhesives used in the
manufacture of non-inflatable rubber balls. The source, Penn Racquet
Sports, ceased rubber sports ball manufacturing operations in Maricopa
County in 2009, and MCAQD closed Penn Racquet Sports' permit in 2009.
The purpose of Rule 339 is to limit VOC emissions during the extraction
of vegetable oil using solvents. MCAQD closed Western Cotton Services'
permit (operated by Anderson Clayton Corp.) in 1999. MCAQD does not
anticipate any new sources that would be subject to Rule 334 or Rule
339 to establish operations in Maricopa County. The EPA's technical
support document (TSD) has more information about these rules.
    Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in
diameter (PM10), contribute to effects that are harmful to
human health and the environment, including premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung
function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and
ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control PM emissions. Rule 325 was adopted to meet the
best available control measures (BACM)/most stringent measures (MSM)
requirements for all significant sources of PM10 for the
Phoenix planning area of Maricopa County, classified as Serious
nonattainment in 1996 for the annual and 24-hour PM10
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).

The purpose of Rule 325 is to limit particulate matter emissions from
the use of tunnel kilns for curing in brick and structural clay
products (BSCP) manufacturing processes. The source, Phoenix Brick
Yard, ceased manufacturing operations in Maricopa County in 2012 and
its air quality permit from MCAQD was closed in 2012. MCAQD does not
anticipate any new sources that would be subject to Rule 325 to
establish operations in Maricopa County. The EPA's TSD has more
information about this rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?

    Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of
that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a
revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant
CAA criteria for stringency, if any, and complies with restrictions on
relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110(l), and the General
Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved control requirements
in effect before November 15, 1990.
    Stringency: Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each
category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The
MCAQD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as Moderate for
the 2008 8-hour NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Phoenix-Mesa area, which includes the northern two-
thirds of Maricopa County and small portions of Pinal County, is
classified as Moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
Marginal nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, SIP rules must implement BACM, including Best
Available Control Technology (BACT), in Serious PM10
nonattainment areas (see CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)). The MCAQD regulates
a PM10 nonattainment area classified as Serious for the
PM10 NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303).
    Plan Revisions: States must demonstrate that SIP revisions would
not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA under the provisions of CAA section
110(l). Therefore, consistent with CAA section 110(l) requirements,
MCAQD must demonstrate that the rescission of Rules 325, 334, and 339
would not interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress
(RFP) of the NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement.
    General Savings Clause: CAA section 193 prohibits the modification
of any control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an
order, settlement agreement or plan in effect before November 15, 1990,
in areas designated as nonattainment for an air pollutant unless the
modification ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the
relevant pollutant.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.

B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?

    We have concluded that MCAQD Rules 325, 334, and 339 are
appropriate for rescission, given that the sources for which the rules
were originally developed have shut down and no longer perform
manufacturing operations in the Phoenix-Mesa area, as evidenced by the
surrender of their operating permits.2 3 4 In addition, we
find no other sources subject to these rules in Maricopa County, as
evidenced by our review of the Maricopa County emissions inventories
for PM10 and VOCs.\5\ MCAQD also documented6 7 8
that these three rescissions will not result in any changes to
allowable or actual emissions from existing sources of ozone precursors
or particulate matter, and will not interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of the applicable NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area. We agree
with MCAQD that no such changes or interference would result from the
subject rule rescissions. Lastly, we note that Rules 325, 334, and 339
were SIP-approved post-1990; therefore, CAA section 193 does not apply
to this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Letter dated April 7, 2016, from Richard Sumner, Manager,
MCAQD Permitting Division, to Clinton-Campbell Contractor, Inc.,
Owner, Phoenix Brick Yard, ``Your air quality permit #090298 was
permanently relinquished on August 13, 2012 and has been closed.''
    \3\ MCAQD Permit Closeout Form, dated August 4, 2009, for Head
Penn Racquet Sports permit #V95001, signed by Douglas L. Erwin,
Manager, Permit Division, MCAQD.
    \4\ Email dated June 20, 2019, from Richard Sumner, Manager,
MCAQD Permitting Division, to Lisa Beckham, U.S. EPA Region IX, with
attachments detailing closeout of Western Cotton Services permit
(operated by Anderson Clayton Corp.) on March 4, 1999.
    \5\ The EPA 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), facility-
level emissions.
    \6\ MCAQD, ``Revision to Arizona's State Implementation Plan,
Rescission of Rule 325 from the Maricopa County Air Pollution
Control Rules and Regulations,'' December 2017, sections 2.2(c),
2.2(d), p.5-6.
    \7\ MCAQD, ``Revision to Arizona's State Implementation Plan,
Rescission of Rule 334 from the Maricopa County Air Pollution
Control Rules and Regulations,'' December 2017, sections 2.2(c),
2.2(d), p.5-6.
    \8\ MCAQD, ``Revision to Arizona's State Implementation Plan,
Rescission of Rule 339 from the Maricopa County Air Pollution
Control Rules and Regulations,'' December 2017, sections 2.2(c),
2.2(d), p.5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
approve the rescission of MCAQD Rules 325 (Brick and Structural Clay
Products (BSCP) Manufacturing), 334 (Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing)
and 339 (Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes) from the Maricopa County
portion of the Arizona SIP because they are no longer necessary to meet
any CAA requirement and because rescission would not interfere with
reasonable further progress or attainment of any of the NAAQS. We will
accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 9, 2019.
If we take final action to approve the rule rescissions, our final
action will remove these rules from the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 27, 2019.
Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-19308 Filed 9-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 57 (Friday, March 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16227-16229]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0273]

Arthritis Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of
a Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee.
The general function of the committee is to provide advice and
recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open
to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this
document.

DATES: The meeting will take place virtually on May 6, 2021, from 10
a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Please note that due to the impact of this COVID-19
pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory
committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to
commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be
accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2021-N-0273. The docket will close May 5,
2021. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
meeting by May 5, 2021. Please note that late, untimely filed comments
will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or
before May 5, 2021. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing
system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of
May 5, 2021. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for
written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are
postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before
that date.
    Comments received on or before April 22, 2021, will be provided to
the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA
will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and
consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.

    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2021-N-0273 for ``Arthritis Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting;
Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received
comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Moon Hee V. Choi, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>301-796-2894, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last-minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned,
and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. The committee
will discuss new drug application (NDA) 214487, for avacopan oral
capsules, submitted by ChemoCentryx, Inc., for the treatment of anti-
neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis.
    FDA intends to make the meeting's background material and pre-
recorded presentations available to the public no later than 2 business
days before the meeting. The pre-recorded presentations will be viewed
by the committee prior to the meeting and will not be replayed on
meeting day. If FDA is unable to post the background material and/or
pre-recorded presentations on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material and/or pre-recorded presentations will be made
publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory
committee meeting. The meeting will include brief summaries of the pre-
recorded presentations. The pre-recorded presentations and brief
summaries will include slide presentations with audio components to
allow the presentation of materials in a manner that most closely
resembles an in-person advisory committee meeting. Background material
and the link to the online teleconference meeting room will be
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see
ADDRESSES) on or before April 22, 2021, will be provided to the
committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 1:15 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. Eastern Time on May 6, 2021.
Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
April 14, 2021. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If
the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will

notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 15,
2021.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Moon Hee V. Choi (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least
7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 22, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-06265 Filed 3-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: January 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 4297-4299]
[DOCID:fr24ja08-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57163; File No. SR-OCC-2007-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Expiration Date Exercise Procedure

January 16, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on December 7, 2007, The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change described
in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared primarily by
OCC. The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit
comments from interested persons and to grant accelerated approval to
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would reduce the threshold amounts used to
determine the equity options that are deemed to be in the money for
purposes of exercise by exception processing.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OCC is proposing to amend Rule 805, which prescribes expiration
date exercise procedures including exercise by exception processing, to
reduce from $.05 to $.01 the threshold amount used to determine the
equity options that are deemed to be in the money for purposes of
exercise by exception processing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A conforming change is also being made to Rule 1106, which
concerns the treatment of open positions following the suspension of
a clearing member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Background
    OCC has for years maintained an ``exercise by exception''
procedure. Under that procedure, options that are in the money at
expiration by more than a specified threshold amount are exercised
automatically unless the clearing member carrying the position
instructs otherwise. Equity options are determined to be in the money
or not based on the difference between the exercise price and the
closing price of the underlying equity interest on the last trading day
before expiration. In each of the last two years, OCC has reduced the
threshold amounts for equity options in order to streamline expiration
processing.\4\ These changes were implemented at the request of the OCC
Roundtable \5\ and benefited both OCC and clearing members by reducing
the time required for the submission of exercise instructions on an
average expiration weekend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In September, 2005, the threshold was reduced from $.75 to
$.25 for equity options in a clearing member's customers' account
and from $.25 to $.15 for equity options in any other account (i.e.,
firm and market makers' accounts). Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 50178 (August 10, 2004), 69 FR 51343 (August 18, 2004) [File No.
SR-OCC-2004-04]. In October, 2006, the threshold became $.05 for
equity options in all account types. Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 54514 (September 26, 2006), 71 FR 58656 (October 4, 2006) [File
No. SR-OCC-2006-05].
    \5\ OCC's Roundtable is an OCC sponsored advisory group
comprised of representatives from OCC's participant exchanges, OCC,
a cross-section of OCC clearing members, and industry service
bureaus. The Roundtable considers operational improvements that may
be made to increase efficiencies and lower costs in the options
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Discussion
    In view of the high options volumes experienced in 2007, the OCC
Roundtable once again recommended that OCC decrease the threshold
applicable to equity options in an effort to continue to improve
expiration

processing and to reducing operational risks. The Roundtable suggested
$.01 as the new threshold for all accounts.
    As with the other proposed threshold reductions, OCC conducted a
survey of its clearing membership to assess support for the change.
Survey results reflected strong support for the change across the
membership.\6\ Seventy-nine clearing members responded to the survey
with 69 clearing members in favor of the threshold change and 10
clearing members opposed. Clearing members supporting the change
confirmed the Roundtable's view that it would significantly reduce the
number of instructions they are required to input on expiration and
thereby shorten the timeframe for completing instructions to OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OCC also contacted clearing members that did not respond to
its survey. These clearing members expressed no opinion on the
matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC contacted each clearing member that opposed the threshold
change, generally mid-size to small retail clearing members. Their
principal concern was that the lowered threshold would require them to
input more ``do not exercise'' instructions although some indicated
concerns about the need to educate customers and the possibility that
commission costs could make an exercise unprofitable.\7\ For
approximately half of the 10 clearing members opposed to the change,
expiration exercise reports for the first eight months of 2007
reflected that there were about 20 to 70 line items of positions that
were in the money but not exercised because the in the money amount was
less than the current threshold level.\8\ As a result, OCC believes
these clearing members would most likely have to input more ``do not
exercise'' instructions. The remaining clearing members carried
positions in fewer than ten expiring series that were in the money by
less than the current threshold, leading OCC to conclude that these
clearing members would have a negligible increase in processing time
for submitting instructions not to exercise. All clearing members,
however, agreed that they could adapt to the change if supported by the
majority of clearing members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As noted, clearing members are able to instruct OCC not to
exercise an expiring equity option even though the option is in the
money by more than the exercise by exception threshold. Clearing
members could, for example, choose not to exercise an expiring
equity option that is in the money where the in the money amount is
less than the applicable commission costs.
    \8\ OCC continually reviews expiration exercise reports of
clearing members to monitor exercise activity. The referenced
information, which remained consistent across expirations during
this period and thereafter was obtained in the course of performing
such reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After carefully considering clearing member views on the threshold
change, OCC has concluded that a $.01 threshold will generally benefit
the majority of clearing members and will further improve expiration
processing. OCC will modify its clearing system to provide increased
functionality in order to lessen the operational burden that may be
experienced by the clearing members needing to submit additional ``do
not exercise'' instructions as a result of changing the threshold.
    The clearing member survey also asked firms to provide an estimate
of the time needed to accommodate the threshold change based upon
supplied time frames (i.e., 0-3 months or 4-6 months). The majority of
clearing members indicated that they could complete the necessary
systems development and customer notifications within six months. OCC
contacted every clearing member that commented on the proposed
timeframes, and all expressed the view that their efforts would be
completed in the six month time period.
    The Roundtable has asked that this change be implemented no later
than the June 2008 expiration. OCC therefore requests the Commission to
approve this rule filing no later than January 31, 2008, in order for
OCC to provide sufficient advance notice to clearing members that it
has been approved for implementation. OCC further requests that it be
authorized to implement the threshold change thereafter based upon its
assessment of clearing member readiness. OCC will provide at least ten
days advance notice to clearing members of the effective date of the
new threshold amounts. Such notice will be provided through information
memoranda and other forms of electronic notice such as email.
    OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A of the Act because it facilitates the prompt and accurate
processing of exercise information on expiration.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\9\ OCC
Rule 805 is based on the assumption that when an option is in-the-money
by at least a minimum fixed threshold level, most OCC members and their
customers would choose to exercise the option. The rule has the effect,
therefore, of reducing the number of exercise instructions that must be
submitted to and processed by OCC. As OCC notes in its description of
the proposed rule change, if a threshold amount is set too low, the
result could be that some members would have to submit a greater number
of ``do not exercise'' instructions than they would have to submit if
the threshold amount was set at a higher amount. However, the
Commission is satisfied that by consulting with an industry advisory
group, by surveying its clearing members, and by its analysis, OCC has
made a reasoned determination in deciding to set the threshold amount
for equity options in all account types at $.01. Furthermore, we note
that OCC indicated that it would modify its clearing system to provide
increase functionality in order to lessen the operational burden on
clearing members that experience increased ``do not exercise''
instructions as a result of the new threshold amount. Accordingly,
because the proposed rule change is designed to reduce the amount of
processing required for in-the-money equity options, we find that it is
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC has requested that the Commission approve the proposed rule at
least six months prior to the June 2008 expiration. The Commission
finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the
thirtieth day after publication of notice because such approval will
allow OCC to give its clearing members sufficient time to complete the
necessary system developments and customer notifications before OCC's
scheduled implementation for the June 2008 expiration.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
) or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-OCC-2007-18 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2007-18. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web
site at http://www.theocc.com/publications/rules/proposed_changes/sr_occ_07_18.pdf.
 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-OCC-
2007-18 and should be submitted on or before February 14, 2008.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2007-18) be and hereby
is approved.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-1155 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


"richardastrust.com"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>11/23/2007 06:30 PM	To
	Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Darren Burks<EMAIL_ADDRESS>	cc
	Dave Godwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	bcc

	Subject
	Re: Fwd: Re: Fw: freezer

	For Follow Up:

		Normal Priority

Margaret

Attached the risk  assessment for the stand alone freezer.

Richard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:
Richard,
It appears that the freezer requires roughly 12% more refrigerant than a
comparable sized refrigerator. So, we suggest you use a charge size
that is 12% larger than the values used in the previous risk assessment
for refrigerators, which were 28.3 g and 39.6 g. Resulting charges:
31.6 g and 44.2 g .
Margaret Sheppard
USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division
SNAP Program
Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

"richardastrust.
com"
.com> Margaret
Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave
11/20/2007 10:56 Godwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
AM cc

Subject
Fwd: Re: Fw: freezer

"richardastrust.com" wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:46:13 -0800 (PST)
From: "richardastrust.com"
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fw: freezer
To: margaret sheppard

Margaret

Forgot to mention. Darren will be back this weekend and asked if the
charge size of
the freezer is satisfactory to you the he will work on the risk
assessment.

Richard

"richardastrust.com" wrote:
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:29:04 -0800 (PST)
From: "richardastrust.com"
Subject: Re: Fw: freezer
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>CC<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Darren Burks ,
robert hill ,
tj chamberlain

Margaret

As per our conversation.

I checked a stand alone refrigerator and a stand alone freezer at
Sears.
They are both Kenmore 16 cu ft.
The freezer model<PHONE_NUMBER> uses 134A refrigerant holds 50oz. or 143
grams
The refrigerator model<PHONE_NUMBER>0 uses 134A refrigerant holds 4.5oz
or 128 grams.
I asked the Sears Tech why the higher charge amount in the freezer, and
was told to make sure it gets to 0 degrees and stays there.( I cannot
understand that answer).

Let me know if this is good enough. I can get a picture of the name
plates and attach it .

With 134A my normal charge with HCR188C will be at 25% for both
refrigerator and freezer.

This would be a drop in.

Richard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:
Richard,
A test would satisfy us. However, that may not be necessary. Please
find if there is information demonstrating that freezers do not have a
significantly different charge size, if they use the same refrigerant
and have the same volume to be cooled. Better still, provide this as a
ratio of charge size for a freezer to a refrigerator.
Margaret Sheppard
USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division
SNAP Program
Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

"richardastrust.
com"
.com> Margaret
Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Darren
11/13/2007 03:33 Burks
PM cc
Dave Godwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,
robert hill
, tj
chamberlain

Subject
Re: Fw: freezer

Margaret

Are you saying that I have to run another test at Intertek for a stand
alone freezer like the refrigerator to justify the charge size of
HCR188C.If so then I need to purchase a stand alone freezer and run
the
same test as the refrigerator . Get the charge size documented with
performance running. Is this what the EPA is looking for.

Richard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:

Richard,
As in my November 1, 2007 email below, I was expecting a clearer and
more complete justification for the freezer charge size. Darren's
brief
explanation was not adequate.
Margaret Sheppard
USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division
SNAP Program
Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>___________________________________________________________________________
________________

Margaret

Darren just wants to confirm that you accept the charge rate on the
freezer.
His risk assessment on the freezer has the charge rate that I
supplied.
He also wanted to clarify the window ac. See attached.

Richard
----- Forwarded by Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US on 11/13/2007 01:48
PM
-----

Margaret
Sheppard/DC/USEP
A/US To
"richardastrust.com"
11/01/2007 05:05
PM cc
Dave Godwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Subject
Re: freezer(1)

Richard,
Darren's addendum states that the freezer had the same "charge and
performance rates" as for the refrigerator. Please clarify what is
meant
by performance rates--what measure of performance, from what source,
and
in what units of measure? Since a freezer would need to go to a lower
temperature than a refrigerator, it is somewhat surprising that they
would have the same performance and the same charge.

Please identify the refrigerant in both the refrigerator and in the
freezer in your justification.

Margaret Sheppard
USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division
SNAP Program
Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Richard Maruya
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
cell<PHONE_NUMBER>
e mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>web site HCR188C www.hcr188c.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail may contain confidential or
privileged information, if you are not the intended recipient, or the
person responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient,
then please notify us by return e-mail immediately. Should you have
received this e-mail in error then you should not copy this for any
purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.

Richard Maruya
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
cell<PHONE_NUMBER>
e mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>web site HCR188C www.hcr188c.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail may contain confidential or
privileged information, if you are not the intended recipient, or the
person responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, then please notify us by return e-mail immediately. Should
you have received this e-mail in error then you should not copy this
for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.

Richard Maruya
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
cell<PHONE_NUMBER>
e mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>web site HCR188C www.hcr188c.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail may contain confidential or
privileged information, if you are not the intended recipient, or the
person responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, then please notify us by return e-mail immediately. Should
you have received this e-mail in error then you should not copy this
for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.

Richard Maruya
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
cell<PHONE_NUMBER>
e mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>web site HCR188C www.hcr188c.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail may contain confidential or
privileged information, if you are not the intended recipient, or the
person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,
then please notify us by return e-mail immediately. Should you have
received this e-mail in error then you should not copy this for any
purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.

Richard Maruya
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
cell<PHONE_NUMBER>
e mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>web site HCR188C    www.hcr188c.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged
information, if you are not the intended recipient, or the person
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, then
please notify us by return e-mail immediately. Should you have received
this e-mail in error then you should not copy this for any purpose nor
disclose its contents to any other person.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30069-30071]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12615]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-144-000]

Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Jacksonville
Expansion Project, and Request for Comments On Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Jacksonville Expansion Project
(Project). The Project would involve constructing and operating
interstate natural gas transmission facilities by the Florida Gas
Transmission Company, LLC (FGT) in Bradford, Clay, Columbia, and
Suwannee Counties, Florida. Specifically, FGT would construct: (1)
About 3 miles of pipeline in Suwannee and Columbia Counties; (2) about
5.7 miles of pipeline in Bradford County; and (3) a new compressor unit
and regulation station in Bradford County. The Commission will use this
EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is
in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the Project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental impacts, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before June 15, 2015.
    If you sent comments on this Project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on March 31, 2015, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP15-144-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, an FGT representative
may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct,
operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek
to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the
Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    The ``For Citizens'' section of the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov)
provides more information about the FERC and the environmental review
process. This section also includes information about getting involved
in FERC jurisdictional projects, and a citizens' guide entitled ``An
Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need to Know?''
This guide addresses a number of frequently asked questions, including
the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings.

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully

follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP15-144-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    According to FGT, the purpose of the Project is to provide a total
of approximately 75,000 MMBtu/d of natural gas capacity to be delivered
at various amounts at several points throughout Florida. To accomplish
this, FGT proposes to:
     Construct approximately 3.0 miles of 30-inch-diameter
looping pipeline and associated facilities \1\ in Suwannee and Columbia
Counties;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Associated facilities include new or relocated pig launchers
and receivers, valves, and cathodic protection equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     install one new compressor unit, re-wheel an existing
turbine compressor unit, and construct and modify piping and valves at
Compressor Station 16 in Bradford County;
     construct approximately 5.7 miles of 20-inch-diameter
looping pipeline and associated facilities in Bradford County; and
     construct a new regulation station in Bradford County.
    FGT would also own, operate, and maintain these interstate natural
gas transmission facilities. The general location of the project
facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 140
acres of land. Following construction, FGT would maintain about 50
acres of land; the remaining land would be restored/stabilized and
allowed to revert to former uses. Where feasible, FGT proposes to use
existing rights-of-way for construction and operation of the proposed
facilities. Both of the proposed pipelines would be 100% collocated
with other existing FGT pipelines.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the potential environmental impacts of
a proposed project whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us \3\ to
discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This
process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping
process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary and depending
on the comments received during the scoping process we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section below.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\4\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\5\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for

project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of
aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project.
We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds
to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental
review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent
to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you
would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
CP15-144 (note: the last three digits are excluded). Be sure you have
selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: May 19, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12615 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 19 (Monday, February 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7767-7768]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02019]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0102; FMCSA-2014-0104; FMCSA-2016-0002; FMCSA-
2017-0057; FMCSA-2017-0061; FMCSA-2018-0135]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for nine
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on November 30, 2020. The
exemptions expire on November 30, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0102, FMCSA-2014-0104, FMCSA-2016-
0002, FMCSA-2017-0057, FMCSA-2017-0061, or FMCSA-2018-0135, 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
Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. 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.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On November 18, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing its
decision to renew exemptions for nine individuals from the hearing
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce and requested comments from the public (85 FR 73591). The
public comment period ended on December 18, 2020, and no comments were
received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR

6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the nine renewal exemption
applications, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following
drivers from the hearing requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    As of November 18, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (85 FR 73591):

Michael Arwood (TN)
Christian DeNight (FL)
James Dignan (IL)
Michael Dohanish (OH)
Bruce Dunn (LA)
Scott Perdue (GA)
Albert Pizana (CA)
Adalberto Rodriguez (NY)
Michael Smith (CO)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0102, FMCSA-
2014-0104, FMCSA-2016-0002, FMCSA-2017-0057, FMCSA-2017-0061, or FMCSA-
2018-0135. Their exemptions are applicable as of November 30, 2020, and
will expire on November 30, 2022.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-02019 Filed 1-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26224]
[DOCID:fr11my10-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-256-000]

Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

May 4, 2010.
    Take notice that on April 29, 2010, Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline,
L.P. (Creole Trail), 700 Milam, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77002, filed
in Docket No. CP10-256-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA). Creole Trail seeks authorization to abandon by
transfer to Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC (NGPL)
approximately 1,316 feet of 16-inch diameter pipeline which is part of
a lateral connecting Creole Trail's facilities transporting gas from
its Sabine Pass LNG Terminal, all in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Creole
Trail states that NGPL will file a separate prior notice request for
authorization to acquire the facilities under its blanket certificate
authority. The cost to replicate the facilities for which abandonment
is sought is estimated to be $362,872. Creole Trail proposes to perform
these activities under its blanket certificate issued in Docket No.
CP05-358-000 [115 FERC ] 61,331 (2006)], all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    The filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Randy
Parr, Vice President Marketing and Business Development, Cheniere
Pipeline Company, 700 Milam, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77002, phone at
(713) 375-5000 or to Lisa Tonery, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, 666 Fifth
Avenue, New York, New York 10103, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable
to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the
protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11103 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P