[Federal Register: November 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 223)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60155-60156]
[DOCID:fr20no09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 520

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0665]

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Sulfadimethoxine

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of an original abbreviated new
animal drug application (ANADA) filed by First Priority, Inc. The ANADA
provides for use of Sulfadimethoxine Soluble Powder in medicated
drinking water of cattle, chickens, and turkeys for the treatment of
various bacterial infections.

DATES: This rule is effective November 20, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John K. Harshman, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: First Priority, Inc., 1590 Todd Farm Dr.,
Elgin, IL 60123, filed ANADA 200-443 for use of Sulfadimethoxine
Soluble Powder in medicated drinking water of cattle, chickens, and
turkeys for the treatment of various bacterial infections. First
Priority, Inc.'s Sulfadimethoxine Soluble Powder is approved as a
generic copy of ALBON (sulfadimethoxine) Soluble Powder, sponsored by
Pfizer, Inc., under NADA 46-285. The ANADA is approved as of October
28, 2009, and 21 CFR 520.2220a are amended to reflect the approval.
    In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR
part

20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness
data and information submitted to support approval of this application
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 that this action is of
a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is
amended as follows:

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 360b.

Sec.  520.2220a  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  520.2220a, in paragraph (a)(2), add in numerical sequence
``058829''.

    Dated: November 16, 2009.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E9-27885 Filed 11-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1662-1663]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00390]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0484; Special Conditions No. 25-794-SC]

Special Conditions: Learjet, Inc.; Electronic System Security
Protection From Unauthorized External Access

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

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for a supplemental type
certificate on certain transport category airplanes. These airplanes,
as modified by Learjet, Inc. (Learjet), 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 the installation of a system that allows connection
to airplane electronics and networks, and access from aircraft external
sources (e.g., operator networks, wireless devices, internet
connectivity, service provider satellite communications, electronic
flight bags, etc.) to the previously isolated airplane electronic
assets (networks, systems, and databases). 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 Learjet on January 12, 2022. Send
comments on or before February 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2021-0484 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to https://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 title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 11.35, the
FAA will post all comments received without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about these special conditions.
    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 these special
conditions contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, 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 these special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to
the person indicated in the Contact section below. 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
https://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, Aircraft Information
Systems Section, AIR-622, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

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 Sec.  11.38(b), that new comments
are unlikely, and notice and comment prior to this publication 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 May 15, 2020, Learjet applied for a supplemental type
certificate to install an Aircraft Health Management System (AHMS) in
the airplanes listed on the approved model list (AML) for STC No.
ST01970WI. These airplanes are super-midsize-category business jets
with maximum passenger capacity of 16. These airplanes have a maximum
takeoff weight of 38,850 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Learjet must show that
airplanes for which they make application to modify by STC no.
ST01970WI, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of
the regulations

listed in each airplane's respective type certificate 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 listed 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 models for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other models included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
these special conditions would also apply to the other models under
Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the airplanes listed in the AML 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 Sec.  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 Features

    The airplanes listed on the AML in STC no. ST01970WI will
incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
    The installation of an AHMS that allows connection to airplane
electronics and networks, and access from aircraft external sources
(e.g., operator networks, wireless devices, internet connectivity,
service provider satellite communications, electronic flight bags,
etc.) to the previously isolated airplane electronic assets (networks,
systems, and databases).

Discussion

    The architecture and network configuration of the airplanes listed
on the AML of STC no. ST01970WI are novel or unusual for commercial
transport airplanes because they may allow increased connectivity to
and access from external network sources, airline operations, and
maintenance networks to the airplanes' control domain and airline
information-services domain. The airplanes' control domain and airline
information-services domain perform functions required for the safe
operation and maintenance of the airplanes. Previously, these domains
had very limited connectivity with external network sources. This data
network and design integration creates a potential for unauthorized
persons to access the aircraft-control domain and airline information-
services domain, 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 airplanes.
    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 is not compromised by
unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections. This includes
ensuring that the security of the airplanes' systems is not compromised
during maintenance of airplane electronic systems. 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
airplanes listed in the AML of STC no. ST01970WI. Should Learjet apply
at a later date for another STC, to include another airplane model with
the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions
would also apply to that model as well. These special conditions are
not applicable to those airplane models for which special conditions
for protection from unauthorized external access have already been
issued to the type certificate for those specific models.
    These special conditions are only applicable to design changes
applied for after its effective date.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
for airplane models listed on the AML of STC no. ST01970WI, as modified
by Learjet. 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

    [squf] 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 airplane models listed on the
approved model list of supplemental type certificate no. ST01970WI, as
modified by Learjet.
    1. The applicant must ensure airplane electronic-system security
protection from access by unauthorized sources external to the
airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
    2. The applicant must ensure that electronic-system security
threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic-
system security-protection strategies are implemented to protect the
airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and
continued airworthiness.
    3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the
operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is
maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that
may have an impact on the approved electronic-system security
safeguards.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 6, 2022.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-00390 Filed 1-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 43880]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17514]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-OPP-2012-0544; FRL-9534-8]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a
Registered Pesticide Product

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Notice of Supplemental
Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product'' (EPA ICR No. 0278.11,
OMB Control No. 2070-0044) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a renewal of the ICR that is
currently approved through July 31, 2013. The ICR, which is abstracted
below, describes the nature of the information collection activity and
its expected burden and costs. Copies of the ICR and related documents
are available in the docket.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 21,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2012-0544, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily G. Negash, Field & External
Affairs Division, (Mail Code 7506P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
703-347-8515; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This information collection activity notifies the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of supplemental distribution of
registered pesticide products. As mandated by the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is responsible
for the regulation of pesticides. Section 3 (e) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136a
(e)) allows pesticide products with the same formulation, label claims,
and manufacturer as a registered product to be distributed under the
same registration as the basic product. Pesticide registrants may
distribute or sell registered pesticides under a different product name
in addition to the registered name, or under a different entity's name
and address. Such distribution and sale is termed ``supplemental
distribution'' and the product is termed a ``distributor product.'' EPA
requires pesticide registrants who enter into supplemental distribution
agreements with other companies to submit EPA Form 8570-5, Notice of
Supplemental Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product.
Supplemental registrations are only an extension of a currently
federally registered pesticide product.
    Distributor products must reflect any changes in formulation or
labeling made to the basic registered product within the same timeframe
imposed on that product. A distributor is considered an agent of the
registrant; both the registrant and the distributor may be held liable
for violations pertaining to the distributed product. In addition to
notifying the Agency, an individual or entity may become a distributor
upon meeting the regulatory conditions. Distributor products must be
the same as the registered product, and may not be repackaged (must
remain in the producer's unopened container); distributor product
labels must bear qualifications such as ``distributed by,'' or ``sold
by;'' the labeling must bear the same claims as the basic registered
product--with the exception of deletion of specific claims. In
addition, although the distributed product's name may be different from
that of the registered product, it may not be misleading. Product
distributorship data submitted by basic product registrants under FIFRA
Section 3(e) are considered by the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
to contain no confidential business information (CBI).
    Form Numbers: EPA Form 8570-5.
    Respondents/affected entities: Pesticide and other Agricultural
Chemical Manufacturing; individuals or firms engaged in activities
related to the registration and supplemental distribution of a
pesticide product.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit.
    Estimated number of responses: 1,451 per year (total).
    Frequency of response: Once per event.
    Total estimated burden: 387 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $34,505 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 68 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is an adjustment to account for a
previously unaccounted-for additional activity involved in some of the
responses.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-17514 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1978. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/712607.
48. Morrissey, I., et al., ``Evaluation of Epidemiological Cut-Off
Values Indicates That Biocide Resistant Subpopulations Are Uncommon
in Natural Isolates of Clinically-Relevant Microorganisms,'' PLoS
One, 9(1):e86669, 2014. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24466194.
49. Copitch, J.L., R.N. Whitehead, and M.A. Webber, ``Prevalence of
Decreased Susceptibility to Triclosan in Salmonella enterica
Isolates from Animals and Humans and Association with Multiple Drug
Resistance,'' International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents,
36(3):247-251, 2010. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=20541914.
* 50. FDA Deferral Letter for Benzalkonium Chloride in Consumer
Antiseptic Rubs on November 1, 2017. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2016-N-0124-0262.
* 51. FDA Regulatory Impact Analysis, ``Safety and Effectiveness for
Consumer Antiseptic Rubs: Topical Antimicrobial Drug Products for
Over-the-Counter Human Use.'' Available at https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.

    Dated: April 1, 2019.
Scott Gottlieb,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 2019-06791 Filed 4-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


                                 ATTACHMENT A
     Public Comments on Proposed ICR and EPA Responses to Public Comments
Seven comments were submitted during the comment period for the August 2019 Federal Register Notice and during consultation.  The comment period ended on October 4 2019.

 EPA Responses to Comments from an Anonymous Commenter and the Household and Commercial Products Association (HCPA)
   Comment 1: The Anonymous commenter and the HCPA support the EPA's Generic ICR and have no further comment.
   Response 1: No response necessary.

 EPA Responses to Comments from the American Chemistry Council (ACC)
   Comment 1: ACC requests that EPA indicate how collected information will be made publicly available.  More specifically, ACC requests that if EPA plans to make notes, transcripts, and videos widely available, that EPA should provide a way for companies to remove identifying information from content generated during these informal activities to the extent possible.  ACC also wants to make sure that TSCA CBI protections are applied to information collected under these generic ICRs.
   Response 1: Respondents may claim as confidential information provided in an interview, focus group, or survey. EPA generally treats this information as obtained under TSCA, such that confidentiality claims are subject to the provisions of TSCA Section 14. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and the regulations at 40 CFR part 2, under which EPA will provide advance notice and an opportunity to object prior to public disclosure.
   EPA intends to generate public versions of the information submitted.  These versions will not contain information claimed as confidential by the respondents. EPA may use information claimed as confidential in averages, ranges, aggregates, or in other ways that properly mask specific information claimed as confidential and/or a trade secret.  If EPA receives a Freedom of Information Act request for the information, the Agency will determine whether the information is entitled to confidential treatment in accordance with TSCA Section 14 and procedures at 40CFR part 2, as applicable.  EPA will request that companies create sanitized versions of anything they submit in writing.  EPA will also ask during an interview or focus group whether any information provided is confidential.

 EPA Responses to Comments from the Chemical Users Coalition (CUC)
   Comment 1: CUC encourages EPA to consult widely with stakeholders, including a wide variety of commercial enterprises as well as with technical experts and knowledgeable members of the general public.
   Response 1: EPA concurs with this comment.
   Comment 2: CUC recommends that the information collection activities undertaken should be documented in the record of any related rulemakings to ensure transparency in a manner that also takes into account TSCA's protections for confidential business information and considerations for an individual's privacy.
   Response 2: EPA concurs with this comment.  Also see EPA's response to comments above from ACC.

 EPA Responses to Comments from the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA)
   Comment 1: AIA believes that to ensure appropriate regulatory actions are taken in line with the requirements of TSCA, the EPA should, as part of the risk evaluation process, detail how the information obtained from these ICRs has been used to determine the level of risk associated with a particular condition of use for a chemical substance.
   Response 1: EPA concurs with this comment.
   Comment 2: AIA stated that if a risk evaluation for a chemical substance determines that an unreasonable risk exists, when considering subsequent regulatory action, EPA should also be required to demonstrate that such action is consistent with any identified unreasonable risks and is necessary to protect against them.  AIA believes that a risk management rule from the EPA that sets out how the agency will address and manage unreasonable risks would, alongside the information covered in these ICRs, enable more effective chemical regulation and increased transparency for all stakeholders.
   Response 2: EPA will promulgate any necessary risk management rules under TSCA section 6(a) consistent with all requirements for such rules set forth in TSCA section 6.

 EPA Responses to Comments from Earthjustice
   Comment 1: EPA should use its authorities under Sections 4, 8, and 11 of TSCA to gather all "reasonably available information" about the known and reasonably foreseen hazards and exposures from all conditions of use, with a special emphasis on potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations.
   Response 1: As noted in the ICR Supporting Statement, this voluntary information collection would be carried out in conjunction with other TSCA authorities under sections 4, 8, and 11, as appropriate.  EPA has not indicated it would rely solely on voluntary requests for information.  EPA considers the exercise of its information gathering authorities on a case-by-case basis, in view of statutory deadlines and the value the additional information would likely have in reducing uncertainty in its fit-for-purpose evaluations.
   Comment 2: EPA should apply Technical Guidance of EJ2020 to risk populations, reaching out to potentially impacted minority populations, low-income populations, and tribes/indigenous people.  EPA should also conduct outreach to impacted communities and workers.
   Response 2: EPA concurs with this comment.

 EPA Responses to Comments from the Environmental Defense Fund
   Comment 1: EPA has provided no sound reasoning for relying solely on voluntary requests for information, and doing so may result in limited, biased, inaccurate, or incomplete information on the chemicals.
   Response 1: As noted in the ICR Supporting Statement, this voluntary information collection would be carried out in conjunction with other TSCA authorities under sections 4, 8, and 11, as appropriate.  EPA has not indicated it would rely solely on voluntary requests for information.  EPA considers the exercise of its information gathering authorities on a case-by-case basis, in view of statutory deadlines and the value the additional information would likely have in reducing uncertainty in its fit-for-purpose evaluations.
   Comment 2: For voluntary submissions, EPA should take additional steps to ensure completeness and accuracy and to vet information based on underlying data.  EPA should request that submitters always provide full studies, as well as underlying data whenever reasonably available or obtainable.  EPA should also seek input directly from workers for manufacturers and processors, providing them an easy method to submit information on workplace practices and conditions independently from management.
   Response 2: EPA concurs with this comment.
   Comment 3: EPA should take measures to ensure that its process will in fact accurately assess the full range of existing processes, relying on independent data where possible.
   Response 3: EPA concurs with this comment.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 48520]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-118-000]

Trans-Foreland Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Revised Schedule
for Environmental Review of the Kenai LNG Cool Down Project

    This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental
assessment (EA) for Trans-Foreland Pipeline Company, LLC's (Trans-
Foreland) Kenai LNG Cool Down Project (Project). A notice of suspended
schedule was issued on April 8, 2020 which stated an equivalency
determination from the United States Department of Transportation's
Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) is
necessary for completion of the EA. Subsequently, PHMSA issued a letter
on May 8, 2020, clarifying that it had no objection to the location of
the trim vaporizer. As a result, staff has revised the schedule for
issuance of the EA.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of the EA--September 3, 2020
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--December 2, 2020

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will
be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
project's progress.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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 https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP19-118), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to
eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY (202) 502-
8659, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC
website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings. This notice
is issued and published in accordance with 18 CFR 2.1 (2019).

    Dated: August 5, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17498 Filed 8-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17542]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07511]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

First Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 234, Portable Electronic
Devices (PEDs)

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

ACTION: Meeting notice of RTCA Special Committee 234, Portable
Electronic Devices (PEDs).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
first meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 234, Portable Electronic
Devices (PEDs).

DATES: The meeting will be held May 6th to 7th, 2015 from 9:00 a.m.-
5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: RTCA Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC
200036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-
0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. Additional contact information: RTCA contact is Karan
Hofmann<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 330-0680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 234. The agenda will
include the following:

Wednesday May 6th

 Welcome
 Administrative Remarks
 Introductions
 Agenda Review
 RTCA Overview Presentation
 SC-234 Scope and Terms of Reference review
 WG-99 Progress Presentation
 Presentation on PED ARC Outcome
 SC-234/WG-99 Structure and Organization of Work
 Proposed Schedule
 RTCA workspace presentation
 Other Business
 Date and Place of Next Meeting
 Adjourn

Thursday, May 7th

 Continuation of Plenary or Working Group Session

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

     Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 2015.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-07511 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 203 (Monday, October 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58819-58822]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22790]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0589; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-23]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment and Establishment of Class D and Class E
Airspace; Columbus, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class D airspace, Class E
surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface for Columbus Airport and Lawson Army Air Field (AAF), Fort
Benning, Columbus, GA. This action would merge Columbus Airport and
Lawson AAF (Fort Benning) Class D airspace and Class E surface area
airspace into one header under FAA Order JO 7400.11 and removes the
header Columbus Lawson AAF under FAA Order JO 7400.11. The Columbus
Airport's Class D airspace would be amended by updating the name of
Columbus Airport, formerly Columbus Metropolitan Airport, and updating
the name of Lawson Army Airfield (Fort Benning), formerly Columbus
Lawson AAF; the Lawson AAF (Fort Benning) Class D would be amended by
establishing an extension to the southeast. This action would establish
Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area
for Columbus Airport, Columbus, GA. The Columbus Airport Class E
surface area extension would be eliminated, and Lawson AAF (Fort
Benning) Class E surface area would be amended by establishing an
extension to the southeast. Columbus Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface and Lawson AAF (Fort Benning) Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be
amended by increasing the radii and removing the Lawson Very High
Frequency Omnidirectional Range with Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/
DME) and Lawson Localizer (LOC) from the description. This action would
also make an editorial change replacing the term Airport/Facility
Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the legal descriptions of
associated Class D and Class E surface area. In addition, this action
would also

update the geographic coordinates of the Lawson AAF (Fort Benning) to
coincide with the FAA's database. Controlled airspace is necessary for
the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
in the area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket No. FAA-2021-0589; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-23, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F Airspace Designations and Reporting Points
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Goodson, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would amend Class D airspace, Class E airspace, and establish
Class E airspace in Columbus, GA, to support IFR operations in the
area.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2021-0589 and Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-23) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2021-0589; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-23.'' The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class D,
Class E surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Columbus Airport, Columbus, GA and Lawson AAF
(Fort Benning), Columbus, GA. This action would merge Columbus Airport
and Lawson AAF (Fort Benning) Class D airspace and Class E surface area
airspace into one header under FAA Order JO 7400.11, and removes the
header Columbus Lawson AAF under FAA Order JO 7400.11. This action
would also establish Class E airspace designated as an extension to a
Class D surface area at Columbus Airport, Columbus, GA. The Columbus
Airport Class D would be amended by eliminating the extension to the
southwest and updating the name to Columbus Airport (previously
Columbus Metropolitan Airport). This action would also make the
editorial change replacing the term Airport/Facility Directory with the
term Chart Supplement in the legal description.
    The Lawson AAF (Fort Benning) Class D would be amended by
establishing an extension within 1.0 mile each side of the 145[deg]
bearing from the AAF extending from the 5.2-mile radius to 6.8 miles
southeast of the AAF, and updating the name to Lawson AAF (Fort
Benning), previously Columbus Lawson AAF. This action would also make
the editorial change replacing the term Airport/Facility Directory with
the term Chart Supplement in the legal description. In addition, this
action would also update the geographic coordinates to coincide with
the FAA's database.
    The Columbus Airport Class E surface area would be amended by
eliminating

the extension to the southwest. This action would also make the
editorial change replacing the term Airport/Facility Directory with the
term Chart Supplement in the legal description.
    The Lawson AAF (Fort Benning) Class E surface area would be amended
by establishing an extension within 1.0 mile each side of the 145[deg]
bearing from the AAF extending from the 5.2-mile radius to 6.8 miles
southeast of the AAF. This action would also make an editorial change
replacing the term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart
Supplement in the legal description. In addition, this action would
also update the geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's
database.
    The Columbus, GA Class E airspace designated as an extension to a
Class D surface area at for Columbus Airport would be established by
adding thatairspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile
each side of the 234[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the
4.4-mile radius to 7.1miles southwest of the airport.
    The Columbus, GA Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface would be amended by increasing the radius of Columbus
Airport to 9.6 miles, previously 6.8 miles, and eliminating the
extension to the southeast.
    The Lawson AAF (Fort Benning) Class E airspace radius would
increase to 9.3 miles, (previously 7.6 miles), eliminating the Lawson
VOR/DME and Lawson LOC from the description, adding the airspace within
3.8 miles each side of Lawson AAF (Fort Benning) 341[deg] bearing from
the AAF extending from the 9.3-mile radius to 15.2 miles northwest of
the AAF, and 4.1 miles each side of the Lawson AAF (Fort Benning)
145[deg] bearing from the AAF extending from the 9.3-mile radius to
10.6 miles southeast of the AAF.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs
5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F,
dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'', prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO GA D Columbus, GA [Amended]

Columbus Airport
    (Lat 32[deg]30'59'' N, long. 84[deg]56'20'' W)
Lawson AAF (Fort Benning), GA
    (Lat. 32[deg]19'54'' N, long. 84[deg]59'14'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,900 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of the Columbus Airport; and
that airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 5.2-mile radius of Lawson Army Airfield
(AAF) and that airspace within 1 mile each side of the 145[deg]
bearing from the AAF extending from the 5.2-mile radius to 6.8 miles
southeast of the AAF. This Class D airspace is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO GA E2 Columbus, GA [Amended]

Columbus Airport
    (Lat 32[deg]30'59'' N, long. 84[deg]56'20'' W)
Lawson AAF (Fort Benning), GA
    (Lat. 32[deg]19'54'' N, long. 84[deg]59'14'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.4-
mile radius of Columbus Airport; and that airspace within a 5.2-mile
radius ofLawson AAF (Fort Benning) and that airspace within 1 mile
each side of the 145[deg] bearing from the AAF extending from the
5.2-mile radius to 6.8miles southeast of the AAF. This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen.The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a
Class D Surface Area.

* * * * *

ASO GA E4 Columbus, GA [New]

Columbus Airport, GA
    (Lat 32[deg]30'59'' N, long. 84[deg]56'20'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile
each side of the 234[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 4.4-mile radius to 7.1 miles southwest of the airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Columbus, GA [Amended]

Columbus Airport, GA
    (Lat 32[deg]30'59'' N, long. 84[deg]56'20'' W)
Lawson AAF (Fort Benning), GA
    (Lat. 32[deg]19'54'' N, long. 84[deg]59'14'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.6-mile radius of Columbus Airport; and within a 9.3-mile
radius of Lawson AAF (Fort Benning), and within 3.8 miles each side
of Lawson AAF (Fort Benning) 341[deg] bearing from the AAF extending
from the 9.3-mile radius to 15.2 miles northwest of the AAF, and 4.1
miles each side of the Lawson AAF (Fort Benning) 145[deg] bearing
from the AAF extending from the 9.3-mile radius to 10.6 miles
southeast of the AAF.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 14, 2021.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2021-22790 Filed 10-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32359-32360]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12012]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77844; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Amending
Rule 12904 (Awards) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer
Disputes and Rule 13904 (Awards) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure
for Industry Disputes To Permit Award Offsets in Arbitration

May 17, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on May 3, 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by FINRA. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 12904 (Awards) of the Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and
Rule 13904 (Awards) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry
Disputes (``Industry Code'') (together, ``Codes'') to provide that
absent specification to the contrary in an award, when arbitrators
order opposing parties to pay each other damages, the monetary awards
shall offset, and the party that owes the larger amount shall pay the
net difference.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
Background
    FINRA Rules 12904 and 13904 address awards issued by arbitrators at
the FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution forum. They provide, among other
matters, that awards must be in writing and signed by a majority of the
arbitrators or as required by applicable law. The rules itemize
required elements of awards, including a statement of the damages
awarded, and provide that all monetary awards shall be paid within 30
days of receipt unless a motion to vacate has been filed in a court of
competent jurisdiction.
    Sometimes arbitrators order opposing parties in a case to pay each
other monetary damages. When arbitrators make such awards, but do not
specify whether the party that owes the higher amount must pay the net
difference, the lack of clarity has resulted in parties asking
arbitrators to revise an award after a case has closed or in post-award
litigation. For example, arbitrators may award damages to a firm
because an associated person failed to pay money owed on a promissory
note and award a lesser amount to the associated person on a
counterclaim. The firm is willing to accept the net payment due.
However, if the arbitrators do not specify that awards should be
offset, the firm may be required to pay the counterclaim even if the
associated person refuses or is unable to pay the larger amount. The
offset issue could also arise in customer cases, such as those
involving margin account disputes. Currently, Rules 12904 and 13904 are
silent on award offsets. Therefore, under the current Codes, FINRA does
not require arbitrators to specify whether parties should offset
amounts awarded.
    For example, in UBS Financial Services, Inc. (UBS) v. Thomas A.
Mann (Mann), No. 2:2014cv10621, 2014 WL 1746249 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30,
2014), a federal district court heard a dispute relating to opposing
awards made by a FINRA arbitration panel involving forgivable loans the
firm made to Mann, an associated person. The arbitrators awarded UBS
$217,000 and awarded Mann $150,000 for claims relating to his
employment. Mann, 2014 WL 1746249 at *1. ``UBS expressed concern it
would never receive payment from Mann, but still had to pay him.'' Id.
Under the current Codes, the failure of a firm or person registered
with FINRA, such as UBS, to pay an award within 30 days could subject
that firm or person to FINRA disciplinary action, including
cancellation of membership for the firm or suspension of the firm or
person. UBS filed a motion to the arbitrators to correct the award
because it was ambiguous in not providing for an offset. Id. In that
motion, UBS argued that the award should be $67,000 in its favor, which
is the difference in the amount of the two awards. Id. The arbitrators
declined the request. Id. UBS asked the court to provide for an offset
of the awards. Id. at *2. The court confirmed the award without
ordering an offset because the arbitrators had an opportunity to review
UBS' request for an offset and chose not to address it in the award.
Id. at *3.
Proposed Amendments to Rules 12904(j) and 13904(j)
    FINRA is proposing to amend Rules 12904(j) and 13904(j) to provide
that, absent specification to the contrary in an award, when
arbitrators order opposing parties to pay each other damages, the
monetary awards shall offset, and the party that owes the larger amount
shall pay the net difference. FINRA is also proposing to replace the
bullets in Rules 12904 and 13904 with numbers because forum users have
indicated that for ease of citation, they would prefer that FINRA use
numbers and letters instead of bullets.
    As noted in Item 2 of this filing, if the Commission approves the
proposed rule change, FINRA will announce the effective date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later
than 60 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be
no later than 30 days following publication of the Regulatory Notice
announcing Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\3\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that providing a default in favor of
offset when arbitrators fail to address the issue

in an award would benefit forum users by eliminating ambiguity and
reducing the risk of post-award disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA believes that the
proposed rule change will mitigate the risk of failure to pay by an
opposing party that may arise when multiple parties in a dispute are
found to owe non-equivalent awards simultaneously. Creating a
presumption that opposing award amounts will be offset will increase
the likelihood that the arbitrators' purpose in issuing opposing awards
would be carried out. In addition, the proposed rule would reduce
instances where the party owed the greater net damages is required to
make payment even if the opposing party fails to pay its damages. In
addition, this proposed rule change would likely reduce legal expenses
to the party owed greater damages by eliminating the need to apply for
the reopening of the case or going to court to seek award offsets, or
seek other redress.
    The scope of cases affected by offsets is small in comparison to
the number of cases handled at the forum, but forum users have asked
FINRA to address the issue. During 2013 and 2014, a total of 8,375
cases were closed at the forum (predominantly by settlement or award).
The majority of cases are settled before a hearing takes place. The
offset issue had the potential to arise in 299 cases (just over 3.5% of
cases) where there was a claim by both a claimant and a respondent, and
the case was resolved by arbitrators at a hearing on the merits. In 17
cases (0.2% of cases), the arbitrators awarded monetary damages to both
a claimant and a respondent, offering the opportunity for an offset.
    Of these 17 cases, one involved a customer dispute in which a
member initiated a claim for breach of contract. The arbitrators made a
monetary award to both the customer and firm and provided for an
offset. In the remaining 16 intra-industry cases, most of which
involved promissory notes, the arbitrators made an award to both the
firm and the associated person. In 8 of the 16 cases, the arbitrators
ordered award offsets. In the remaining eight cases, the awards were
silent as to offset.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2016-015 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2016-015. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090, 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 FINRA. 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-FINRA-2016-015 and should be
submitted on or before June 13, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12012 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 11151-11152]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12779-005]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Draft Application, Request for Waivers
of Integrated Licensing Process Regulations Necessary for Expedited
Processing of a Hydrokinetic Pilot Project License Application, and
Soliciting Comments

March 3, 2010.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File a License Application
for an Original License for a Hydrokinetic Pilot Project.
    b. Project No.: 12779-005.
    c. Date Filed: March 1, 2010.
    d. Submitted By: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    e. Name of Project: Humboldt WaveConnect Pilot Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located in the Pacific Ocean west
of the City of Eureka in Humboldt County, California within California
State waters.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brian McDonald, Director--Renewable
Resource Development, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beale
Street, MC B5Q-542, San Francisco, CA 94105-1814, telephone: (415)-973-
2005.
    i. FERC Contact: Kenneth Hogan<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has filed with the
Commission: (1) A notice of intent (NOI) to file an application for an
original license for a hydrokinetic pilot project and a draft license
application with monitoring plans; (2) a request for waivers of the
integrated licensing process regulations necessary for expedited
processing of a hydrokinetic pilot project license application; (3) a
proposed process plan and schedule; (4) a request to be designated as
the non-Federal representative for section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act consultation; and (5) a request to be designated as the non-Federal
representative for section 106 consultation under the National Historic
Preservation Act (collectively the pre-filing materials).
    k. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the pre-filing
materials listed in paragraph j above, including the draft license
application and monitoring plans. All comments should be sent to the
address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments (original and
eight copies) must be filed with the Commission at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings
with the Commission must include on the first page, the project name
(Humboldt WaveConnect Pilot Project) and number (P-12779-005), and bear
the heading ``Comments on the proposed Humboldt WaveConnect Pilot
Project.'' Any individual or entity interested in submitting comments
on the pre-filing materials must do so by April 30, 2009.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. 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.
    l. With this notice, we are approving PG&E's request to be
designated as the non-Federal representative for section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its request to initiate consultation
under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; and
recommending that it begin informal consultation with: (a) The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as
required by section 7 of ESA; and (b) the California State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    m. This notice does not constitute the Commission's approval of
PG&E's request to use the Pilot Project Licensing Procedures. Upon its
review of the project's overall characteristics relative to the pilot
project criteria, the draft license application contents, any comments
filed, and PG&E's response to any additional information requests by
the Commission, the Commission will determine whether there is adequate
information to conclude the pre-filing

process and approve the use the Pilot Project Licensing Procedures.
    n. The proposed Humboldt WaveConnect Pilot Project would consist
of: (1) Wave energy conversion (WEC) buoys including multi-point
catenary moorings and anchors; (2) marker buoys, navigation lights, and
environmental monitoring instruments; (3) five 9-mile-long submarine
electrical cables extending underground onshore to; (4) land-based
power conditioning equipment; (5) a 2,025-feet-long 12kV aboveground
transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual
generation of the proposed project would be 43,800 megawatt-hours.
    o. A copy of the draft license application and all pre-filing
materials are available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (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 Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, of for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    p. Pre-filing process schedule. The pre-filing process will be
conducted pursuant to the following tentative schedule. Revisions to
the schedule below may be made based on staff's review of the draft
application and any comments received.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                               Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on pre-filing materials due...  April 30, 2010.
Issuance of Notice of Site Visit/        May 7, 2010.
 Meetings.
Site Visit & Public Meetings/Technical   June 8-9, 2010.
 Conference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    q. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5044 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3026-3027]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1077; Special Conditions No. 25-609A-SC]

Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 6X Airplane;
Design Roll Maneuver

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; amendment.

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

SUMMARY: These amended special conditions are issued for the Dassault
Aviation (Dassault) Model Falcon 6X airplane. This airplane 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 electronic flight controls
that affect maneuvering. 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 Dassault on January 20, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Martin, AIR-621, Materials and
Structural Properties Section, Technical Innovation Policy Branch,
Policy and Innovation Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 S
216th Street,

Des Moines, Washington 98198-6547; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 1, 2012, Dassault Aviation applied for a type certificate
for their new Model Falcon 5X airplane. Those special conditions were
issued on February 17, 2016 (81 FR 7965). However, Dassault has decided
not to release an airplane under the model designation Falcon 5X,
instead choosing to change that model designation to Falcon 6X.
    In February of 2018, due to engine supplier issues, Dassault
extended the type certificate application date for their Model Falcon
5X airplane under new Model Falcon 6X. This amendment to the original
special conditions reflects the model-name change. This airplane is a
twin-engine business jet with seating for 19 passengers and a maximum
takeoff weight of 77,460 pounds. The Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane
design remains unchanged from the Model Falcon 5X in all material
respects other than different engines.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Dassault must show that the
Model Falcon 6X airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as
amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-146.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane
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 type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates 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 Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane 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.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design feature:
    An electronic flight-control system that provides control through
pilot inputs to the flight computer, thereby affecting maneuverability
of the airplane as compared to conventional control systems.

Discussion

    Current part 25 airworthiness regulations account for control laws
for which aileron deflection is proportional to control-stick
deflection. They do not address nonlinearities or other effects on
aileron actuation that may be caused by electronic flight controls.
Because this type of system may affect flight loads, and therefore the
structural capability of the airplane, specific regulations are needed
to address these effects.
    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.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA issued Final special conditions, request for comment
Special Conditions No. 25-609-SC for the Dassault Model Falcon 5X
airplane, which was published in the Federal Register on February 17,
2016 (81 FR 7965). No comments were received, and the special
conditions are adopted as proposed, with amendments.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane. Should Dassault apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    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 Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplanes.
    In lieu of compliance to Sec.  25.349(a), the following conditions,
speeds, and cockpit roll-control motions (except as the motions may be
limited by pilot effort) must be considered in combination with an
airplane load factor of zero, and of two-thirds of the positive
maneuvering factor used in design. In determining the resulting
control-surface deflections, the torsional flexibility of the wing must
be considered in accordance with Sec.  25.301(b).
    1. Conditions corresponding to steady rolling velocities must be
investigated. In addition, conditions corresponding to maximum angular
acceleration must be investigated for airplanes with engines or other
weight concentrations outboard of the fuselage. For the angular
acceleration conditions, zero rolling velocity may be assumed in the
absence of a rational time-history investigation of the maneuver.
    2. At VA, sudden movement of the cockpit roll control up
to the limit is assumed. The position of the cockpit roll control must
be maintained until a steady roll rate is achieved, and then must be
returned suddenly to the neutral position.
    3. At VC, the cockpit roll control must be moved
suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than that
obtained in special condition 2, above.
    4. At VD, the cockpit roll control must be moved
suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than one-
third of that obtained in special condition 2, above.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 13, 2022.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-00975 Filed 1-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47302-47304]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17171]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0583; FRL-9949-24-Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District, Riverside County Air Pollution Control
District, and San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve rescissions from the Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District (MDAQMD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP), as it applies to rules approved into the SIP
for the Riverside County Air Pollution Control District (RCAPCD) and
San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). These
revisions concern superseded New Source Review (NSR) rules. We are
approving the rescission of rules under the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on September 19, 2016 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by August 22, 2016. If
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0583 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3407<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit for rescission?
    B. What are the purposes of the submitted rule rescissions?
III. Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rescission of the rules?
    B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted Riverside
County Air Pollution Control District (RCAPCD) and San Bernardino
County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) Rules 213, 213.1, and
213.2, which address Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) programs, to the EPA on June 6, 1977 for inclusion in the
California SIP. The EPA approved RCAPCD Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2 and
SBCAPCD Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2 into the SIP on November 9, 1978
(43 FR 52237). The area under the jurisdiction of RCAPCD and SBCAPCD at
the time these rules were submitted is now under the jurisdiction of
the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) and the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). More information
about the jurisdictional history of this area is found in the EPA's
Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanying this rulemaking.
    CARB has since submitted and the EPA has approved into the
California SIP a series of NSR rules for MDAQMD and SCAQMD referred to
as Regulation XIII. These rules supersede, among other rules, Rules
213, 213.1, and 213.2. This rulemaking action clarifies the applicable
NSR rules for the Mojave Desert air district by removing from the
Mojave Desert portion of the California SIP RCAPCD Rules 213, 213.1,
and 213.2 and SBCAPCD Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2.
    RCAPCD Rules 203.1, 203.2, and 213.3 and SBCAPCD Rules 203.1,
203.2, and 213.3 also address NSR requirements. However, we can find no
evidence that RCAPCD Rules 203.1, 203.2, and 213.3 and SBCAPCD Rules
203.1, 203.2, and 213.3 were ever submitted for SIP approval.
Consequently, we are taking no action on the rescission of RCAPCD Rules
203.1, 203.2, and 213.3 and SBCAPCD Rules 203.1, 203.2, and 213.3.

II. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit for rescission?

    MDAQMD rescinded Rules 203.1, 203.2, 213, 213.1, 213.2, and 213.3
on April 28, 2008, and CARB submitted the rescissions adopted by MDAQMD
as a revision to the California SIP on October 20, 2008. As noted
above, these rules had originally been adopted by RCAPCD and SBCAPCD
and approved by the EPA as part of the California SIP. More than a
decade later, when MDAQMD was established, MDAQMD adopted the rules
that had been adopted by the previous air pollution control district as
part of that agency's initial set of rules and regulations. MDAQMD's
submittal of the rescissions to CARB for submittal to the EPA make it
clear that the rescissions relate to the corresponding SIP rules from
which the corresponding MDAQMD rules derive. As such, CARB's submittal
of the rescission of MDAQMD Rules 203.1, 203.2, 213, 213.1, 213.2, and
213.3 constitutes the rescission of the corresponding SIP rules, i.e.,
RCAPCD Rules 203.1, 203.2, 213, 213.1, 213.2, and 213.3 and SBCAPCD
Rules 203.1, 203.2, 213, 213.1, 213.2, and 213.3. Table 1 lists these
rules, along with SIP approval dates (if any).

          Table 1--Rules Requested for Rescission From the Mojave Desert Portion of the California SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Agency when rule
         Current agency           was  submitted to     Rule No.            Rule title         SIP approval date
                                         SIP                                                    and FR citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDAQMD/SCAQMD...................  RCAPCD                      203.1  Special Permit           Not in SIP.
                                                                      Provisions.
MDAQMD/SCAQMD...................  RCAPCD                      203.2  Eligibility of           Not in SIP.
                                                                      Compensatory Emission
                                                                      Reductions.
MDAQMD/SCAQMD...................  RCAPCD                        213  Standards for Permits    11/09/78 43 FR
                                                                      to Construct: Air        52237.
                                                                      Quality Impact.
MDAQMD/SCAQMD...................  RCAPCD                      213.1  Standards for Permits    11/09/78 43 FR
                                                                      to Operate: Air          52237.
                                                                      Quality Impact.
MDAQMD/SCAQMD...................  RCAPCD                      213.2  Definitions for Rules    11/09/78 43 FR
                                                                      213, 213.1, and 213.3.   52237.
MDAQMD/SCAQMD...................  RCAPCD                      213.3  Additional Standards     Not in SIP.
                                                                      for Permits to
                                                                      Construct and Operate.
MDAQMD..........................  SBCAPCD                     203.1  Special Permit           Not in SIP.
                                                                      Provisions.
MDAQMD..........................  SBCAPCD                     203.2  Eligibility of           Not in SIP.
                                                                      Compensatory Emission
                                                                      Reductions.
MDAQMD..........................  SBCAPCD                       213  Standards for Permits    11/09/78 43 FR
                                                                      to Construct: Air        52237.
                                                                      Quality Impact.
MDAQMD..........................  SBCAPCD                     213.1  Standards for Permits    11/09/78 43 FR
                                                                      to Operate: Air          52237.
                                                                      Quality Impact.
MDAQMD..........................  SBCAPCD                     213.2  Definitions for Rules    11/09/78 43 FR
                                                                      213, 213.1, and 213.3.   52237.
MDAQMD..........................  SBCAPCD                     213.3  Additional Standards     Not in SIP.
                                                                      for Permits to
                                                                      Construct and Operate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 18, 2008, we determined that CARB's October 20, 2008
SIP revision met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix
V, which must be met before formal review by the EPA.

B. What are the purposes of the submitted rule rescissions?

    SBCAPCD and RCAPCD rules 203.1, 203.2, 213, 213.1, 213.2, and 213.3
have been superseded by MDAQMD Regulation XIII and SCAQMD Regulation
XIII. CARB has requested that these SBCAPCD and RCAPCD rules be
rescinded from the SIP for the purpose of clarifying the SIP and to
avoid confusion as to the SIP status of these rules. This action
represents an administrative change and does not result in changes to
SIP approved Regulation XIII that contains the current NSR program. A
more detailed discussion of these rules is found in the TSD
accompanying this rulemaking.

III. Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rescission of the rules?

    The EPA is evaluating the rules submitted for rescission by CARB to
determine whether they were ever approved in the relevant portion of
the SIP, and if they had been approved in the SIP, whether they have
been superseded by approval of subsequent rules by the EPA.

B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?

    The provisions contained in RCAPCD Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2 and
SBCAPCD Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2 have been superseded by MDAQMD
Regulation XIII, Rules 1300-1306 (61 FR 58133) and SCAQMD Regulation
XIII, Rules 1301-1306, 1309-1310, 1313, and 1325 (50 FR 3906, 61 FR
64291, 64 FR 13514, 71 FR 35157, 80 FR 24821). The rescission of
superseded rules is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance
regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. We can find no evidence
that RCAPCD Rules 203.1, 203.2, and 213.3 and SBCAPCD Rules 203.1,
203.2, and 213.3 were ever approved into the SIP, therefore no action
is necessary to remove them. The TSD has more information on our
evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA is fully
approving the rescission of RCAPCD Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2 and
SBCAPCD Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2 because we have concluded that they
were superseded years ago by approval by the EPA of subsequent rules
and thus are no longer part of the applicable California SIP, and
because rescission of them will clarify the contents of the MDAQMD
portion of the SIP and avoid confusion as the SIP status of these
rules. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are
finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing
approval of the same submitted rule rescissions. If we receive adverse
comments by August 22, 2016, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval
will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent
final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse
comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further
notice on September 19, 2016. This action will rescind specific rules
from the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final
those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.

IV. 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 action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 (Public Law 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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 19, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the
comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: June 24, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(39)(ii)(J) and
(c)(39)(iv)(J) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (39) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (J) Previously approved on November 9, 1978 in paragraph
(c)(39)(ii)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2.
* * * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (J) Previously approved on November 9, 1978 in paragraph
(c)(39)(iv)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-17171 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P