[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 120 (Monday, June 23, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35485-35488]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14336]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1056; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-046-AD;
Amendment 39-17849; AD 2014-10-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2006-11-19 for
Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH Model Dornier 228-100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-
201, 228-202, and 228-212 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as chafed or damaged wiring on the flight deck overhead
panels (5VE and 6VE). We are issuing this AD to require actions to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 28, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of July 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
1056; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact RUAG
Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253,
82231 Wessling, Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 8153-30 2220; fax: +49 (0)
8153-30 4258; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.ruag.com/en/Aviation/Aviation_Home. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to add an AD that would apply to Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH Model
DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Models Dornier 228-100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-
201, 228-202, and 228-212 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on December 23, 2013 (78 FR 77380), and proposed to
supersede AD 2006-11-19, Amendment 39-14624 (71 FR 32268; June 5,
2006).
    Since we issued AD 2006-11-19, Amendment 39-14624 (71 FR 32268;
June 5, 2006), DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH changed the compliance time
between repetitive inspections and incorporated those inspections into
the Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual (TLMCM).
    The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country. The MCAI states that:

    RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH issued Time Limits/Maintenance
Checks Manual (TLMCM) TM-TLMCM-090305-ALL, Revision 5 dated 20 March
2011 respectively TM-TLMCM-228-00002-150610, Revision 1 dated 03
March 2011, listing component life limits and describing maintenance
instructions for the Dornier 228 type design. The Document TM-TLMCM-
228-00002-150610 is valid for airplane SN 8300 and up and other
airplane SN modified according to CN-228-247. The instructions
contained in that manual have been identified as mandatory actions
for continued airworthiness.
    In 2005, chafed wiring was found on 5VE Panel due to lost
adhesive of the TY-RAP holder and subsequent vibration of the cable
harness.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, RUAG issued All
Operators Telefax (AOT) No. AOT-228-24-028 and Temporary Revision
(TR) 05-05 of the TLMCM introducing repetitive of the cockpit
overhead panels 5VE and 6VE and, depending on findings, corrective
actions(s). Subsequently, LBA issued AD D-2005-438 (EASA approval
2005-6430) to require those actions.
    Since that AD was issued, the instructions of TR 05-05 have been
incorporated into TM-TLMCM-090305-ALL, Revision 5 dated 20 March
2011 respectively into TM-TLMCM-228-00002-150610, Revision 1 dated
03 March 2011.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD D-2005-438, which is superseded, and
requires the implementation of the life limits and maintenance
actions as specified in the TLMCM (TM-TLMCM-090305-ALL respectively
TM-TLMCM-228-00002-150610) for zone 321 overhead panels 5VE/6VE.

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1056-0002.
    After the NPRM was issued, we identified that we inadvertently
omitted the calendar time compliance for the inspections of the wiring
in the flight deck overhead panels. We issued a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to propose adding the calendar time
compliance for the inspections of the wiring in the flight deck
overhead panels. The SNPRM was published in the Federal Register on
March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12131).

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM (79 FR 12131, March 4,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM (79 FR 12131, March 4, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM (79 FR 12131, March 4, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 17 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $2,890 or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $1,000, for a cost of
$1,255 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
1056; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains the NPRM/SNPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14624 (71 FR
32268; June 5, 2006) and adding the following new AD:

2014-10-02 Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH: Amendment 39-17849; Docket No.
FAA-2013-1056; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-046-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 28,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2006-11-19, Amendment 39-14624 (71 FR
32268; June 5, 2006).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH Dornier Models 228-
100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-201, 228-202, and 228-212 airplanes, all
serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 5: Time Limits.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as chafed or
damaged wiring on the flight deck overhead panels (5VE and 6VE). We
are issuing this AD to prevent chafing and damage to the wiring in
the flight deck overhead panels, which could result in short-
circuiting of related wiring and possibly lead to electrical failure
of affected systems and potential fire in the flight deck.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD:
    (1) Within the next 600 hours time-in-service (TIS) after July
28, 2014 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 12
months after July 28, 2014 (the effective date of this AD),
whichever occurs first, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 600 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first,
inspect the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels, 5VE and 6VE,
for chafing, damage, and/or incorrect installation (wire tie
attachment holders). For the inspection, refer to:
    (i) Zone 321 on page 5, dated May 1, 2006, in section 05-22-10,
Zonal Inspection Program, in Chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance
Checks--General, in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual (TLMCM), TM-TLMCM-090305-ALL,
Revision 5, March 20, 2011;
    (ii) Zone 321 on page 5, dated May 1, 2006, in section 05-26-10,
Low Utilization Zonal Inspection Program, in Chapter 05, Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks--General, in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH
Dornier 228 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual (TLMCM), TM-TLMCM-
090305-ALL, Revision 5, March 20, 2011;
    (iii) Pages 1 through 10, Overhead Panel 5VE--Description, dated
November 25, 2009, in subject 31-10-07, of Chapter 31, Indicating/
Recording Systems, in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228
Airplane Maintenance Manual, TM-AMM-228-00014-080184, Revision 3,
October 30, 2012;
    (iv) Pages 201 through 208, Overhead Panel 5VE--Maintenance
Practices, dated November 25, 2009, in subject 31-10-07, of Chapter
31, Indicating/Recording Systems, in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH
Dornier 228 Airplane Maintenance Manual, TM-AMM-228-00014-080184,
Revision 3, October 30, 2012;
    (v) Pages 1 and 2, Overhead Panel 6VE--Description, in subject
31-10-08, dated November 25, 2009, of Chapter 31, Indicating/
Recording Systems, in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228
Airplane Maintenance Manual, TM-AMM-228-00014-080184, Revision 3,
October 30, 2012;
    (vi) Pages 201 through 204, Overhead Panel 6VE--Maintenance
Practices, in subject 31-10-08, dated November 25, 2009, of Chapter
31, Indicating/Recording Systems, in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH
Dornier 228 Airplane Maintenance Manual, TM-AMM-228-00014-080184,
Revision 3, October 30, 2012.
    (2) If any chafed or damaged wires are found during any
inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further
flight, repair the affected wire(s) and assure correct installation
of the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels by reattaching or
replacing the wire tie attachment holders and securing any loose
wires to the wire tie attachment holders with plastic wire ties
following:
    (i) Pages 1 through 10, Overhead Panel 5VE--Description, dated
November 25, 2009, in subject 31-10-07, of Chapter 31, Indicating/
Recording Systems, in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228
Airplane Maintenance Manual, TM-AMM-228-00014-080184, Revision 3,
October 30, 2012;
    (ii) Pages 201 through 208, Overhead Panel 5VE--Maintenance
Practices, dated November 25, 2009, in subject 31-10-07, of Chapter
31, Indicating/Recording Systems, in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH
Dornier 228 Airplane Maintenance Manual, TM-AMM-228-00014-080184,
Revision 3, October 30, 2012;
    (iii) Pages 1 and 2, Overhead Panel 6VE--Description, in subject
31-10-08, dated November 25, 2009, of Chapter 31, Indicating/
Recording Systems, in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228
Airplane Maintenance Manual, TM-AMM-228-00014-080184, Revision 3,
October 30, 2012;
    (iv) Pages 201 through 204, Overhead Panel 6VE--Maintenance
Practices, in subject 31-10-08, dated November 25, 2009, of Chapter
31, Indicating/Recording Systems, in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH
Dornier 228 Airplane Maintenance Manual, TM-AMM-228-00014-080184,
Revision 3, October 30, 2012.
    (3) To comply with the actions of this AD, you may insert a copy
of this AD or a copy of the required actions of this AD into the
instructions for continued airworthiness section of the FAA-approved
maintenance program (e.g., maintenance manual). This action may be
done by an owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot
certificate and must be entered into the airplane records showing
compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)(4) and
14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by
14 CFR 91.173 or 135.439.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2013-0244, dated October 4, 2013, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1056-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks--General, in RUAG
Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks
Manual (TLMCM), TM-TLMCM-090305-ALL, Revision 5, March 20, 2011:
    (A) Page 5, in section 05-22-10, Zonal Inspection Program, dated
May 1, 2006;
    (B) Page 5, in section 05-26-10, Low Utilization Zonal
Inspection Program, dated May 1, 2006.
    (ii) Chapter 31, Indicating/Recording Systems, in RUAG Aerospace
Services GmbH Dornier 228 Airplane Maintenance Manual, TM-AMM-228-
00014-080184, Revision 3, October 30, 2012:
    (A) Pages 1 through 10, Overhead Panel 5VE--Description, in
subject 31-10-07, dated November 25, 2009;
    (B) Pages 201 through 208, Overhead Panel 5VE--Maintenance
Practices, in subject 31-10-07, dated November 25, 2009;
    (C) Pages 1 and 2, Overhead Panel 6VE--Description, in subject
31-10-08, dated November 25, 2009;
    (D) Pages 201 through 204, Overhead Panel 6VE--Maintenance
Practices, in subject 31-10-08, dated November 25, 2009.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact RUAG
Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box
1253, 82231 Wessling, Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 8153-30 2220; fax:
+49 (0) 8153-30 4258; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.ruag.com/en/Aviation/Aviation_Home.
    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 13, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-14336 Filed 6-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 215 (Friday, November 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68867-68868]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28355]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9023-8]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.
Weekly Receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 10/26/2015 Through 10/30/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its
comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.
EIS No. 20150304, Draft, VA, SD, NHPA Section 106 Consultation:
Reconfiguration of VA Black Hills Health Care System, Comment Period
Ends: 01/05/2016, Contact: Luke Epperson<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150305, Draft, FERC, AK, Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric
Project-FERC Project No. 13563-003, Comment Period Ends: 12/29/2015,
Contact: John Matkowski<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150306, Final, BLM, WAPA, NM, Southline Transmission Project,
Review Period Ends: 12/07/2015, Contact: Mark Mackiewicz<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management and
the U.S. Department of Energy's Western Area Power Administration are
joint lead agencies for the above project.

EIS No. 20150307, Final, DOE, VT, New England Clean Power Link Project,
Review Period Ends: 12/07/2015, Contact: Brian Mills<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150308, Final, USFWS, MA, Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Review Period Ends: 12/07/2015,
Contact: Nancy McGarigal<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150309, Draft, BIA, OK, Osage County Oil and Gas, Comment
Period Ends: 12/21/2015, Contact: Jeannine Hale<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150310, Final, DOE, MN, Great Northern Transmission Line
Project, Review Period Ends: 12/07/2015, Contact: Dr. Julie Ann Smith
202-586-7668.
EIS No. 20150311, Draft, GSA, DC, FBI Headquarters Consolidation,
Comment Period Ends: 01/06/2016, Contact: Denise Decker<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20150303, Revised Final, USFS, NV, Greater Sage Grouse Bi-State
Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment, Review Period Ends:
11/30/2015, Contact: James Winfrey<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to the FR Notice Published 10/30/2015; Correction to the
EIS Status should be Revised Final.

    Dated: November 3, 2015.
Karin Leff,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-28355 Filed 11-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 53251-53252]
[DOCID:fr15se08-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0434] (formerly Docket No. 2007D-0386)

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry
on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Nonprescription Human Drug
Products Marketed Without an Approved Application

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by October
15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All comments
should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-NEW and title
``Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for
Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved
Application.'' Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for
Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved
Application

    Public Law 109-462, the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug
Consumer Protection Act, amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the act) to add safety reporting requirements for nonprescription
drug products that are marketed without an approved application. In
accordance with section 760(b) of the act (21 U.S.C. 379aa), the
manufacturer, packer, or distributor whose name appears on the label of
a nonprescription drug marketed in the United States without an
approved application (referred to as the responsible person) must
submit to FDA any report of a serious adverse event associated with
such drug when used in the United States, accompanied by a copy of the
label on or within the retail package of such drug. In addition, the
responsible person must submit followup reports of new medical
information related to a submitted serious adverse event report that is
received within 1 year of the initial report (section 760(c)(2) of the
act). Section 760(e) of the act also requires that responsible persons
maintain records of nonprescription drug adverse event reports, whether
or not the event is serious, for a period of 6 years. The guidance
document provides information on: (1) The minimum data elements that
should be included in a serious adverse event report, (2) the label
that should be included with the report, (3) reporting formats for
paper and electronic submissions, and (4) how and where to submit the
reports.
    Title: Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event
Reporting for Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an
Approved Application.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of
information are manufacturers, packers, or distributors whose name
appears on the label of a nonprescription drug marketed in the United
States without an approved application.
    Burden Estimate: FDA is requesting public comment on estimates of
the number of annual submissions from these respondents and
recordkeeping, as required by Public Law 109-462 and described in the
guidance ``Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Nonprescription
Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application.'' The
estimates for annual reporting and recordkeeping are based on FDA's
knowledge of adverse drug experience reports historically submitted
annually for prescription drug products and for nonprescription drug
products marketed under an approved application, including knowledge
about the time needed to prepare the reports and to maintain records.
    FDA receives approximately 2,500 serious adverse event reports for
nonprescription drug products marketed under approved applications,
which comprise approximately 20 percent of the overall nonprescription
drug market. Based on this data, we estimate between 10,000 and 15,000
(i.e., 12,500) total annual responses from approximately 50 respondents
for nonprescription drugs marketed without an approved application, and
that each submission will take approximately 2 hours to prepare and
submit to FDA.
    In the Federal Register of October 15, 2007 (72 FR 58316), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information
collection provisions. No comments were received on the information
collection.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                  Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Annual
                                  No. of       Frequency per     Total Annual      Hours Per       Total Hours
                               Respondents        Response        Responses         Response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports of serious adverse                50              250           12,500                2           25,000
 drug events (21 U.S.C.
 379aa((b) and (c))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                25,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The guidance also recommends that responsible persons maintain
records of efforts to obtain the minimum data elements for a report of
a serious adverse drug event and any followup reports. Although the
guidance document does not provide recommendations on all the
recordkeeping activities required under section 760(e) of the act, we
are providing an estimate for this burden. Historically, serious
adverse event reports comprise approximately two-thirds, and nonserious
adverse event reports comprise approximately one-third, of the total
number of postmarketing adverse event reports associated with drugs and
biologic therapeutics (except vaccines) received by FDA. Based on this
generalization, we estimate the total annual records to be
approximately 20,000 records per year, and the number of respondents to
be approximately 200. We also estimate that it takes approximately 5
hours to maintain each record.

                               Table 2.-- Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Annual
                                  No. of       Frequency per     Total Annual      Hours Per       Total Hours
                              Recordkeepers    Recordkeeping       Records           Record
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping (21 U.S.C.                 200              100           20,000                5          100,000
 379aa(e)(1))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Therefore, the estimated annual reporting burden for this
information collection is 25,000 hours and the estimated annual
recordkeeping burden is 100,000 hours.

    Dated: September 8, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-21345 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55465-55467]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22757]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0189]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 16 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal vision standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0189 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 16 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Darrell G. Anthony

    Mr. Anthony, age 64, had an enucleation of his left eye due to a
traumatic injury that he sustained in 1952. The best corrected visual
acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``I believe that this patient has the visual
capacity to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Anthony reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 47 years, accumulating 4,700 miles
and tractor-trailer combinations for 47 years, accumulating 3.3 million
miles. He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from Texas.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV).

Jerry W. Branning

    Mr. Branning, 66, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
injury that occurred in 1983. The best corrected visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``In my opinion this patient has the ability to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Branning reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 20 years, accumulating 2 million miles and tractor-trailer
combinations for 28 years, accumulating 3.6 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes but one conviction for speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the
speed limit by 10 mph.

Stacey J. Buckingham

    Mr. Buckingham, 43, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
injury that occurred more than 25 years ago. The best corrected visual
acuity in his right eye is 20/15. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``He has sufficient vision required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Buckingham reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating 553,000 miles and tractor-
trailer combinations for 18 years, accumulating 553,000 miles. He holds
a Class D operator's license from Idaho. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Gary E. Butler

    Mr. Butler, 58, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye
due to a traumatic injury sustained more than 4\1/2\ years ago. The
best corrected visual acuity in his left eye is 20/20. Following an
examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``I do believe his vision
is sufficient to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Butler reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 40 years, accumulating 2 million miles. Within this 40 year
time frame, he has also driven tractor-trailer combinations
accumulating 2 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Ronnie J. Fieck

    Mr. Fieck, 44, has had macular scarring and glaucoma in his left
eye since 2008. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20 and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2011,
his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my medical opinion, Ronald has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Fieck reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 9 years, accumulating 46,800 miles. He holds a Class D
operator's license from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

James E. Knarr, Sr.

    Mr. Knarr, 67, has loss of vision in his left eye due to a corneal
transplant in 2006. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2011,
his ophthalmologist noted, ``I certify in my medical opinion that the
patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle, consistent with the laws and regulation
of DOT guidelines.'' Mr. Knarr reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 41 years, accumulating 4.2 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from New York. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Michael A. Lawson

    Mr. Lawson, 47, has had retinal and iris coloboma in his left eye
since birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20
and in his left eye, 20/315. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``He has sufficient vision to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Lawson reported that he has driven straight trucks for
10 years, accumulating 5,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for
5 years, accumulating 75,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Kentucky. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Thomas J. Malama

    Mr. Malama, 55, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic injury
sustained in 1985. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
20/15. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``In my
professional opinion, he has sufficient vision and has already
demonstrated his ability to perform his driving duties adequately.''
Mr. Malama reported that he has driven straight trucks for 33 years,
accumulating 634,000 miles. He holds a Class C operator's license from
Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jeffrey A. Mueller

    Mr. Mueller, 55, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100
and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Mueller has sufficient
vision to perform the tasks required to operate a CMV.'' Mr. Mueller
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 22 years,
accumulating 2.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Harold L. Pearsall

    Mr. Pearsall, 54, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100
and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion, he has sufficient vision to
perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.

Pearsall reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 months,
accumulating 24,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years,
accumulating 205,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Phillip M. Pridgen, Sr.

    Mr. Pridgen, 55, has had optic atrophy in his left eye since 1991.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his
left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``It is my medical opinion that Mr. Pridgen has
sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Pridgen
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2 months, accumulating
12,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating
100,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Eric W. Schmidt

    Mr. Schmidt, 47, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/
150. Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted,
``Once again it is my medical opinion that Mr. Schmidt has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Schmidt reported that he has driven straight trucks for
10 years, accumulating 250,000 miles. He holds a Class E operator's
license from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gerald D. Stidham

    Mr. Stidham, 49, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
injury that occurred in 2004. The best corrected visual acuity in his
left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``It is my opinion, that Mr. Stidham has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks that are required of
him, including the operation of commercial vehicles.'' Mr. Stidham
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating
260,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 6 years,
accumulating 156,000 miles. He holds a Class R operator's license from
Colorado. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Douglas A. Suraci

    Mr. Suraci, 47, has had optic neuropathy and retinal damage in his
right eye due to a traumatic injury he sustained in 2004. The best
corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50 and in his left eye,
20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted,
``In my opinion, his fields and eye exam show that he is safe for
driving a CMV.'' Mr. Suraci reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 17 years, accumulating 3.4 million miles. He holds a Class D
operator's license from New York. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Michael L. Watters, Sr.

    Mr. Watters, 56, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye
due to a traumatic injury sustained in 2004. The visual acuity in his
left eye is 20/25. Following an examination in 2011, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Watters has
sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Watters reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 1.14 million miles and
buses for 1 year, accumulating 3,060 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
but two convictions for speeding in a CMV and failing to yield the
right of way. He exceeded the speed limit by 5 mph.

Keith Wentz

    Mr. Wentz, 60, has had a macular scar in his right eye due to
radiation treatment since 2002. The best corrected visual acuity in his
left eye is 20/20 and in his right eye count-finger vision. Following
an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, ``I feel, in my
medical opinion, that he has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Wentz reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 125,000
miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 28 years, accumulating 1.4
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business October 7, 2011. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: August 29, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-22757 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76547-76550]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26613]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0215; FRL-9954-91-Region 9]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of California Air Plan
Revisions; South Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a
partial approval and partial disapproval of a revision to the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District) portion of
the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
the District's demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the South Coast Air Basin and
Coachella Valley ozone nonattainment areas. We are proposing action on
a local SIP revision under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are
taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by December 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2016-0215 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: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4122<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What document did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this document?
    C. What is the purpose of the RACT SIP submission?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the RACT SIP submission?
    B. Does the RACT SIP submission meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the RACT deficiencies?
    D. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the RACT SIP
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What document did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the document addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                           Table 1--Submitted Document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                               Document                    Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD....................................  SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management          06/06/14        07/18/14
                                             Plan (AQMP) Reasonably Available
                                             Control Technology (RACT)
                                             Demonstration ``2016 AQMP RACT
                                             SIP''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 18, 2015, the submittal for the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP RACT
SIP was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in
40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this document?

    There is no previous version of this document in the SCAQMD portion
of the California SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

C. What is the purpose of the RACT SIP submission?

    Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate
matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section
110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control
VOC and NOX emissions. Sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require
that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above
implement RACT for any source covered by a Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG) document and for any major source of VOCs or
NOX.
    The SCAQMD is subject to the RACT requirement as it is authorized
under state law to regulate stationary sources in the South Coast Air
Basin (``South Coast''), which is classified as an extreme
nonattainment area, and in the Coachella Valley portion of Riverside
County (``Coachella Valley''), which is classified as a severe-15
nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305); 77
FR 30088 at 30101 and 30103 (May 21, 2012). Therefore, the SCAQMD must,
at a minimum, adopt RACT-level controls for all sources covered by a
CTG document and for all major non-CTG sources of VOCs or
NOX within the two nonattainment areas. Any stationary
source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 10 tons per
year of VOCs or NOX is a major stationary source in an
extreme ozone nonattainment area (CAA section 182(e) and (f)), and any
stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 25
tons per year of VOCs or NOX is a major stationary source in
a severe ozone nonattainment area (CAA section 182(d) and (f)).
    Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement
the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) discusses RACT
requirements. It states in part that RACT SIPs must contain adopted
RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing
provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations that there are no
sources in the nonattainment area covered by a specific CTG source
category and that states must submit appropriate supporting information
for

their RACT submissions as described in the EPA's implementation rule
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See id., at 12278; 70 FR 71612, at 71652
(November 29, 2005). The submitted document provides SCAQMD's analyses
of its compliance with the CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has
more information about the District's submission and the EPA's
evaluation thereof.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the RACT SIP submission?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193). Generally, SIP rules must require
RACT for each category of sources covered by a CTG document as well as
each major source of VOCs or NOX in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The
SCAQMD regulates an extreme ozone nonattainment area (i.e., the South
Coast Air Basin) and a severe ozone nonattainment area (i.e., Coachella
Valley) (see 40 CFR 81.305), so the District's rules must implement
RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

1. ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard--Phase 2'' (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005).
2. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
3. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
4. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
5. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR
55620, November 25, 1992.
6. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division
Directors, (May 18, 2006), ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers''.
7. RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew
Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX's
understanding of what constitutes a minimally acceptable RACT SIP.
8. RACT SIPs, Letter dated April 4, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew
Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) listing EPA's current CTGs, ACTs,
and other documents which may help to establish RACT.
9. ``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements'' (80 FR
12264; March 6, 2015).

B. Does the RACT SIP submission meet the evaluation criteria?

    The 2016 AQMP RACT SIP (submitted July 18, 2014) builds on the
District's previous RACT SIP demonstrations: The 2006 RACT SIP (73 FR
76947, December 18, 2008), the 2007 AQMP (77 FR 12674, March 1, 2012)
and the 2012 AQMP (79 FR 52526, September 3, 2014). The 2016 AQMP RACT
SIP concludes, after a review and evaluation of more than 30 rules
recently developed by other ozone nonattainment air districts, that
SCAQMD's current rules meet the EPA's criteria for RACT acceptability
and inclusion in the SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. A RACT SIP
should consider requirements that apply to CTG source categories and
all major stationary sources of VOC or NOX emissions.
    With regard to CTG and non-CTG source categories, based on its
research of the District's permit databases and telephone directories
for sources in the District for the 2007 AQMP, the 2012 AQMP, and the
2016 AQMP RACT SIP, the SCAQMD concluded that all identified sources
have applicable RACT rules. As such, we characterize the 2016 AQMP RACT
SIP as a certification-type of RACT SIP submittal. Because the
District's VOC and NOX rules apply equally in both the South
Coast and Coachella Valley, the District's certification in this regard
extends to both ozone nonattainment areas.
    Where there are no existing sources covered by a particular CTG
document, states may, in lieu of adopting RACT requirements for those
sources, adopt negative declarations certifying that there are no such
sources in the relevant nonattainment area. The 2007 AQMP indicates
there are existing sources for each CTG document issued before 2006,
and the 2012 AQMP indicates there are existing sources for each CTG
document issued from 2006 to 2008. The EPA has not issued any CTGs
since 2008. The SCAQMD did not report any negative declarations in the
2016 AQMP RACT SIP as well.
    However, subsequent to its 2016 AQMP RACT SIP submittal, the EPA
had several discussions with the SCAQMD and concluded there may be two
CTG categories where the District has no sources applicable to the
CTGs. For the Paper, Film and Foil coatings CTG, it appears from a
review of: The standard industrial codes (SIC) applicable to the CTG,
the CARB's emissions inventory, and discussion with the SCAQMD permit
engineer, that the SCAQMD has no paper coating sources with coating
lines exceeding the CTG's applicability threshold (EPA 453/R-07-003).
For the Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Repair
Facilities CTG (61 FR-44050, August 27, 1996 and EPA-453/R-94-032), the
SCAQMD indicates it only has one active title V shipyard facility that
is subject to Rule 1106, Marine Coating Operations. The one coating
category in Rule 1106 that exceeds the CTG's VOC content limit is
inorganic zinc and the District indicates inorganic zinc coating is not
used at the facility. Consequently, the EPA recommends that the SCAQMD
evaluate, and adopt where appropriate, negative declarations for these
two CTG categories. The EPA concurs that there are no other negative
declarations.
    Based on our review and evaluation of the documentation provided by
the SCAQMD in the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and earlier plans, we agree that
existing District rules approved in the SIP meet or are more stringent
than the corresponding CTG limits and exemption thresholds for each
category of VOC sources covered by a CTG document, and given that the
CTG documents represent presumptive RACT level of control, we conclude
that existing District rules require the implementation of RACT for
each category of VOC sources covered by a CTG document located in the
South Coast and Coachella Valley.
    With respect to major stationary sources of VOC or NOX
emissions, the District provided supplemental information identifying
21 new major title V sources since its 2006 RACT SIP certification and
provided a list of equipment at these facilities that emit greater than
5 tpy. The District concluded that the equipment were covered by rules
that implement RACT. The District's efforts to identify all new major
sources appears to be thorough, and we agree that existing District
rules approved in the SIP require implementation of RACT for all major
non-CTG VOC sources in the South

Coast and Coachella Valley. We disagree that all major NOX
sources in the South Coast are subject to SIP-approved RACT rules or
RACT-equivalent programs as explained in the following section.

C. What are the RACT deficiencies?

    Within the South Coast, major NOX sources are included
in SCAQMD's Regulation XX (``Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
(RECLAIM)'') program. The District adopted the RECLAIM program in 1993
to reduce emissions from the largest stationary sources of
NOX and oxides of sulfur (SOX) emissions through
a market-based trading program that establishes annual declining
NOX and SOX allocations (also called ``facility
caps'') and allows covered facilities to comply with their facility
caps by installing pollution control equipment, changing operations, or
purchasing RECLAIM trading credits (RTCs) from the RECLAIM market.
Section 40440 of the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) requires
the District to monitor advances in best available retrofit control
technology (BARCT) and periodically to reassess the overall facility
caps to ensure that the facility caps are equivalent, in the aggregate,
to BARCT emission levels imposed on affected sources.\1\ Facilities
subject to RECLAIM are exempted from a number of District prohibitory
rules that otherwise apply to sources of NOX and
SOX emissions in the South Coast.\2\ With certain
exceptions, facilities located in Coachella Valley are not included in
the RECLAIM program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ BARCT is defined as ``an emission limitation that is based
on the maximum degree of reduction achievable taking into account
environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or
category of source.'' CH&SC section 40406. For the purposes of
comparison, the EPA defines RACT as the lowest emission limitation
that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility. 44 FR 53762 (September 17,
1979). As such, we generally find that BARCT level of control meets
or exceeds RACT level of control.
    \2\ District Rule 2001 (``Applicability''), as amended May 6,
2005. Facilities in Coachella Valley are prohibited from entering
the RECLAIM program except as allowed under Rule 2001(i)(1)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under longstanding EPA interpretation of the CAA, a market-based
cap and trade program may satisfy RACT requirements by ensuring that
the level of emission reductions resulting from implementation of the
program will be equal, in the aggregate, to those reductions expected
from the direct application of RACT on all affected sources within the
nonattainment area.\3\ The EPA approved the RECLAIM program into the
California SIP in June 1998 based in part on a conclusion that the
NOX emission caps in the program satisfied the RACT
requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f) for covered
NOX emission sources in the aggregate.\4\ In 2005 and 2010,
the District adopted revisions to the NOX RECLAIM program,
which the EPA approved in 2006 and 2011, respectively, based in part on
conclusions that the revisions continued to satisfy NOX RACT
requirements.\5\ We refer to the current NOX RECLAIM program
as approved into the SIP as the ``2010 RECLAIM program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) and EPA, ``Improving Air Quality
with Economic Incentive Programs,'' EPA-452/R-01-001 (January 2001),
at Section 16.7.
    \4\ 61 FR 57834 (November 8, 1996) and 63 FR 32621 (June 15,
1998).
    \5\ 71 FR 51120 (August 29, 2006) and 76 FR 50128 (August 12,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 AQMP RACT SIP relies on the 2010 RECLAIM program to
satisfy the RACT requirements for major NOX sources in the
South Coast and Coachella Valley. However, based on new information
contained in SCAQMD's December 2015 Draft Final Staff Report (``2015
staff report'') revising Regulation XX, we find that additional
NOX reductions are now required to achieve RACT as evidenced
by the lack of controls on some refinery boiler units and the
District's proposal to reduce the NOX RECLAIM emissions
cap.\6\ A more detailed discussion about RECLAIM and the requirement
that the program ensures, in the aggregate, NOX emissions
reductions equivalent to RACT-level controls can be found in our
partial approval/disapproval of the South Coast Moderate Area Plan for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Draft Final Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Regulation
XX Regional Clean Air Initiatives Market (RECLAIM) NOX
RECLAIM, December 4, 2015 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2015/2015-dec4-030.pdf?sfvrsn=9.
    \7\ 81 FR 22025, 22027 and 22028 (April 14, 2016) discussing an
absence of a demonstration that the 2010 RECLAIM program ensures, in
the aggregate, NOX emission reductions equivalent to
RACT-level controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, based on our evaluation discussed above, we propose to
partially approve and partially disapprove the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP
certification because, while we find that existing SIP-approved
District rules implement RACT for all sources covered by a CTG document
and for all major non-CTG VOC sources in both the South Coast and
Coachella Valley, we also find that the 2010 RECLAIM program does not
achieve NOX emission reductions equal, in the aggregate, to
those reductions expected from the direct application of RACT on all
major NOX sources in the South Coast.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This finding does not apply to Coachella Valley because we
have determined that the two RECLAIM facilities located in Coachella
Valley are equipped with control technology that meets or exceeds
RACT level of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that, on December 4, 2015, the SCAQMD adopted a new
NOX emissions cap that reflects a level of 2 ppmv
NOX for refinery boilers/heaters >40 MMBtu/hr indicating
that controls ``are either commercially available, achieved-in-practice
and/or can be designed to achieve 2 ppmv NOX in a cost-
effective manner.'' \9\ However, the amended RECLAIM program has not
been submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision and such a submittal would
need to include a demonstration of how the RECLAIM program, as amended,
provides for NOX emission reductions equal, in the
aggregate, to those reductions expected from the direct application of
RACT on all major NOX sources in the South Coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Draft Final Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Regulation
XX Regional Clean Air Initiatives Market (RECLAIM) NOX
RECLAIM, December 4, 2015, (page 92).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the RACT SIP

    Our TSD for the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP provides additional
recommendations for future rule improvements.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    For the reasons discussed above and explained more fully in our
TSD, the EPA proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove the
CARB's July 18, 2014 submittal of the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP RACT SIP as a
revision to the California SIP. Under CAA section 110(k)(3), we propose
to approve the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP, with the exception of major
NOX sources in the South Coast, as satisfying the RACT
requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f) for the South Coast and
the Coachella Valley ozone nonattainment areas.
    Also under CAA section 110(k)(3), we propose to disapprove the 2016
AQMP RACT SIP as it pertains to major NOX sources in the
South Coast based on the EPA's finding that the 2010 RECLAIM program no
longer ensures NOX reductions equivalent to RACT-level
controls at each individual major NOX source in the South
Coast.
    If finalized, the partial disapproval would trigger the 2-year
clock for the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under
section 110(c). In addition, final disapproval would trigger sanctions
under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the EPA approves a
subsequent SIP revision that corrects the RACT SIP deficiency within

18 months of the effective date of the final action. We note that our
partial disapproval of the District's Moderate Area Plan for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, 81 FR 22025 (April 14, 2016), has already
started CAA sanction and FIP clocks for a NOX RACT
deficiency. Termination of those existing clocks by EPA approval of a
SIP revision submittal addressing the NOX RACT deficiency in
the Moderate Area Plan would also terminate sanction/FIP clocks
associated with final partial disapproval of the RACT SIP if the SIP
revision demonstrates compliance with both the Reasonably Available
Control Measure (RACM)/RACT requirement for PM2.5 and the
section 182 RACT requirement for ozone with respect to stationary
NOX sources in the South Coast.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed partial
approval and partial disapproval for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities
beyond those imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This proposed action does not contain any unfunded mandate as
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly,
no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, will result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, because 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, and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This proposed action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this proposed action is not subject to the requirements
of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements
would be inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: October 19, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-26613 Filed 11-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 59024-59026]
[DOCID:fr08oc08-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58713; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-96]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC To
Extend for Three Months the Moratorium Related to the Qualification and
Registration of Registered Competitive Market Makers (``RCMMs'')
Pursuant to NYSE Rule 107A and Competitive Traders (``CTs'') Pursuant
to NYSE Rule 110

October 2, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on September 30, 2008, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend for three months the moratorium
related to the qualification and registration of Registered Competitive
Market Makers (``RCMMs'') pursuant to NYSE Rule 107A and Competitive
Traders (``CTs'') pursuant to NYSE Rule 110. The text of the proposed
rule change is available at http://www.nyse.com, the NYSE, and the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend for three months the moratorium
related to the qualification and registration of RCMMs pursuant to NYSE
Rule 107A and CTs pursuant to NYSE Rule 110.
    On September 22, 2005, the Exchange filed SR-NYSE-2005-63 \4\ with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposing to
implement a moratorium on the qualification and registration of new
RCMMS and CTs (``Moratorium''). The purpose of the Moratorium was to
allow the Exchange an opportunity to review the viability of RCMMs and
CTs in the NYSE HYBRID MARKET \SM\ (``Hybrid Market'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52648 (October 21,
2005), 70 FR 62155 (October 28, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-63).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22,
2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2004-05) (establishing
the NYSE HYBRID MARKET \SM\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During each phase of the Hybrid Market, new system functionality
was included in the operation of Exchange systems and new data was
generated. As a result, the Exchange was unable to make an informed
decision as to the viability of RCMMs and CTs in the Hybrid Market. The
phasing in implementation of the Hybrid Market required the Exchange to
extend the Moratorium an additional seven times over the next twenty-
seven (27) months.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Numbers 54140 (July 13,
2006), 71 FR 41491 (July 21, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-48); 54985
(December 21, 2006), 72 FR 171 (January 3, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2006-113);
55992 (June 29, 2007), 72 FR 37289 (July 9, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-57);
56556 (September 27, 2007), 72 FR 56421 (October 3, 2007) (SR-NYSE-
2007-86); 57072 (December 31, 2007), 73 FR 1252 (January 7, 2008)
(SR-NYSE-2007-125); 57601 (April 2, 2008), 73 FR 19123 (April 8,
2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-22); 58033 (June 26, 2008), 73 FR 38265 (July 3,
2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-49).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2008, the Exchange filed its proposal to create its new
market model (``New Model'').\7\ Pursuant to its filing, the Exchange
proposed to: (i)

Provide market participants with additional abilities to post hidden
liquidity on Exchange systems; (ii) create a Designated Market Maker
(``DMM''), and phase out the NYSE specialist; and (iii) enhance the
speed of execution through technological enhancements and a reduction
in message traffic between Exchange systems and its DMMs. In light of
this proposed New Model, the Exchange requested an extension of the
Moratorium to evaluate the viability of the RCMMs and CTs in the
proposed New Model.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58184 (July 17,
2008, 2006), 73 FR 42853 (July 23, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58033 (June 26,
2008), 73 FR 38265 (July 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-49).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these proposed changes, the Exchange seeks to continue
its review of the data related to RCMMs and CTs current trading on the
NYSE pending approval of the New Model. Accordingly, the Exchange
requests additional time to decide what roles, if any, RCMMs and CTs
should perform in the proposed New Model. The Exchange is proposing to
extend the Moratorium as amended \9\ for an additional three (3) months
to December 31, 2008 in order to finalize its determination as to the
roles of RCMMs and CTs and to formally submit a proposal to the
Commission outlining the role, if any, these classes of traders have in
the Exchange's evolving market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53549 (March 24,
2006), 71 FR 16388 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-11) (making
certain amendments to the Moratorium).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will issue an Information Memo announcing the
extension of the Moratorium.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act \10\ for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \11\ that an exchange have rules that
are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange is currently reviewing
the data related to RCMMs and CTs to evaluate its trading volume in the
current more electronic market. Since it is undergoing significant
developments in its technology and its market model, the Exchange
believes that an extension of time to finalize its determination of
what, if any, roles the RCMMs and CTs will play in this evolving
marketplace could potentially remove impediments to and better improve
the mechanism of a free and open market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 5-day pre-
filing notice requirement. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \14\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The NYSE has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it would allow the Moratorium to continue without interruption
so that the Exchange may have additional time to make a final
determination as to the future roles of RCMMs and CTs in the proposed
New Model and to file with the Commission a proposed rule change
outlining such roles. For these reasons, the Commission designates that
the proposed rule change become operative immediately.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2008-96 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-NYSE-2008-96. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies

of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2008-96 and should be submitted on or before
October 29, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23843 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 158 (Friday, August 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 49649]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17833]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR20-12-000]

Targa NGL Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on August 6, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2019), Targa NGL Pipeline
Company LLC (Targa), filed a declaratory order petition seeking
approval of the rate structure, terms of service, and prorationing
methodology for a new committed service on its mixed natural gas
liquids (NGLs) pipeline system from points in Oklahoma to Mont Belvieu,
Texas, including an approximately 110 mile extension thereof (the
Pipeline Extension,). Targa is developing the Pipeline Extension to
enable it to transport NGLs from a planned interconnection with new
third party-owned pipeline facilities in Kingfisher County, Oklahoma to
Targa's affiliate's storage facilities at Mont Belvieu, Texas, all as
more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 27, 2020.

    Dated: August 10, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17833 Filed 8-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P