[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 78252]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31389]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0418]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Institutional Review
Boards

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 January
14, 2011.

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 0910-0130.
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, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.

Institutional Review Boards--OMB Control Number 0910-0130--Extension

    When reviewing clinical research studies regulated by FDA,
institutional review boards (IRBs) are required to create and maintain
records describing their operations, and make the records available for
FDA inspection when requested. These records include: Written
procedures describing the structure and membership of the IRB and the
methods that the IRB will use in performing its functions; the research
protocols, informed consent documents, progress reports, and reports of
injuries to subjects submitted by investigators to the IRB; minutes of
meetings showing attendance, votes and decisions made by the IRB, the
number of votes on each decision for, against, and abstaining, the
basis for requiring changes in or disapproving research; records of
continuing review activities; copies of all correspondence between
investigators and the IRB; statement of significant new findings
provided to subjects of the research; and a list of IRB members by
name, showing each member's earned degrees, representative capacity,
and experience in sufficient detail to describe each member's
contributions to the IRB's deliberations, and any employment
relationship between each member and the IRB's institution. This
information is used by FDA in conducting audit inspections of IRBs to
determine whether IRBs and clinical investigators are providing
adequate protections to human subjects participating in clinical
research.
    In the Federal Register of August 17, 2010 (75 FR 50766), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received regarding the
information collection.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                   Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual
                           21 CFR section                               Number of      frequency per     Total annual      Hours per       Total hours
                                                                      recordkeepers    recordkeeping       records        recordkeeper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56.115.............................................................            2,500             14.6           36,500              100        3,650,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............        3,650,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The recordkeeping requirement burden is based on the following: The
burden for each of the paragraphs under 21 CFR 56.115 has been
considered as one estimated burden. FDA estimates that there are
approximately 2,500 IRBs. The IRBs meet on an average of 14.6 times
annually. The agency estimates that approximately 100 hours of person-
time per meeting are required to meet the requirements of the
regulation.

    Dated: December 8, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant, Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-31389 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 28816-28817]
[DOCID:fr19my08-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP05-45-002; CP06-401-002]

TransColorado Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of
Application for Amendment

May 12, 2008.
    Take notice that on May 8, 2008, TransColorado Gas Transmission
Company, LLC (TransColorado), P.O. Box 281394, Lakewood, Colorado
80228-8304, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act and the Commission's regulations to amend its
application for certificates of public convenience and necessity
requested in Docket Nos. CP05-45-001 and CP06-401-001. TransColorado
seeks to substitute a new site for that one identified in the original
application in which to relocate two compressor units.
    These filings are available for review at the Commission's
Washington, DC offices or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov/ using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Toll-free: 1-
866-208-3676; or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding these applications should be directed to
Skip George, Manager of Certificates, TransColorado Gas Transmission
Company, LLC, P.O. Box 281304, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-8304, phone
(303) 914-4969.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this Project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceeding for this project should file with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR
157.10) by the comment date, below. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the
applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of
filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant
and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the
proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene to have comments
considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the
Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two
copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project and/
or associated pipeline. The Commission will consider these comments in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a
comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments
in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to
the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 285.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue
another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's
review process, a final Commission order approving or denying a
certificate will be issued.

    Comment Date: June 2, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-11093 Filed 5-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78793-78794]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31681]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76621; File No. SR-C2-2015-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex
Orders as Modified by Amendment No. 1

December 11, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On October 13, 2015, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and
Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to: (1) Amend the rule
provisions regarding the initiation of a complex order auction
(``COA''), (2) add rule provisions regarding the impact of certain
incoming orders and changes in the leg markets on an ongoing COA, and
(3) amend the rule provision related to the size of COA responses. On
October 26, 2015, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
November 2, 2015.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. This order grants approval of the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No.76274 (October 27,
2015), 80 FR 67446 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend C2 Rule 6.13 and Interpretation and
Policy .02 regarding the initiation of a COA. Currently, C2
Participants must affirmatively request that their incoming COA-
eligible orders be COA'd.\4\ The Exchange proposes to amend C2 Rule
6.13(c)(2) to provide that COA-eligible orders be COA'd by default.\5\
Under the proposed rule, Participants would be permitted to request
that a COA-eligible order not COA (referred to as a ``do-not-COA''
request) on an order-by-order basis.\6\ The Exchange believes that
allowing Participants to make a ``do-not-COA'' request on an order-by-
order basis will better allow them to make decisions regarding the
handling of their orders based on market conditions at the time they
submit their orders. An order with a ``do-not-COA'' request, however,
may still be COA'd after it has rested on the Complex Order Book
(``COB'') pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .02.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67446. The Exchange represents
that all Participants have requested that all of their COA-eligible
orders process through COA upon entry into the System.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Id. In light of this proposed change, the Exchange proposes
to delete the language in Interpretation and Policy .02(a) that
indicates Participants may request that complex orders be processed
by COA on a class-by-class basis, as it is no longer necessary. Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that an order with a ``do-not-COA'' request will
still have execution opportunities. The Exchange explains that a ``do-
not-COA'' order may execute automatically upon entry into the System
against the leg markets or complex orders on the COB to the extent
marketable (in accordance with allocation rules set forth in Rule
6.13).\8\ Further, the Exchange notes that an order on the opposite
side of, and marketable against, a COA-eligible order may trade against
the COA-eligible order if the System receives the order while a COA is
ongoing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 67447.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to add subparagraphs (c)(8)(D) and
(E) to C2 Rule 6.13 to describe additional circumstances that will
cause a COA to end early.\10\ Proposed subparagraph (c)(8)(D) will
provide that if an order with a ``do-not-COA'' request or an order that
is not COA-eligible is received prior to the expiration of the Response
Time Interval for the original COA and is on the same side of the

market and at a price better than or equal to the starting price, then
the original COA will end.\11\ Proposed subparagraph (c)(8)(E) will
provide that if the leg markets were not marketable against a COA-
eligible order when the order entered the System (and thus prior to the
initiation of a COA) but became marketable with the COA-eligible order
prior to the expiration of the Response Time Interval, it will cause
the COA to end.\12\ The Exchange believes that these provisions prevent
an order that was entered after the initiation of a COA from trading
ahead of an order with the same price that may have executed or entered
the COB if it did not COA.\13\ Similarly, the Exchange believes it is
fair for a COA-eligible order that was entered at a better price than
an order that was resting in the COB prior to initiation of the COA to
execute against leg markets that become marketable against the COA-
eligible order and resting order during the COA, because the
Participant who entered the COA-eligible order was willing to pay a
better price than that of the resting order.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to
the heading and introductory paragraph of subparagraph (c)(8). Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id. at 67447-8.
    \13\ Id. at 67449.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (c)(3)(A) of C2
Rule 6.13 to delete the provision that states that RFR responses are
limited to the size of the COA-eligible order for allocation
purposes.\15\ The Exchange explains that it is proposing this change
because if the allocation algorithm for complex orders in a class is
pro-rata, the System is unable to block RFR responses that are larger
than the size of the COA-eligible order.\16\ The Exchange notes the
pursuant to C2 Rule 6.13(c)(7), RFR responses are firm with respect to
the COA-eligible order for which the responses are submitted, provided
that responses that exceed the size of a COA-eligible order are also
eligible to trade with other incoming COA-eligible orders that are
received during the Response Time Interval.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 67448.
    \16\ Id. The Exchange represents that this proposed rule change
will result in the rule regarding RFR responses more accurately
reflecting current System functionality. Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make technical and other
nonsubstantive changes, which are described in the Notice.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\19\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that it is reasonable for C2 to require
that incoming two-legged COA-eligible orders be COA'd by default unless
a Participant requests, on an order-by-order basis, that such orders
not COA. The Commission notes that, should a Participant not wish its
orders to be COA'd, the proposed rule will allow the Participant to
request that its orders not be COA'd on an order-by-order basis. In
addition, the Commission notes that the rules of another options
exchange provide that certain complex orders be routed to a complex
order auction unless a member designates that such orders not initiate
a complex order auction on that exchange.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Rule 1080, Commentary
.07(a)(viii) and (e) (describing the complex order live auction
(``COLA'') process and ``do not auction'' orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that it is reasonable for the Exchange
to add new provisions regarding how incoming orders with ``do-not-COA''
requests or that are not COA-eligible, as well as how changes in the
leg markets, may impact ongoing COAs. Such additions enhance the
description of current COA functionality and the circumstances that may
cause a COA to end early to help ensure investors understand how ``do-
not-COA'' orders may impact a COA. As noted above, these rules provide
that if entry of a ``do-not-COA'' order causes a COA to end, any
executions that occur following the COA will occur in accordance with
allocation principles in place, subject to an exception that the
original COA-eligible order will receive time priority.
    Finally, the Commission believes it is reasonable for C2 to delete
the provision in its Rules limiting the size of RFR responses to the
size of the COA-eligible order. The Commission notes that other options
exchanges do not limit the size of responses to the auctioned order
sized.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id. and NYSE MKT Rule 6.80NY(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\23\ that the proposed rule change (SR-C2-2015-025), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31681 Filed 12-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61134-61135]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24537]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2019-0066]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance and Notice of Public Hearing

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that by a letter dated April 23,
2019, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) petitioned
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an exemption from certain
requirements of chapter 203, title 49 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2019-0066.
    Amtrak's request for relief relates to its planned operation of new
high-speed trainsets built to Tier III passenger equipment safety
standards (49 CFR part

238, subpart H) and intended to be operated at speeds above 125 miles
per hour. This equipment is the subject of a separate FRA waiver
proceeding in Docket Number FRA-2014-0124.
    In its April 23, 2019, request, Amtrak asks FRA to exercise its
authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to exempt this new passenger equipment
from the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 20302, mandating that railroad
vehicles be equipped with (1) secure sill steps and efficient hand
brakes; (2) secure grab irons or handholds on vehicle ends and sides
for greater security to individuals coupling and uncoupling vehicles;
and (3) the standard height of drawbars. See 49 U.S.C. 20302(a)(1)(B),
(a)(2), and (a)(3).
    In support of its request for relief, Amtrak notes that in lieu of
handbrakes, the trainsets will be equipped with spring actuated parking
brake technology that can be manually set or released from the
engineer's control stand from an active cab and automatically applied
when there is no active cab in the train or there is a loss of
trainline brake continuity. Amtrak further notes that grab irons and
handholds on the ends and sides of the subject equipment are not
required for the security or safety of individuals coupling and
uncoupling the vehicles because by design, the individual passenger
vehicles and power cars can only be disconnected from each other in
repair facilities where personnel can work on, under, or between units
under protections afforded by 49 CFR part 218, subpart B. In addition,
Amtrak asserts that side steps, end handholds, and side handholds are
not required at the leading and trailing ends of high-speed trainsets
because the trainsets are equipment with technology for the safe
coupling of one trainset to another (i.e., each end will have automatic
self-centering couplers that couple to other trainsets on impact and
uncouple by mechanisms that do not require a person to go between
trainsets or the activation of a traditional uncoupling lever).
Finally, Amtrak asserts that because the equipment is a fixed train
consist in which individual vehicles are semi-permanently coupled and,
as noted above, individual vehicles can only be disconnected in repair
facilities where personnel can work on, under, or between units under
protections afforded by 49 CFR part 218, subpart B, having drawbars at
the statutorily-prescribed height is unnecessary. Further, as this
technology is intended to operate at high-speeds, the inclusion of
these appurtenances would have a significant and detrimental impact on
the aerodynamics of the trainset. This increase in the aerodynamic
footprint would negatively impact both efficiency and aerodynamic noise
emissions. In sum, Amtrak asserts that requiring compliance with the
identified statutory requirements would ``serve as an impediment to the
introduction of the advanced technology represented by the trainset
design.''
    Under 49 U.S.C. 20306, FRA may exempt Amtrak from the above-
identified statutory requirements based on evidence received and
findings developed at a hearing demonstrating that the statutory
requirements ``preclude the development or implementation of more
efficient railroad transportation equipment or other transportation
innovations under existing law.'' Accordingly, to receive evidence and
develop findings to determine whether FRA should invoke its
discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 in this instance, a
public hearing is scheduled for December 11, 2019, at 9 a.m., at the
National Association of Home Builders, 1201 15th St. NW, Washington, DC
20005. Interested parties are invited to present oral statements at the
hearing.
    For information on facilities or services for persons with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the hearing, contact
FRA Staff Director, Motive Power and Equipment Division, Gary
Fairbanks, by telephone, email or in writing, at least five business
days before the date of the hearing. Mr. Fairbanks' contact information
is as follows: FRA, Office of Railroad Safety, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE,
Washington, DC 20590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The hearing will be informal and will be conducted by a
representative designated by FRA in accordance with FRA's Rules of
Practice (49 CFR 211.25). The hearing will be a non-adversarial
proceeding; therefore, there will be no cross examination of persons
presenting statements. The FRA representative will make an opening
statement outlining the scope of the hearing. After all initial
statements have been completed, those persons wishing to make a brief
rebuttal will be given the opportunity to do so in the same order in
which initial statements were made. Additional procedures, as necessary
for the conduct of the hearing, will be announced at the hearing.
    The petitioner should be present at the hearing and prepared to
present evidence that any requirements of chapter 203, title 49,
U.S.C., for which exemption is sought ``preclude the development or
implementation of more efficient railroad transportation equipment or
other transportation innovations under existing law.''
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by participating in the hearing and/or submitting written views, data,
or comments to the FRA docket identified above.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by December 26, 2019 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019-24537 Filed 11-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22895-22896]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0917; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-14]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Zephyrhills, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace at Zephyrhills, FL, as the
Zephyrhills Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned,
requiring airspace redesign at Zephyrhills Municipal Airport. This
action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the
geographic coordinates of the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 29591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace at
Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, Zephyrhills, FL., (79 FR 70479).
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Zephyrhills Municipal Airport.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
the Zephyrhills Non-Directional Beacon

(NDB) and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety
and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic
coordinates of the airport also are adjusted to be in concert with
FAA's aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. 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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    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 amends controlled airspace at Zephyrhills Municipal Airport,
Zephyrhills, FL.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 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 FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014,
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Zephyrhills, FL [Amended]

Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]13'41'' N., long. 82[deg]09'22'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Zephyrhills Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 10, 2015.
Gerald E. Lynch,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2015-09388 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0692; FRL-       ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West
Virginia; Redesignation of the Weirton, WV Portion of the
Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Area’s Maintenance Plan

AGENCY:	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:	Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West
Virginia.  The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP) is requesting that the Brooke and Hancock County, West Virginia
(Weirton) portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV area (herein
referred to as the “Area”) be redesignated as attainment for the
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  In
conjunction with its redesignation request, the State submitted a SIP
revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Weirton that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years,
until 2018.  EPA is also approving the adequacy determination for the
motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the
Weirton 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for purposes of transportation
conformity, and is approving those MVEBs.  EPA is approving the
redesignation request and the maintenance plan revision to the West
Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date 30 days
from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA- R03-OAR-2006-0692.  All documents in the docket are listed
in the     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov
website.  Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov
or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at
the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies
of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE,
Charleston, WV 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Amy Caprio,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

On October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West Virginia.  The NPR proposed
approval of West Virginia’s redesignation request and a SIP revision
that establishes a maintenance plan for Weirton that sets forth how
Weirton will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next
12 years.  The formal SIP revision was submitted by the WVDEP on August
3, 2006.  Other specific requirements of West Virginia’s redesignation
request SIP revision for the maintenance plan and the rationales for
EPA’s proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be
restated here.  On October 19, 2006, EPA received a comment, from the
West Virginia Division of Highways, in support of its October 2, 2006
NPR.  Also, on October 28, 2006, EPA received adverse comments on the
said October 2, 2006 NPR.  A summary of the comments submitted and
EPA’s responses are provided in Section II of this document.  However,
errata were found on page 57912 of the NPR.  On page 57912 (Table 4), an
error occurred in EPA’s calculation of the 2018 Ohio NOx point
sources.  The correct 2018 Ohio NOx point source should read 46.4 tons
per day (tpd) instead of 41.0 tpd.  This error adversely affects the
total NOx point sources and the 2018 Ohio total NOx emissions.  The
correct total NOx point sources should read 52.0 tpd instead of 46.6
tpd.  Lastly, the 2018 Ohio total NOx emissions should read 55.3 tpd
instead of 49.9 tpd.  It should be noted that these errata do not affect
the attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard or the demonstration of
maintenance in the Area.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 II.  Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

Comment:  The commenter stated that on behalf of the West Virginia
Division of Highways, they would like to go on record as supporting the
redesignation of Weirton from nonattainment to attainment.

Response:  EPA acknowledges the comment of support for our final action.

Comment:  The commenter notes that although there are no electrical
generating units (EGUs) in the Weirton portion of the Area,
“significant” NOx emissions reduction are expected from 2002 –
2018 at two EGU’s located in Steubenville.  The commenter requests
specific information on the controls at these plants and measures making
these emissions reductions enforceable.

Response:  The Redesignation of Jefferson County, Ohio to Attainment of
the 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 72 FR 711 (January 8, 2007) notes that
Ohio’s EGU NOx emissions control rules stemming from EPA’s NOx SIP
Call, October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOx SIP Call,
May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), to be
implemented beyond 2006, will further lower NOx emissions in upwind
areas, resulting in decreased ozone and ozone precursor transport into
Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton Area.  This will also
support maintenance of the ozone standard in this Area, which
particularly benefits from the NOx SIP Call and CAIR.  These two
regulations focus on utility emissions in the Eastern United States and
impose a permanent cap on overall emissions from affected sources.  This
cap is likely to minimize growth of this very important component of
emissions in the Area.

The emission projections for Jefferson County and the
Steubenville-Weirton Area as a whole, coupled with the expected impacts
of the States’ EGU NOx rules and CAIR, lead to the conclusion that the
Area should maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS throughout the required
10-year maintenance period and through 2018.  The projected decreases in
local VOC and local and regional NOx emissions indicate that peak ozone
levels in the Area may actually further decline during the maintenance
period.

Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions, we conclude that the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP) and the Ohio EPA have successfully
demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard should be maintained
throughout the Area.

In addition, in this action EPA is approving the Maintenance Plan for
Weirton and in a separate action has proposed approval of the
Maintenance Plan for the Jefferson County (Steubenville) portion of the
Area.  Collectively, the Ohio and West Virginia Maintenance Plans
demonstrate why those states believe that the Area will continue to
maintain the 8-hour ozone standard for at least 10 years from the date
of redesignation.  Furthermore, the Contingency Plans, which are
components of the Maintenance Plans, set forth the steps that the States
will undertake to preserve attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard if
air quality indicators show that the air quality of the Area has
declined to the point when contingency measures to reverse that
deterioration of air quality should begin being implemented.  Therefore,
continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard will be assured
independent of whether or not enforceable reductions are currently
called for at the two Jefferson County EGUs.  In short, if projected
reductions from the Jefferson County EGUs do not occur, and if the
measures from the NOx SIP call, CAIR and other ozone control measures
that are currently implemented or will be implemented in the near
future, fail to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, the
States of West Virginia and Ohio nevertheless will have, with the
Contingency Plan provisions of their Maintenance Plans, a SIP-approved
process for assuring that air quality in Steubenville-Weirton Area will
continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard.

Comment:  The commenter states that the Weirton redesignation is based
on 2002-2004 air quality data, and should instead be based on the most
recent three years of air quality data, 2004-2006.

Response:  EPA disagrees that the 2006 data was available as a basis for
redesignating Weirton to attainment, and also disagrees with the comment
that the redesignation cannot be based on the quality assured 2002-2004
air quality data.  EPA may redesignate an area to attainment of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS if three years of quality assured data indicate that
the area has attained the standard and the most recent quality assured
air quality data indicates that the area is still attaining the standard
at the time of the redesignation.  EPA has determined that Weirton has
attained compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS subsequent to the
calendar year 2004 ozone season (April –October) based on three years
(2002-2004) of quality assured data.  It is also worth noting that while
our determination that the Area has attained the standard is based on
the 2002-2004 data, the 2005 calendar year quality assured data and the
newly available quality assured data from 2006, indicate that the Area
continues to attain the standard.  The 2005 and 2006 data supports our
conclusion in the NPR on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905) that emissions
reductions in the Area can be contributed to permanent and enforceable
measures throughout the Area and that air quality monitoring date
indicates that the Area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Comment:   The commenter asks why the monitoring site in Jefferson
County, Ohio was moved at the end of 2003, where the new site is in
relation to the old one, and an explanation as to the acceptability of
combining the data from the two sites.

Response:  The monitoring site in Jefferson County was relocated to a
site 1/3 mile from the original site after 2003 because Ohio EPA lost
site access to the original site.  The new site was approved by EPA
Region 5 and meets all siting criteria described in 40 CFR 58 Appendix
E.  The original and final sites are sufficiently close together and
removed from sources of ozone precursors such that the two sites
represent the same air quality.  Therefore, the data from the two sites
can be combined when calculating the three-year average ozone
concentration.  See Redesignation of Jefferson County, Ohio to
Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 72 FR 711 (January 8, 2007).

Comment:  The commenter asserts that cold and wet summers, rather than
enforceable emissions reductions are a significant cause of improvement
of air quality in Weirton, although the commenter also asserts based on
the number of days exceeding 84 ppb 2005 that the air quality is
actually not improving.

Response:  In accordance with Appendix I to 40 CFR Part 50, compliance
with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met at an ambient air monitoring site
when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm; it
is not based on the number of days which exceed the 8-hour ozone
standard.  Additionally, EPA uses the three-year averaging period to
minimize year to year variations in the summer (i.e., ozone season)
weather.  See Redesignation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 66 FR 53094,
53100 (October 19, 2001).  Therefore, the number of days exceeding 84
ppb are not relevant to a determination of whether an area (or portion
thereof), has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  Information relative to
long term trends of West Virginia summer temperatures and rainfall-based
data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s (NOAA) National Climate Data Center (please see
attached).  Based on EPA’s review, this information shows that the
summers 2000 through 2006 experienced year to year variations in average
summer temperature and rainfall typical of the summer seasons in the
State of West Virginia.  Thus the improvement in air quality is not due
to unusually cold and wet summers.  Rather, the improvement in air
quality is due to the implementation of permanent and enforceable
measures as explained in the NPR.  The permanent and enforceable
measures listed in the Weirton NPR include the National Low Emissions
Vehicle (NLEV), motor vehicle fleet turnover with new vehicles meeting
the Tier 2 standards, and the Clean Diesel Program.  These federal
vehicle programs along with the NOx SIP Call resulted in a 3.0 tons per
year (tpy) decrease in VOC emissions and a 37.2 tpy decrease in NOx
emissions throughout the Steubenville-Weirton Area between 2002 and
2004.  Therefore, EPA believes that the improvement in 8-hour ozone air
quality is a result of identifiable, permanent and enforceable
reductions in ozone precursor emissions, not unusually cold and wet
summers.

Comment:  The commenter request 2006 monitoring data for the Weirton
Area.

Response:  Preliminary (not quality assured) data is publicly available
at the following websites:    HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/data/"
www.epa.gov/air/data/  and/or   HYPERLINK "http://www.airnow.gov"
www.airnow.gov .  See also, footnote 1.

Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit  recently vacated EPA’s April 30, 2004 “Final Rule
to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Standard” (the Phase 1
implementation rule).  South Coast Air Quality Management District v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2007).  EPA issued a supplemental proposed
rulemaking that set forth its views on the potential effect of the
Court’s ruling on this and other proposed redesignation actions.  72
FR 13452 (March 22, 2007).  EPA proposed to find that the Court’s
ruling does not alter any requirements relevant to the proposed
redesignations that would prevent EPA from finalizing these
redesignations, for the reasons fully explained in the supplemental
notice.  EPA provided a 15-day review and comment period on this
supplemental proposed rulemaking.  The public comment period closed on
April 6, 2007.  EPA received six comments, all supporting EPA’s
supplemental proposed rulemaking, and supporting redesignation of the
affected areas.  EPA recognizes the support provided in these comments
as well, but again, we do not believe any specific response to comments
is necessary with respect to these comments.  In addition, several of
these comments included additional rationale for proceeding with these
proposed redesignations.  EPA had not requested comment on any
additional rationale, does not believe any additional rationale is
necessary, and similarly does not believe any specific response to these
comments is necessary, and thus has not provided any.

III.  Final Action

EPA is approving the State of West Virginia’s August 3, 2006
redesignation request and maintenance plan because the requirements for
approval have been satisfied.  EPA has evaluated West Virginia’s
redesignation request, submitted on August 3, 2006, and determined that
it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA.  EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring
data demonstrate that Weirton has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.
The final approval of this redesignation request will change the
designation of the Weirton, West Virginia portion of the Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.  EPA is
approving the associated maintenance plan for Weirton, submitted on
August 3, 2006, as a revision to the West Virginia SIP.  EPA is
approving the maintenance plan for Weirton because it meets the
requirements of section 175A.

EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by West Virginia in
conjunction with its redesignation request.  In this final rulemaking,
EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for NOx
and VOCs in the Weirton 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and
approved for conformity purposes.  As a result of our finding, Brooke
and Hancock Counties must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for future conformity determinations.  The adequate and
approved MVEBs are provided in the following table:

Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) in Tons
Per Day (TPD)

Budget Year	NOx	VOC

2009	2.8	2.0

2018	1.2	1.0

Weirton is subject to the CAA’s requirements for basic ozone
nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment.

IV.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final
action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
"Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use"  (66 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)).  This action
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the
Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and
does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).  This final rule also does not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it affects the status of a
geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or
allow the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.  This final rule also
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.  In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to
use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new requirements on sources.  Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct.  EPA has complied with Executive
Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings
implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General’s
Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order.

B.  Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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.  This rule is not a
“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

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 [insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.

This action, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance plan and
adequacy determination for MVEBs for Weirton, may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See section
307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

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

						                               /s/

___________				                         ____________________

Dated: 	May 4, 2007				   	James W. Newsom, Acting

							Regional Administrator,

							Region III.

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart XX– West Virginia

2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV
Area at the end of the table to read as follows:

§ 52.2520  		Identification of plan.

*		*		*		*		*

(e)***

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision	Applicable geographic area	State
submittal date	EPA approval date	Additional

explanation

*                    *                      *                   *
           *                 *                    *

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Area
Brooke and Hancock Counties 	08/03/06	[Insert Federal Register
publication date] [Insert page number where the document begins]

PART 81 - [AMENDED]

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

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

	4.  In § 81.349 the table entitled "West Virginia - Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)" is amended by revising the entry for the
Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Area to read as follows:

§ 81.349              West Virginia

*          *          *          *          *

		West Virginia - Ozone (8-Hour Standard)

Designated Area	Designationa	Category/Classification

	Date1	Type	Date1	Type

*          *          *         *         *          *          *

Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Area

Brooke County	[Insert date of publication]	Attainment

Hancock County	[Insert date of publication]	Attainment

*          *          *         *         *          *          *

aIncludes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise
noted.

1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

*          *          *         *         *

 The fourth highest 8-hour ozone monitoring values at the Hancock
County, West Virginia (Weirton) monitor for 2006 were 0.085 ppm, 0.079
ppm, 0.079 ppm, and 0.077 ppm.  The fourth highest 8-hour ozone
monitoring values at the Jefferson County, Ohio (Steubenville) monitor
for 2006 were 0.089, 0.083, 0.080 ppm, and 0.080 ppm.  Thus the design
values at both Area monitors for monitoring years 2004-2006 are still
showing attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS with a value of 0.075 ppm at the
Weirton monitor and 0.078 ppm at the Steubenville monitor.

  PAGE   13


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 7661]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7684-001]

Sharon and Marcia Leishman; Notice of Termination of Exemption by
Implied Surrender and Soliciting Comments and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric proceeding has been
initiated by the Commission:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Termination of exemption by implied
surrender
    b. Project No.: 7684-001
    c. Date Initiated: February 3, 2014
    d. Exemptee: Sharon and Marcia Leishman
    e. Name and Location of Project: The Leishman Irrigation System
Project is located on the irrigation tailwater collection system on the
Leishman's property in Kittitas County, Washington.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.106
    g. Exemptee Contact Information: Sharon Leishman<PHONE_NUMBER>
    h. FERC Contact: Krista Sakallaris,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. Deadline for filing comments and protests is 30 days from the
issuance of this notice by the Commission. Please file your submittal
electronically via the Internet (eFiling) in lieu of paper. Please
refer to the instructions on the Commission's Web site under http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp and filing instructions in the
Commission's Regulations at 18 CFR section 385.2001(a)(1)(iii). To
assist you with eFilings you should refer to the submission guidelines
document at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/user-guide.pdf.
In addition, certain filing requirements have statutory or regulatory
formatting and other instructions. You should refer to a list of these
``qualified documents'' at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing.pdf. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. Please include the project number (P-7684-001) on
any documents or motions filed. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings; otherwise, you should submit an original and seven
copies of any submittal to the following address: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mail Code: DHAC, PJ-12, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    j. Description of Project Facilities: (1) A 1,100-foot-long, 12-
inch-diameter PVC pipeline; (2) a powerhouse containing two generating
units with rated capacities of 25 kW and 7.5 kW and a combined annual
energy production of 60 MWh; and (3) a discharge conduit.
    k. Description of Proceeding: The exemptee is in violation of
Standard Article 1 of its exemption, which was granted April 6, 1984
(27 FERC ]61,074). The Commission's regulation, 18 CFR 4.106, provides,
among other things, that the Commission reserves the right to revoke an
exemption if any term or condition of the exemption is violated.
    Commission records indicate that the project stopped operating
sometime between 1996 and 1999. After several years of correspondence
regarding restoring operation to the project or surrounding the
exemption, the exemptee has become non-responsive. On December 16,
2013, the Commission sent a letter indicating that the exemptee must
file a plan and schedule to restore operation or surrender the project,
failure to do so would result in an implied surrender. To date, the
exemptee has not filed a response and the project remains inoperable.
    l. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the
Docket number (P-7684-001) excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the notice. You may also register online
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments and Protests--Anyone may submit comments or protests in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210 and 385.211. In determining the appropriate action to take,
the Commission will consider all protests filed. Any protests must be
received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular
proceeding.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS or ``PROTEST,'' as
applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the project number of the
proceeding to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address,
and telephone number of the person commenting or protesting; and (4)
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through
385.2005. All comments or protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All
comments or protests should relate to project works which are the
subject of the termination of exemption. A copy of any protest must be
served upon each representative of the exemptee specified in item g
above. A copy of all other filings in reference to this notice must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described proceeding. If any agency does not
file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be
presumed to have no comments.

    Dated: February 3, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02742 Filed 2-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11108-11111]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03600]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0859; Product Identifier 2020-NM-084-AD; Amendment
39-21413; AD 2021-03-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of failure of a certain fire detection and
extinguishing (FIREX) control unit. This AD requires replacing FIREX
control units having a certain part number. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 31, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 31,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 200 C[ocirc]te Vertu Road

West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free
telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0859.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0859; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-12, dated April 17,
2020 (TCCA AD CF-2020-12) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0859.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier,
Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on October 1, 2020 (85 FR 61881). The NPRM was prompted by
reports of failure of a certain FIREX control unit. The NPRM proposed
to require replacing FIREX control units having a certain part number.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the failure of a FIREX control
unit, which could result in the loss of the ability to detect a fire.
See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comment

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received
on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

Request To Allow Records Review

    NetJets requested that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD be revised
to allow operators to review airplane maintenance records to determine
the part number of the FIREX control unit installed on an airplane. The
commenter stated that for the airplane having serial number (S/N) 20662
the logbook delivery document specifies that the -3 FIREX control unit
is installed. The commenter explained that there is not a signoff sheet
for Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-26-001, but that the serialized
parts list clearly indicates that the -3 FIREX control unit is
installed.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request because this AD does
not mandate the method an operator must use to determine what FIREX
control unit part number is installed on an airplane. As specified in
paragraph (c) of this AD, this AD is only applicable to Bombardier,
Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes fitted with FIREX control unit part
number (P/N) 474112-2. If an operator is able to confirm that FIREX
control unit P/N 474112-3 is installed on an airplane the requirements
of this AD are not applicable to that airplane. This AD requires
operators to remove FIREX P/N 474112-2 and install P/N 474112-3. The
FAA has not changed this AD in regard to this issue.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 100-26-01, Revision 01,
dated December 5, 2019; and Service Bulletin 350-26-001, Revision 01,
dated December 5, 2019. This service information describes procedures
for replacing FIREX control units having P/N 474112-2 with units having
P/N 474112-3. These documents are distinct since they apply to
different airplane configurations. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 223 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................          $6,389           $6,474       $1,443,702
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2021-03-10 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-21413; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0859; Product Identifier 2020-NM-084-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 31, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 20003
through 20500 inclusive, and 20501 through 20669 inclusive, fitted
with fire detection and extinguishing (FIREX) control unit part
number (P/N) 474112-2.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire
protection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of failure of a certain FIREX
control unit. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of a
FIREX control unit, which could result in the loss of the ability to
detect a fire.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Replacement

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace
any FIREX control unit having P/N 474112-2 with a unit having P/N
474112-3, in accordance with paragraphs 2.B.(1) and (3) of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Bombardier service
bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes having serial numbers 20003 through 20500
inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-26-01, Revision 01, dated
December 5, 2019.
    (2) For airplanes having serial numbers 20501 through 20669
inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-26-001, Revision 01,
dated December 5, 2019.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
FIREX control unit having P/N 474112-2 on any airplane.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-26-
01, dated December 20, 2016; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-26-
001, dated December 20, 2016, as applicable.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2020-12, dated May 1, 2020, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2020-0859.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Siddeeq Bacchus,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-26-01, Revision 01, dated
December 5, 2019.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-26-001, Revision 01, dated
December 5, 2019.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 200 C[ocirc]te Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free telephone 1-
866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. 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, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) 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, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 28, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03600 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P