[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45513-45515]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18614]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0801; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-106-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-200 and -200C series airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report of elevator vibration and
bearing swage failures. This proposed AD would require, for certain
airplanes, repetitive inspections for any discrepancies (such as a gap
or a loose spacer) of the aft attach lugs for the elevator tab control
mechanism, and replacement if necessary, and for other airplanes,
contacting the FAA for inspection or repair instructions and doing the
work specified in those instructions. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct discrepancies in the aft attach lugs for the
elevator tab control mechanism, which could result in elevator and tab
vibration. Consequent structural failure of the elevator or horizontal
stabilizer could result in loss of structural integrity and loss of
airplane control.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0801;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-106-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report of elevator vibration and bearing swage
failures on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
airplanes. Some Model 737-200 and -200C series airplanes have a similar
design. Boeing did a design review and also reviewed the service
history and found two incidents on Model 737-200 series airplanes of
unrestrained elevator tab vibration with similar damage to that seen on
the affected Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
airplanes, although it has not been confirmed to be caused by the same
issue. Discrepancies in the aft attach lugs for the elevator tab
control mechanism, if not detected and corrected, could result in
elevator and tab vibration. Consequent structural failure of the
elevator or horizontal stabilizer could result in loss of structural
integrity and loss of airplane control.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1302, dated April
24, 2012. For certain airplanes, that service bulletin describes
procedures for a detailed inspection for any discrepancies (such as a
gap or a loose spacer) of the aft attach lugs for the elevator tab
control mechanism, and replacement of the mechanism, if necessary.
Replacing the mechanism includes inspecting the mechanism being
installed prior to and after installation for any discrepancies. For
certain other airplanes, that service bulletin specifies contacting the
manufacturer for inspection, change, or repair instructions, and doing
the work specified in those instructions.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.'' The proposed AD would also require sending the initial
inspection results to Boeing. This required inspection report will help
determine if additional action is needed. Based on the results of these
reports, we might determine that further corrective action is
warranted.

Related Rulemaking

    We issued AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August
25, 2010), to address the identified unsafe condition on Model 737-600,
-700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Although the service bulletin specifies that, for Group 1
airplanes, operators may contact the manufacturer for certain
inspection procedures and disposition of repair or replacement
conditions, this proposed AD would require operators do those actions
using a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, FAA.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 200 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost    Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection for Group 2 airplanes.  7 work-hours x $85             $0  $595 per inspection   $119,000 per
                                    per hour = $595 per                cycle.                inspection cycle.
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Group 1 airplanes, we do not have definitive data that would
enable us to provide cost estimates for the action specified in this
proposed AD.
    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                 Action                          Labor cost           Parts cost        product
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of a mechanism.............  7 work-hours x $85 per            $29,289         $29,884
                                          hour = $595.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed
regulation:
    (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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2012-0801; Directorate Identifier
2012-NM-106-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 17, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-200 and -200C
series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-27A1302, dated April 24, 2012.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of elevator vibration and
bearing swage failures.

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies in the
aft attach lugs for the elevator tab control mechanism, which could
result in elevator and tab vibration. Consequent structural failure
of the elevator or horizontal stabilizer could result in loss of
structural integrity and loss of airplane control.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Group 1 Airplanes

    For Group 1 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-27A1302, dated April 24, 2012: Within 1,500 flight
cycles or 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, inspect the left and right elevator tab
control mechanisms, and repair or replace as applicable, in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be approved,
the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and
the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(h) Inspection for Group 2 Airplanes

    For Group 2 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-27A1302, dated April 24, 2012: Within 1,500 flight
cycles or 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection for any
discrepancies of the inboard and outboard aft attach lugs of the
left and right elevator tab control mechanisms, in accordance with
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1302, dated April 24, 2012.
Repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
1,500 flight cycles or 2,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(i) Corrective Actions for Paragraph (h) of This AD

    If any discrepancy is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, replace the
discrepant elevator tab control mechanism with a non-discrepant
mechanism by doing the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and
(i)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the
replacement elevator tab control mechanism; and, if no discrepancy
is found, before further flight, install the replacement elevator
tab control mechanism; in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1302, dated
April 24, 2012. If any discrepancy is found in that mechanism, then
that mechanism may not be installed.
    (2) Repeat the inspection on the installed replacement elevator
tab control mechanism in accordance with the requirements of
paragraph (h) of this AD.

(j) Inspection Report

    Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of
the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD to
Boeing Commercial Airlines Group, Attention: Manager, Airline
Support, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. The report must
include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies
found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and
flight hours on the airplane.
    (1) If the inspection was done after the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was accomplished prior to the effective
date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD.

(k) Parts Installation Limitations

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
elevator tab control mechanism assembly, part number 65-79425-2, -3,
-4, -5, or -6, on any airplane, unless the assembly has been
inspected in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD both before
and after installation.

(l) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kelly McGuckin,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 23, 2012.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-18614 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30223-30225]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10043]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31483; Amdt. No. 4057]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective May 11, 2023. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217,
Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums
and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its
associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed
on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this
amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20.
The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B,
when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete

description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form
documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the typed of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs
with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies
the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    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.
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. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2023.
Thomas J. Nichols,
Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service, Manager, Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part
97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates
specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 18 May 2023

Greensboro, NC, KGSO, ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 32, Orig-B
Greensboro, NC, KGSO, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 32, Orig-B

Effective 15 June 2023

Hazlehurst, GA, KAZE, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 2
Hazlehurst, GA, KAZE, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig
Hazlehurst, GA, KAZE, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Jasper, GA, KJZP, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1
Statesboro, GA, KTBR, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Valparaiso, IN, KVPZ, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 3C
Valparaiso, IN, KVPZ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Valparaiso, IN, KVPZ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-C
Norton, KS, KNRN, NDB RWY 16, Amdt 2B, CANCELED
Norton, KS, KNRN, NDB RWY 34, Amdt 2A, CANCELED
Charlevoix, MI, KCVX, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Traverse City, MI, KTVC, ILS OR LOC RWY 28, Amdt 15
Columbus, NE, KOLU, LOC RWY 14, Amdt 9
Columbus, NE, KOLU, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1
Columbus, NE, KOLU, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1
Newark, NJ, KEWR, GLS RWY 4L, Amdt 2
Newark, NJ, KEWR, GLS RWY 4R, Amdt 2
Newark, NJ, KEWR, GLS RWY 11, Amdt 1
Newark, NJ, KEWR, ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, ILS RWY 4R (CAT II), ILS RWY 4R
(CAT III), Amdt 14
Newark, NJ, KEWR, ILS OR LOC RWY 11, Amdt 3
Newark, NJ, KEWR, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1
Newark, NJ, KEWR, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 4R, Amdt 2
Newark, NJ, KEWR, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 4R, Amdt 1
Newark, NJ, KEWR, VOR RWY 11, Amdt 2G, CANCELED
Connellsville, PA, KVVS, LOC RWY 5, Amdt 4C
Connellsville, PA, KVVS, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-C
Sioux Falls, SD, KFSD, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1E
Chattanooga, TN, KCHA, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 8
Chattanooga, TN, KCHA, ILS OR LOC RWY 20, ILS RWY 20 (CAT II), Amdt
37
Chattanooga, TN, KCHA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1B
Chattanooga, TN, KCHA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1A
Chattanooga, TN, KCHA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1B
Chattanooga, TN, KCHA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 2
Chattanooga, TN, KCHA, VOR RWY 33, Amdt 17B, CANCELED
Fort Hood/Killeen, TX, KGRK, VOR RWY 15, Amdt 3C
Brigham City, UT, KBMC, OGDEN ONE, Graphic DP
Brigham City, UT, KBMC, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7
Monticello, UT, U64, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig
Monticello, UT, U64, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig
Monticello, UT, U64, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Port Townsend, WA, 0S9, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1
Spokane, WA, KGEG, ILS OR LOC RWY 3, ILS RWY 3 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 3
(CAT II), ILS RWY 3 (CAT III), Amdt 7B
Spokane, WA, KGEG, ILS OR LOC RWY 21, ILS RWY 21 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY
21 (CAT II), ILS RWY 21 (CAT III), Amdt 24A
Spokane, WA, KGEG, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8
Spokane, WA, KGEG, VOR RWY 3, Amdt 15
Spokane, WA, KGEG, VOR RWY 21, Orig-A
Boyceville, WI, 3T3, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1

Huntington, WV, KHTS, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 4

[FR Doc. 2023-10043 Filed 5-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20219]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-133-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 27, 2015, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia), filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission pursuant to sections 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
requesting authority to abandon by sale to Mountaineer Gas Company
certain natural gas facilities located in Cabell and Putnam Counties
West Virginia. Specifically, Columbia requests authority to abandon by
sale approximately 16.15 miles of its Line SM-108 and associated
apprutences as well as the service currently provided through the
facilities. Additionally, Columbia requests that the Commission find
the facilities, once sold, exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction
pursuant to section 1(b) of the NGA.
    This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
counsel for Columbia, Tyler R. Brown, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas
Transmission LLC, 5151 San Felipe Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056 by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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 proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below 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). 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 seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order 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.
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 commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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 seven copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: April 29, 2015.

    Dated: April 8, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08552 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31172-31177]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12291]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 1 and 124

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2019-0406; FRL-10024-73-OA]
RIN 2090-AA41

Revisions to the Permit Appeals Process To Restore the
Organization and Function of the Environmental Appeals Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reversing recent
changes to the organization and function of the Environmental Appeals
Board (EAB) that altered the appeals process and procedures for Agency
decisions that the EAB considers. In addition, the Administrator
reaffirms that the Board is intended to function as an impartial body
that is independent of all EPA components, except the immediate Office
of the Administrator, and reaffirms the EAB's ability to carry

out the Administrator's delegated authority to adjudicate disputes and
issue final Agency decisions.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2019-0406. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
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 electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ammie Roseman-Orr, Environmental
Appeals Board (EAB), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 1103M, Washington, DC 20460-0001;
(202) 233-0122; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action affects the organization and function of the
Environmental Appeals Board (EAB or Board) and the rules of practice
governing administrative appeals. The rules of practice governing EAB
appeals apply to any persons or entities who seek review of EPA final
permit decisions under 40 CFR 124.19 by the EAB as well as persons or
entities who appear before the Board in other matters.

B. When will this rule become effective?

    This rule will become effective upon publication in the Federal
Register. The Administrative Procedure Act's requirement, 5 U.S.C.
553(d), that substantive rules not be effective until at least 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register is inapplicable because this
rulemaking is procedural.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA is issuing this document under its general rulemaking
authority, 5 U.S.C. 301, which provides that ``[t]he head of an
Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations
for the government of this department, the conduct of its employees,
the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use,
and preservation of its records, papers, and property.'' EPA is not one
of the 15 ``Executive Departments'' listed at 5 U.S.C. 101, however,
EPA gained housekeeping authority through the Reorganization Plan No. 3
of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086 (July 9, 1970).
    EPA's authority to issue this procedural rule is also contained in
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.;
Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300(f) et seq.; Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq. This
rule does not expand the Board's authority beyond that of the
Administrator in reviewing agency decisionmaking and making final
agency determinations.
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b) (A), provides that ``rules of agency organization, procedure, or
practice'' are exempt from notice and comment requirements. The action
the Agency is taking in this document reverses certain amendments to
the Environmental Appeals Board's procedural rules and replaces them
with the prior regulatory text. These procedural revisions fall under
the exemption provided in APA section 553(b)(3)(A), as did the rule
originally establishing the EAB and its appeal procedures. 57 FR 5320,
5322 (February 13, 1992). Some of the changes in this rule affect the
organization of the Agency as it pertains to the organization and
function of the EAB, and some of the changes alter the procedures
applicable to appeals submitted to the EAB for adjudication. With
respect to the appeals process and procedures, this action does not
alter the rights or interests of the parties who come before the Board;
rather, it reinstates the prior process and procedures used by the
Board to review the Agency decision being appealed. Accordingly, EPA is
taking no comment on this action.

II. Background

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    The Agency is rescinding certain changes made to EPA's
Environmental Appeals Board and its appeal process that were
promulgated on August 21, 2020 (85 FR 51650) (hereafter ``2020 EAB
Rule'' or ``2020 amendments''). Specifically, the EPA is reinstating
the regulatory text at 40 CFR 1.25 and most of 40 CFR 124.19 that
existed prior to the 2020 amendments. The 2020 EAB Rule is subject to
review consistent with the Executive Order 13990, ``Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate
Crisis,'' section 2(a) (January 20, 2021) (86 FR 7037, January 25,
2021). Based on that review, the Agency has determined that the 2020
EAB Rule adversely affects the administration of the Agency's appeals
process and procedures and, thus, rescission of the 2020 EAB Rule is
warranted. This action does not, however, alter the revisions that the
2020 EAB Rule made to 40 CFR part 49 or 71, which made the permit
appeal procedures in 40 CFR 124.19 applicable to permits issued to
tribes in Indian Country under part 49 (for minor and non-attainment
NSR permits) and to Title V permits issued under part 71. Applying the
same appeal procedures to these types of permits makes the appeals
process more consistent, efficient, and transparent.
    The EAB was established by rule in 1992 as an impartial body,
independent of other EPA components outside of the immediate Office of
the Administrator, to conduct full and fair adjudications and to allow
for a broader range of input into Agency decisions by the
Administrator's express delegation of authority. 57 FR 5320 (February
13, 1992). This rule reinstates the regulatory provisions related to
the establishment and function of the EAB and the permit appeals
process as they existed prior to the 2020 amendments. In doing so, the
Administrator is ensuring that the EAB can continue to uphold the
integrity of the Agency's decisionmaking, including the advancement of
environmental justice.
    The 2020 EAB Rule altered regulatory text pertaining to EAB
procedures governing permit appeals, which are informal adjudications
under the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, the 2020 EAB Rule
was intended to preclude the EAB's review of discretionary Agency
actions and to make the Board's scope of review more akin to that of
federal courts. To accomplish that goal, the 2020 EAB Rule removed
regulatory text pertaining to the EAB's review of challenges based on
the permit issuer's exercise of discretion, as well as the Board's
discretion to review important policy considerations. The changes
adversely affected the Board's ability to review--in the context of a
permit appeal--a permit issuer's compliance with and application of
important EPA policies and Executive orders (85 FR 51652), such as
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' 59 FR
7629 (February 16, 1994), which the Board has done in many prior cases.
Additionally, the 2020 EAB Rule's stated aim of aligning the Board's
standard of review with that

of federal courts is not met by the 2020 EAB Rule, because the
Administrative Procedure Act authorizes Federal courts to set aside any
final agency action under review that is arbitrary, capricious, or an
abuse of discretion. 5 U.S.C. 706. By limiting the Board's review to
clearly erroneous findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
excluding the review of discretionary Agency action and compliance with
EPA policies and Executive orders, the 2020 EAB Rule injected
uncertainty with respect to the Board's ability to review acts or
omissions of the exercise of Agency discretion (and with respect to the
applicability of prior related precedent). The effect of the 2020 EAB
Rule also conflicts with the efficient and effective functioning of the
EAB to administratively review Agency action before it is final,
irrespective of a Federal court's scope or standard of review, and to
ensure that Agency components consistently comply with Agency policies
in a manner that comports with exercising the delegated functions of
the Administrator. As such, these changes present obstacles for the
Board in ensuring the integrity of Agency decisionmaking where the
decision involves discretionary agency action and may impede the
advancement of important polices, such as environmental justice. For
this reason, this rule rescinds the changes to the EAB's standard for
review in permit appeals.
    The 2020 EAB Rule also adversely affected other aspects of the
process for permit appeals. To purportedly ``streamline the permitting
appeal process,'' the rule set deadlines for the EAB's review by
imposing a 60-day requirement to issue permit decisions. The 2020 EAB
Rule also restricted the number and length of extensions of time that
parties may request. Given the wide range of issues and arguments
raised in petitions for review by the EAB, these restrictions are
overly prescriptive. Briefing schedules, extensions of time, and even
the time it takes to issue a decision are more effectively managed on a
case-by-case basis after considering the nature and circumstances
present in the case balanced with the resources and demands of the EAB.
Existing EAB rules provide the Board the authority, in exercising its
duties and responsibilities, to ``do all acts and take all measures
necessary for the efficient, fair, and impartial adjudication of issues
arising in an appeal.'' 40 CFR 124.19(n). The ability of a tribunal to
manage its docket--including granting extensions, setting deadlines,
and determining procedural requirements--is essential to its ability to
provide an efficient, fair, and impartial adjudication. Removing the
ability of the EAB to manage its caseload based on the wide range of
circumstances that may be presented runs counter to those goals.
    Additionally, the stated objective to ``streamline'' the permitting
process in the 2020 EAB Rule was not well-supported. The EAB review
process not only provides a meaningful opportunity for affected
communities to have their concerns addressed, it also expedites the
process of obtaining a final, valid permit by facilitating a process
that is faster and more certain for the applicant. Permit appeals to
the EAB are resolved within a reasonable timeframe and the overwhelming
majority of EAB decisions resolve the dispute without the need for
federal court litigation, which generally takes considerably longer. On
average, very few EAB decisions are appealed to Federal court and very
few of those have been overturned. Over the years the EAB has
continually refined and altered its processes to reduce the amount of
time it takes to effectively resolve an appeal and to make it easier
for people to use the appeals process, including the use of electronic
filing, making the EAB docket publicly accessible and EAB decisions
publicly searchable, implementing word limits on briefs, streamlining
procedures for participation in permit appeals, improving internal
processes, and implementing the EAB's highly successful Alternative
Dispute Resolution process. The EAB has demonstrated a commitment to
continuous improvement in the permit appeal process.
    The 2020 EAB Rule also altered the deadline and page limit for
Amicus participation. Amicus parties in EAB cases can include impacted
States, Tribes, and Municipalities (when they are not a petitioner or
respondent in the appeal), trade associations, and--when a non-EPA
authority is the permit issuer--the EPA's Office of General Counsel. It
is in the best interest of the appeals process to provide amicus
parties with reasonable timeframes in which to file briefs in appeals,
so long as the time allowed will not unduly interfere with the
efficiency of the process. Requiring Amicus briefs to be submitted in
all cases before the Permit Issuer responds to a Petition for Review,
and limiting the length of such briefs to 15 pages, both of which the
2020 EAB Rule does, unnecessarily restricts the EAB's consideration of
amici participation in a manner that may preclude the EAB from
receiving fully informative briefing of the issues on appeal and, as
such, may complicate rather than streamline or improve the permitting
appeal process.
    The 2020 EAB Rule also removed the Board's authority to decide on
its own initiative, or sua sponte, to review any condition of a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Underground Injection
Control (UIC), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
or Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit decision
reviewable under 40 CFR 124.19, even when that permit has not been
appealed. Consistent with the delegated authority by the Administrator
to review agency decisions, this final rule reinstates the Board's sua
sponte authority, which has been in place since the Board was
established.
    With respect to the function of the Board, the 2020 EAB Rule
modified the EAB's prior-existing delegation of authority by
authorizing the EPA General Counsel, who frequently appears before the
EAB in disputed matters as Counsel, or works closely with an EPA Region
or EPA program office as ``of Counsel,'' to issue dispositive
determinations on pending EAB matters. Specifically, the 2020 EAB Rule
provides that the Administrator acting through the General Counsel can
issue a dispositive legal interpretation in any matter pending before
the EAB (including enforcement or permit matters) or on any issues
addressed by the EAB. These revisions are inconsistent with the EAB's
original establishment and function and undermine the transparency,
fairness, and finality of EAB decisions. When the Board was
established, the Administrator recognized the need to make clear that
``the Administrator's adjudicative authority and the Administrator's
enforcement authority (delegated to various Regional and Headquarters
enforcement officers) are delegated to, and exercised by separate and
distinct components of the Agency.'' 57 FR 5322. For this reason, the
rules expressly prohibit Board Members from being employed by the
Office of General Counsel or any other office directly associated with
matters that could come before the EAB. 40 CFR 1.25(e)(3). The EAB's
independence from the various component offices outside the immediate
Office of the Administrator is a critical element of inspiring
confidence in the fairness and transparency of the Agency's appellate
adjudication process. This includes independence from the Office of the
General Counsel, which is not part of the immediate Office of the
Administrator.
    Additionally, administrative review by the EAB involves a review of
the

record of decision as it existed at the time the decision was made. A
post-hoc interpretation of law that is issued while an appeal is
pending, and that is binding on the EAB, injects confusion into the
Agency decisionmaking process and conflicts with the EAB's review of
the Agency's understanding or application of the law at the time the
decision was made. Transparency and fairness in the review of Agency
decisionmaking is better served by not injecting a newly issued
interpretation of law from the Office of General Counsel while an
appeal is pending before the Board. Additionally, because the Office of
General Counsel is often counsel, ``of counsel'' or an amicus party in
Board cases, the imposition of a new binding interpretation of law
issued through the Office of General Counsel during the pendency of an
appeal raises the very concerns that the EAB was established to
address. Moreover, this modification was unnecessary because, among
other reasons, a reconsideration process exists for EAB decisions and
matters can be referred to the Administrator for decision. In sum, a
legal interpretation binding on the EAB issued during the pendency of
an appeal undermines the EAB's exercise of the Administrator's
delegated adjudicative authority as well as confidence in the fairness
of the process.
    The 2020 EAB Rule also established a process for the Administrator
to reverse the EAB's designation of a decision for publication. A
decision designated for publication means the decision is slated to be
reproduced in bound volumes of the Environmental Administrative
Decisions and appear on the Board's website as a published decision.
Practically speaking, re-designating a decision as unpublished does not
alter the EAB's statutory obligation to publish all final decisions and
orders on its website under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2)(A) (i.e., both published
and unpublished final orders). The intent of the rule change, however,
was not necessarily to affect which decisions are made available to the
public; rather, the intent was to indicate to reviewing courts that
only published EAB decisions may warrant deference. 85 FR 51653 (August
21, 2020) (noting in the preamble that ``it is the express policy of
the Agency that only published decisions of the EAB represent EPA's
official, authoritative position with regard to the issues addressed in
such decisions'' and that the intent of the change is to ``indicate to
reviewing courts that only published EAB decisions may warrant
deference''). As revised, the regulatory text added in the 2020 EAB
Rule regarding decisions for publication neither determines which
decisions will be made available to the public nor forecloses a
reviewing court from choosing to afford deference to an unpublished
decision. Whether a decision is categorized as ``published'' versus
``unpublished'' is also not determinative of whether a party will rely
on a case or cite a case to the Board. Consistent with the foundational
legal principle of stare decisis, the Board generally follows its own
prior applications of law where the same factual and legal principles
are presented. The use of a system of precedential decisions makes the
decisional process more transparent and consistent for all, including
the public. Given all of the above, the provision providing for the
Administrator to determine whether a decision should be re-categorized
as unpublished or not followed in future cases could negatively affect
the transparency and consistency of EAB decisionmaking, and interfere
with the independence and function of the EAB to issue final decisions
as delegated by the Administrator, which again is fundamental to
inspiring confidence in the fairness of the Agency's appellate
adjudication process.
    Finally, the 2020 EAB Rule set 12-year term limits for EAB judges
to serve on the Board. When the Board was established, it was created
as a ``permanent body with continuing functions.'' 57 FR 5320. For
twenty-nine years, the EAB judges have been career employees and
members of the Senior Executive Service (SES), governed by a specific
statute implemented by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM),
specifically 5 U.S.C. 3395. The EAB judge position has been classified
as Career Reserved, which means that the position is filled by a career
appointee and designated as such to ensure impartiality, and the
public's confidence in the impartiality, of the government. 5 CFR
214.402. The Career Reserved designation is particularly appropriate
for positions, like this, that involve adjudication and appeals. Id. In
addition, imposing a 12-year term limit is unnecessary given that the
Administrator assigns and appoints career appointees to serve as EAB
judges, and each judge acts on the express delegated authority of the
Administrator and remains accountable to the Administrator. Further,
pursuant to 3395 and 5 CFR 317.901, each judge, as a member of the SES,
is subject to reassignment by the Administrator to any other SES
position in the Agency for which he or she qualifies, if the
Administrator so chooses. 5 U.S.C. 3395 (governing the reassignment or
transfer of SES employees); 5 CFR 317.901 (setting forth procedures for
effectuating SES reassignments or transfers). The added term limits
neither expanded nor removed any authority that the Administrator has
over the EAB judge positions. The Agency has benefited from judges who
have served on the EAB for long terms because these judges have deep
experience in EAB jurisprudence and provide important stability for the
Board, as well as the Agency's administrative jurisprudence. Further,
although the 2020 EAB Rule set 12-year term limits, it applied those
limits on a ``rolling basis'' to the current judges, where the most
senior judge's term expires three years from the effective date of the
2020 EAB Rule. 85 FR 51653. This ``retroactive'' application of the 12-
year term limits to current judges conflicts with the ``dignity and
stature'' that was originally intended for ``the Agency's highest
adjudicative body.'' 57 FR 5320. Potentially rotating in a new judge
every three years (or even more often if vacancies occur) could inject
instability into the appeals process, may appear to politicize the
position in a way that is antithetical to the career reserved
designation, and does not serve the Agency's intent in creating the EAB
as a specialized, impartial appellate Agency tribunal. Removing the
term limits leaves in place the Administrator's authority to reassign
any SES judge, consistent with relevant SES statutes and regulations,
if the Administrator chooses.
    In sum, by rescinding the 2020 EAB Rule and reverting the
regulations pertaining to the EAB's function and process to the prior
existing regulatory text, the Administrator is reaffirming the EAB's
original function as an impartial body, independent of other EPA
components, to conduct full and fair adjudications in the exercise of
the Administrator's delegated authority. In modifying the
Administrator's delegation of authority to the EAB, the 2020 EAB Rule
weakened the administration of the Agency's appeals process and
procedures. The reversion of the regulatory text will better safeguard
the EAB's ability to efficiently and effectively manage the appeals
process and ensure the integrity of Agency decisionmaking, advance
environmental justice, and protect public health and the environment,
in accordance with the mission of the Agency. The Agency intends to
further consider the advisability of future revisions to the EAB's
procedural rules

to incorporate any other housekeeping revisions needed for efficiently
and effectively processing appeals.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) because it is limited to agency organization, management
or personnel matters.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not contain any information collection activities
and therefore does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to
rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute.
This rule pertains to agency management or personnel, which the EPA
expressly exempts from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under
5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1536, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175.

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 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 action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or
safety risk.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental
health or safety standard.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule relating to
agency management or personnel; and is a rule of agency organization,
procedure or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 1

    Environmental protection, Organization and functions (Government
agencies).

40 CFR Part 124

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Indians--lands, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR parts 1 and 124 as follows:

PART 1--STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL INFORMATION

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

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84
Stat. 2086 (July 9, 1970).

0
2. Amend Sec.  1.25 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (e)(2);
0
b. Removing paragraphs (e)(3) and (5); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (e)(4) as paragraph (e)(3).
    The revision reads as follows:

Sec.  1.25 Staff   offices.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Functions. The Environmental Appeals Board shall exercise any
authority expressly delegated to it in this title. With respect to any
matter for which authority has not been expressly delegated to the
Environmental Appeals Board, the Environmental Appeals Board shall, at
the Administrator's request, provide advice and consultation, make
findings of fact and conclusions of law, prepare a recommended
decision, or serve as the final decisionmaker, as the Administrator
deems appropriate. In performing its functions, the Environmental
Appeals Board may consult with any EPA employee concerning any matter
governed by the rules set forth in this title, provided such
consultation does not violate applicable ex parte rules in this title.
* * * * *

PART 124--PROCEDURES FOR DECISIONMAKING

0
3. The authority citation for part 124 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.

0
4. Amend Sec.  124.19 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4), (e), (g), and (l);
0
b. Removing paragraph (m) and redesignating paragraphs (n) through (p)
as paragraphs (m) through (o), respectively; and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (p).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  124.19   Appeal of RCRA, UIC, NPDES and PSD Permits.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Petition contents. (i) In addition to meeting the requirements
in paragraph (d) of this section, a petition for review must identify
the contested permit condition or other specific challenge to the
permit decision and clearly set forth, with legal and factual support,
petitioner's contentions for why the

permit decision should be reviewed. The petition must demonstrate that
each challenge to the permit decision is based on:
    (A) A finding of fact or conclusion of law that is clearly
erroneous; or
    (B) An exercise of discretion or an important policy consideration
that the Environmental Appeals Board should, in its discretion, review.
    (ii) Petitioners must demonstrate, by providing specific citation
to the administrative record, including the document name and page
number, that each issue being raised in the petition was raised during
the public comment period (including any public hearing) to the extent
required by Sec.  124.13. For each issue raised that was not raised
previously, the petition must explain why such issues were not required
to be raised during the public comment period as provided in Sec.
124.13. Additionally, if the petition raises an issue that the Regional
Administrator addressed in the response to comments document issued
pursuant to Sec.  124.17, then petitioner must provide a citation to
the relevant comment and response and explain why the Regional
Administrator's response to the comment was clearly erroneous or
otherwise warrants review.
* * * * *
    (e) Participation by amicus curiae. Any interested person may file
an amicus brief in any appeal pending before the Environmental Appeals
Board under this section. The deadline for filing such brief is 15 days
after the filing of the response brief, except that amicus briefs in
PSD or other new source permit appeals must be filed within 21 days
after the filing of the petition. Amicus briefs must comply with all
procedural requirements of this section.
* * * * *
    (g) Timing of motions for extension of time. Parties must file
motions for extensions of time sufficiently in advance of the due date
to allow other parties to have a reasonable opportunity to respond to
the request for more time and to provide the Environmental Appeals
Board with a reasonable opportunity to issue an order.
* * * * *
    (l) Final disposition and judicial review. (1) A petition to the
Environmental Appeals Board under paragraph (a) of this section is,
under 5 U.S.C. 704, a prerequisite to seeking judicial review of the
final agency action.
    (2) For purposes of judicial review under the appropriate Act,
final agency action on a permit occurs when agency review procedures
under this section are exhausted and the Regional Administrator
subsequently issues a final permit decision under this paragraph (l). A
final permit decision must be issued by the Regional Administrator:
    (i) When the Environmental Appeals Board issues notice to the
parties that the petition for review has been denied;
    (ii) When the Environmental Appeals Board issues a decision on the
merits of the appeal and the decision does not include a remand of the
proceedings; or
    (iii) Upon the completion of remand proceedings if the proceedings
are remanded, unless the Environmental Appeals Board's remand order
specifically provides that appeal of the remand decision will be
required to exhaust administrative remedies.
    (3) The Regional Administrator must promptly publish notice of any
final agency action in the Federal Register regarding the following
permits:
    (i) PSD permits;
    (ii) Outer continental shelf permits issued under 40 CFR part 55;
    (iii) Federal Title V operating permits issued under 40 CFR part
71;
    (iv) Acid Rain permits appealed under 40 CFR part 78;
    (v) Tribal Major Non-Attainment NSR permits issued under 40 CFR
49.166 through 49.173; and
    (vi) Tribal Minor NSR permits issued under 40 CFR 49.151 through
49.161.
* * * * *
    (p) Authority to initiate review. The Environmental Appeals Board
also may decide on its own initiative to review any condition of any
RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD permit decision issued under this part for
which review is available under paragraph (a) of this section. The
Environmental Appeals Board must act under this paragraph (p) within 30
days of the service date of notice of the Regional Administrator's
action.

[FR Doc. 2021-12291 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17136-17137]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06073]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

[Docket ID Number: DOT-OST-2014-0031]

Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review;
Preservation of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
(OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general public,
industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing
need for and usefulness of BTS requiring certificated air carriers to
preserve accounting records, consumer complaint letters, reservation
reports and records, system reports of aircraft movements, etc. Also,
public charter operators and overseas military personnel charter
operators are required to retain certain contracts, invoices, receipts,
bank records and reservation records.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 24, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
DOT-OST-2014-0031 OMB Approval No. 2138-0006 by any of the following
methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Services: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Identify docket number, DOT-OST-2014-0031, at the
beginning of your comments, and send two copies. To receive
confirmation that DOT received your comments, include a self-addressed
stamped postcard. Internet users may access all comments received by
DOT at https://www.regulations.gov. All comments are posted
electronically without charge or edits, including any personal
information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

Electronic Access

    You may access comments received for this notice at http://www.regulations.gov, by searching docket DOT-OST-2014-0031.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline
Information, RTS-42, Room E34, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax Number
(202) 366-3383 or EMAIL [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Approval No.: 2138-0006.
    Title: Preservation of Air Carrier Records--14 CFR part 249.
    Form No.: None.
    Type of Review: Reinstatement of an expired recordkeeping
requirement.
    Respondents: Certificated air carriers and charter operators.
    Number of Respondents: 89 certificated air carriers, 280 charter
operators.
    Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours per certificated air carrier,
1 hour per charter operator.
    Total Annual Burden: 547 hours.
    Needs and Uses: Part 249 requires the retention of records such as:
General and subsidiary ledgers, journals and journal vouchers, voucher
distribution registers, accounts receivable and payable journals and
ledgers, subsidy records documenting underlying financial and
statistical reports to DOT, funds reports, consumer records, sales
reports, auditors' and flight coupons, air waybills, etc. Depending on
the nature of the document, the carrier may be required to retain the
document for a period of 30 days to three years. Public charter
operators and overseas military personnel charter operators must retain
documents which evidence or reflect deposits made by each charter
participant and commissions received by, paid to, or deducted by travel
agents, and all statements, invoices, bills and receipts from suppliers
or furnishers of goods and services in connection with the tour or
charter. These records are retained for six months after completion of
the charter program.
    Not only is it imperative that carriers and charter operators
retain source documentation, but it is critical that DOT has access to
these records. Given DOT's established information needs for such
reports, the underlying support documentation must be retained for a
reasonable period of time. Absent the retention requirements, the
support for such reports may or may not exist for audit/validation
purposes and the relevance and usefulness of the carrier submissions
would be impaired, since

the data could not be verified to the source on a test basis.
    The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency
Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to
clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes.
BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the
information it collects under this Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited
to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission
of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and
possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2022.
William Chadwick, Jr.,
Director, Office of Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics.
[FR Doc. 2022-06073 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I want to ensure that my comment properly responds to your questions and is based on science and evidence. I prefer not to make a comment that is knee-jerk and instead provide a comment with insight. The current 75 day window will minimize my ability to provide a proper, informed comment.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, they are the only product that has reduced my tobacco consumption, in my case by more than 50% within 1 year.

I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 51147-51148]
[DOCID:fr18au10-172]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62702; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-026]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving the Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
FINRA Rule 5121 (Public Offerings of Securities With Conflicts of
Interest) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

August 12, 2010.

I. Introduction

    The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') (f/k/
a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'')) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
on May 20, 2010, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposal to adopt FINRA Rule 5121 (Public Offerings of Securities With
Conflicts of Interest) (``Rule'') in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
This proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register on June
4, 2010.\3\ The Commission received one comment on the proposal,\4\ and
a letter from FINRA responding to the comment letter.\5\ This order
approves this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 62199 (June 1, 2010), 75 FR 31825
(June 4, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-026).
    \4\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Jeffrey W. Rubin, Chair, Committee on Federal Regulation of
Securities, American Bar Association dated June 22, 2010 (``ABA
letter'').
    \5\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Stan Macel, Assistant General Counsel, FINRA, dated July 23,
2010 (``FINRA Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\6\ FINRA proposed to adopt NASD Rule
2720 (Public Offerings of Securities With Conflicts of Interest)
without material change as FINRA Rule 5121 in the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 2720 governs public offerings of securities in which a
member with a conflict of interest participates. The rule generally
prohibits a member with a ``conflict of interest,'' as defined in the
rule,\7\ from participating in a public offering, unless certain other
requirements are met.\8\

There is no comparable Incorporated NYSE Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As defined in NASD Rule 2720(f)(5), a conflict of interest
exists, if at the time of a member's participation in an entity's
public offering, any of the following four conditions applies: (1)
The securities are to be issued by the member; (2) the issuer
controls, is controlled by or is under common control with the
member or the member's associated persons; (3) at least five percent
of the net offering proceeds, not including underwriting
compensation, are intended to be (i) used to reduce or retire the
balance of a loan or credit facility extended by the member, its
affiliates and its associated persons, in the aggregate; or (ii)
otherwise directed to the member, its affiliates and associated
persons, in the aggregate; or (4) if, as a result of the public
offering and any transactions contemplated at the time of the public
offering (i) the member will be an affiliate of the issuer; (ii) the
member will become publicly owned; or (iii) the issuer will become a
member or form a broker-dealer subsidiary. NASD Rule 2720 defines
several terms for purposes of the rule, including ``entity,''
``control,'' and ``common control.''
    \8\ The rule requires prominent disclosure of the nature of the
conflict, and in certain circumstances, the participation of a
qualified independent underwriter. Members also must comply with
certain net capital, discretionary accounts and filing requirements,
as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 15, 2009, the SEC approved a proposed rule change to
modernize NASD Rule 2720 (the ``2009 Rule Change'').\9\ The 2009 Rule
Change became effective on September 14, 2009.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60113 (June 15,
2009), 74 FR 29255 (June 19, 2009) (File No. SR-FINRA-2007-009).
    \10\ See Regulatory Notice 09-49 (SEC Approves Amendments to
Modernize and Simplify NASD Rule 2720 Relating to Public Offerings
in Which a Member Firm With a Conflict of Interest Participates)
(August 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would adopt NASD Rule 2720 without
material change as FINRA Rule 5121 in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
The proposal would make minor changes to the Rule to reflect the new
terminology conventions of the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received one comment letter in response to the
proposed rule change.\11\ The Commission also received FINRA's response
to comments.\12\ While the commenter had no objection to the proposal
itself to move NASD Rule 2720 without material change into the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook, the commenter did offer a number of
comments about the substance of the Rule. The specific comments from
this letter, as well as FINRA's response, are discussed in detail
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ABA Letter.
    \12\ See FINRA Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter suggested that FINRA clarify what ``participation in
a public offering'' means for purposes of the Rule and suggested an
alternative definition. FINRA responded that ``participation in a
public offering'' for purposes of the Rule are already widely
understood and that the alternative definition suggested by the
commenter would be an inappropriate narrowing of the Rule.
    The commenter also suggested that FINRA clarify what ``primarily
responsible for managing the public offering'' means for purposes of
the Rule and suggested an alternative for the term. FINRA asserted that
the commenter's alternative would inappropriately narrow the
application of the Rule and that the Rule as written provided FINRA
flexibility to keep pace with developments in the underwriting process
while also acknowledging the varied roles its members play currently.
    The commenter also offered an alternative to the experience
standard necessary to qualify as a ``qualified independent
underwriter'' under the Rule. FINRA recognized the issue raised by the
commenter and stated their intention to take a more comprehensive
review of the matter. FINRA also pointed out that they have exemptive
authority in extreme circumstances where the standard may unnecessarily
limit the availability of a qualified independent underwriter.
    The commenter also suggested that FINRA clarify that the definition
of ``affiliate'' used in the Rule only applies to the Rule. FINRA did
not agree with this change and stated the thrust of this comment was
directed at rules beyond the rule proposal.
    Lastly, the commenter suggested that FINRA amend the definition of
``entity'' used in the Rule to except financing instrument-backed
securities from being considered an ``entity'' for purposes of the
Rule. FINRA points out that these securities were purposefully not
included in the exceptions to the definition of ``entity.''

IV. Discussion and Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment, and
FINRA's response to the comment, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the
rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national
securities association.\13\ In particular, the Commission believes that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act,\14\ which requires, among other things, that
FINRA rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission
believes that the Rule continues regulation that protects investors in
offerings where the member has a conflict of interest. The Commission
also notes that FINRA is adopting NASD Rule 2720 into the Consolidated
FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 5121 without material change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FINRA-2010-026) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20365 Filed 8-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78310]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30544]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0629; FRL-9904-42-Region-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North
Carolina; Transportation Conformity Memorandum of Agreement Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan
submitted on July 12, 2013, through the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. This submission adopts a memorandum
of agreement establishing transportation conformity criteria and
procedures related to interagency consultation and enforceability of
certain transportation-related control measures and mitigation
measures. This proposed action streamlines the conformity process to
allow direct consultation among agencies at the Federal, state and
local levels. This proposed action is being taken pursuant to section
110 of the Clean Air Act.
    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the State's implementation plan revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document.
Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at
this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R04-OAR-2013-0629 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0629, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler of the Air Quality
Modeling and Transportation Section at the Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Sheckler's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. She can
also be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register.

    Dated: December 10, 2013.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-30544 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 53297]
[DOCID:fr31au10-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Supplemental Notice Regarding Staff Technical Conference

August 23, 2010.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Independent System         Docket Nos. ER10-1401-000, ER10-2191-000.
 Operator Corporation.
Green Energy Express LLC, 21st        Docket No. EL10-76-000.
 Century Transmission Holdings, LLC.
Southern California Edison Company..  Docket Nos. ER10-732-000, ER10-732-001.
Southern California Edison Company..  Docket Nos. EL10-1-000, EL10-1-001, EL10-1-002.
Southern California Edison Company..  Docket Nos. ER10-796-000, ER10-796-001.
Southern California Edison Company..  Docket No. EL10-81-000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By order dated July 26, 2010, in Docket No. ER10-1401-000, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) directed staff to
convene a technical conference regarding California Independent System
Operator Corporation's (CAISO) proposed Revised Transmission Planning
Process (RTPP).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 132 FERC ] 61,067 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to notices issued on August 3, 2010 and August 19,
2010,\2\ such conference will be held on August 24, 2010 at the
Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, beginning at 9 a.m. (EDT) in the Commission Meeting Room. The
technical conference will be led by Commission staff. Commissioners may
attend the conference. All interested persons are invited to attend,
and registration is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A further supplemental notice was issued on August 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated previously, the purpose of the technical conference is to
discuss the issues raised by CAISO's proposed revisions to its Open
Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff) to implement its RTPP in Docket No.
ER10-1401-000 and obtain additional information regarding CAISO's
proposal. However, because CAISO's RTPP filing presents issues that may
be tangentially related to the proceeding in Docket No. EL10-81-000,
out of an abundance of caution, we hereby notify parties that the
technical conference discussion may touch upon issues pending in this
proceeding.
    A free webcast of this event is available through http://
www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this
event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of
Events and locating this event in the calendar. The event will contain
a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or call (703)
993-3100.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information on this conference, please contact Robert
Petrocelli at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Katie
Detweiler at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21650 Filed 8-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 217 (Monday, November 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 63039]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24733]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4611-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4611-DR), dated August 29, 2021, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 19, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 29, 2021.

    Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, and
Washington Parishes for permanent work [Categories C-G] (already
designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris
removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B],
including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-24733 Filed 11-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P