Page 1 of 6 February 9, 2005 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING MARCH 1 2, 2005 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: OPP 2004 0395 SCIENTIFIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT OF THE CRY 34Ab1 PROTEIN PANEL MEMBER BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES FIFRA SAP MEMBERS Stephen M. Roberts, Ph. D.

Dr. Steve Roberts is Director of the Center for Environmental & Human Toxicology at the University of Florida, and is a Professor with joint appointments in the Department of Physiological Sciences in the College of Veterinary Medicine and the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics in the College of Medicine. He received his Ph. D. from the University of Utah College of Medicine in 1977, and subsequently completed a National Institutes of Health ( NIH) individual postdoctoral fellowship in pharmacokinetics at SUNY Buffalo. He has previously served on the faculties of the College of Pharmacy at the University of Cincinnati and the College of Medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Dr. Roberts has an active research program funded by the NIH to examine mechanisms of toxicity, primarily involving the liver and immune system. His teaching responsibilities at the University of Florida include graduate courses in toxicology and risk assessment, as well as invited lectures in other graduate and professional courses. Dr. Roberts serves as an advisor to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on issues pertaining to toxicology and risk assessment. He also serves on the committee on Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soils and Sediments for the National Research Council and on the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Toxicology Program.

Steven G. Heeringa, Ph. D.

Dr. Steven G. Heeringa is a Research Scientist and the Director of the Statistical Design Group at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research ( ISR) where he oversees statistical design and for population based studies in the social sciences, education, demography, public health and medicine. Steve has a Ph. D. in Biostatistics from the University of Michigan and is a specialist in statistical design and analysis for studies of human and animal populations. Steve Heeringa has over twenty five years of statistical sampling experience directing the development of the ISR National Sample design as well as sample designs for ISR's major longitudinal and cross sectional survey programs. During this period he has been actively involved in research and publication on statistical methods and procedures such as weighting, variance estimation and the Page 2 of 6 imputation of missing data that are required in the analysis of sample survey data. He is an advisor to panels of the National Institutes of Health ( NIH) and the World Health Organization ( WHO). Since 2000, Steve has served as an ad hoc member of more than 10 EPA Scientific Review panels. He has been a teacher of survey sampling methods to U. S. and international students and has served as a sample design consultant to a wide variety of international research programs based in countries such as: Russia, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, India, Nepal, China, Iran, Chile and Egypt.

Stuart Handwerger, M. D.

Dr. Stuart Handwerger is the Robert and Mary Shoemaker Professor of Pediatrics and Director of Endocrinology at the University of Cincinnati/ Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. He is also Professor of Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Anatomy, Director of Postgraduate Medical Education at Children's Hospital and a member of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Cincinnati. He received his BA from the Johns Hopkins University in 1960 and his M. D. from the University of Maryland School of Medicine in 1964. He completed his house staff training in pediatrics at the Bronx Municipal Hospital Center and the Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City. After spending two years as a Clinical Associate at the National Institutes of Health, he completed fellowship training in endocrinology at the Boston Children's Hospital and the Beth Israel Hospital in Boston. He then spent nineteen years on the faculty at Duke University School of Medicine where he was Professor of Pediatrics and Physiology and Director of the Division of Pediatric Endocrinology. He assumed his current positions in Cincinnati in 1990. Dr. Handwerger's major research interest is in the area of fetal and perinatal endocrinology, with particular emphasis on the hormonal regulation of fetal growth and development. He has an active NIH funded research program to examine the genetic programs involved in human trophoblast differentiation and human uterine decidualization. He is also the Program Director of a NIH funded training grant in developmental and perinatal endocrinology. Dr. Handwerger has served previously on NIH study sections and was a member of the National Advisory Council of the National Institute of Child Health and Development. He serves on the editorial board of several journals in endocrinology; and he is a member of many scientific societies, including The Society for Pediatric Research, The American Pediatric Society, The American Society for Clinical Investigation, The American Association of Physicians, The Endocrine Society and The Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society.

Kenneth M. Portier, PhD Dr. Kenneth M. Portier is Associate Professor of Statistics and Agricultural Experiment Station Statistician in the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida. A native of south Louisiana, Dr. Portier received a BS in mathematics ( 1973) from Nicholls State University ( Thibodaux, La), then moved to the University of North Carolina where he earned a MS in Statistics ( 1975) and a PhD in Biostatistics ( 1979). Since early 1979, he has worked at UF, primarily as a statistical consultant to researchers in agriculture, natural resources and the environment and as a Page 3 of 6 teacher of statistical methods to graduate students in associated disciplines. Widely sought after for graduate committees, Dr. Portier has coauthored publications in many of the premier journals in agriculture, natural resources and environmental sciences. He has twice participated in USDA HEP funded teaching grants, one related to the development of web based materials for teaching natural resources sampling and more recently for the development of a senior undergraduate course in forested watersheds. In collaboration with other researchers at UF, Dr. Portier is Co PI on research grants from NSF, USDA, NOAA and DOI. He collaborates with UF's Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology primarily answering statistical question that arise in environmental sampling and risk assessments. In recent years, he has been a regular member of US EPA and National Toxicology Program science advisory panels reviewing human and ecological risks from agriculture related chemicals and practices. His research interests are in applied statistics, biostatistics, statistical computing and the teaching of statistics. Page 4 of 6 FQPA SCIENCE REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS Tong Jen Fu, PhD.

Dr. T. J. Fu is a Research Scientist with the U. S. Food and Drug Administration, National Center for Food Safety and Technology ( NCFST), Summit Argo, IL. Since joining the FDA in 1992, Dr. Fu has worked on various areas of food safety research including studies to determine the effect of bioprocessing conditions on the safety of food ingredients produced by microbial fermentation and plant tissue culture processes, the development of rapid processes for sampling and detection of pathogens in fresh produce, as well as the evaluation of safety assessment strategies for genetically engineered foods. Her current research involves evaluating the predictive values of digestive and processing stabilities as criteria for protein allergenicity assessment as well as the effect of processing on food allergens. Dr. Fu received her B. S. degree from Tunghai University, Taiwan and her M. S. and Ph. D. degrees from The Pennsylvania State University, all in Chemical Engineering.

Louis B. Hersh, PhD.

Dr. Louis B. Hersh is Professor and Chair of the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine. He received his PhD from Brandies University in Biochemistry in 1967 and subsequently completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute at the NIH in Bethesda, Maryland. He previously served on the faculty of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas. Dr. Hersh has had a long standing NIH funded research program in the enzymology and molecular biology of the cholinergic system and on peptidases that degrade neuropeptides. He has published more than 250 scientific papers, and has served on numerous scientific review panels for the NIH and for the Damon Runyon Foundation.

Simon P Hogan, PhD.

Dr Simon P. Hogan is Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Allergy and Immunology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. He received his Ph. D. from the John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia in 1998 and subsequently completed a National Health Medical Research Council NHMRC CJ Martin Fellowship in Allergy and Immunology at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. He was appointed in 2004 to Head of the Gastrointestinal Research laboratory, John Curtin School of Medical Research, ANU, Canberra, Australia as part of the NHMRC funded Program grant to examine Molecular mechanisms in the regulation of allergy and inflammation. Dr Hogan has an active research program investigating inflammation induced gastrointestinal dysfunction. Current projects are ( 1) to elucidate the cellular and molecular processes involved in gastrointestinal allergic responses using novel models of allergic responses in mice with translational studies in humans, ( 2) to identify the role of gastrointestinal Page 5 of 6 inflammation in peristaltic reflex and gastrointestinal epithelial cell dysfunction and ( 3) to characterize food allergen reactive T cells in eosinophilic esophagitis.

Dean Metcalfe M. D.

Dr. Metcalfe received his undergraduate degree from Northern Arizona University, his M. D. from the University of Tennessee, and his training in Internal Medicine at the University of Michigan. Dr. Metcalfe was a Fellow in Allergy and Immunology at NIH and a Fellow in Rheumatology and Immunology at the Robert Brigham Hospital and the Harvard Medical School. In 1979, he returned to NIH as a Senior Clinical Investigator. His subsequent career has been devoted to research and public service at the NIH. There he combines clinical and basic research, patient care and administrative duties, as well as scholarly activity in the form of teaching, writing, and speaking in public on areas related to allergic diseases. In 1995, Dr. Metcalfe was appointed the first Chief of the newly created Laboratory of Allergic Diseases, NIAID. He is also Director of the NIH Clinical Center Pediatric and Internal Medicine Allergy and Immunology Training Program. Dr. Metcalfe is an author on over 400 scientific publications on mast cell biology, food allergy, mastocytosis, and asthma. He is a past Chairman of the American Board of Allergy and Immunology, a past President of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and a past Chairman of the ACGME RRC for Allergy and Immunology. Dr. Metcalfe has been elected to membership in the American Society for Clinical Investigation, the American Association of Physicians and the American Clinical and Climatological Association.

Shridhar K. Sathe, PhD.

Dr. Shridhar Sathe is professor of food science at Florida State University. He received his Ph. D. from the Utah State University, Department of Nutrition and Food Science in 1982, and was a American Heart Association ( Arizona Affiliate) post doctoral fellow ( 1981 1983) and post doctoral research associate ( 1984 1985) at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. He was post doctoral research associate ( 1986 1987) at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. Dr. Sathe has been at Florida State University since 1988 as Assistant ( 1988 1991), Associate ( 1991 1996), and Professor ( 1997 to date). He was selected to be a Named Professor in 2002. Dr. Sathe has an active research program to identify tree nut allergenic proteins, to develop antibody based enzyme linked immunosorbent assays ( ELISAs) for their detection and quantification, and to identify and characterize epitopes in tree nut allergenic proteins. His teaching responsibilities at Florida State University include teaching food science at undergraduate and graduate courses. He has received several awards for his teaching and advising at Florida State University. Dr. Sathe has served on USDA NRICGP review panels, several national committees of the Institute of Food Technologists ( IFT), and is a frequently sought reviewer by many scientific journals in food science and technology and publishing companies. He is an elected fellow of the IFT. He currently serves on the editorial boards of Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, Journal of Food Biochemistry, LWT Food Science and Technology, Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, and Korean Food Science and Biotechnology. Page 6 of 6 Santiago Schnell, PhD.

Dr. Santiago Schnell is Associate Director of Biocomplexity Institute and Assistant Professor of Informatics with adjunct positions in Biology and Physics in Indiana University ( Bloomington). Dr. Schnell received his License in Biology ( with special emphasis on biochemistry and molecular biology) and D. Phil. in Applied Mathematics from Universidad Simón Bolívar ( Venezuela) and University of Oxford ( United Kingdom), respectively. He has just left a position in the Centre for Mathematical Biology at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford. He held the posts of Ordinary Fellow of the Wellcome Trust ( London) and Junior Research Fellow of Christ Church ( Oxford). He was the José Gregorio Hernández Research Fellow of the Venezuelan Academy of Medicine, the Lord Miles Senior Scholar in Science of Pembroke College ( Oxford) and Lecturer in Applied Mathematics for Pembroke and Brasenose College ( Oxford). He also is a founding member of the Bioethical Committee of the Venezuelan National Council of Science. Dr. Schnell has an active research program in theoretical and mathematical biology focused in three areas: theoretical enzyme kinetics, the dynamics of complex biochemical reactions, and the study of segmentation mechanisms in early embryogenesis.

Rami Tzafriri, PhD.

Dr. Tzafriri is a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard MIT Biomedical Engineering Center. He received his Ph. D. from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem School of Computer Science and Engineering in 2002. Dr. Tzafriri's expertise is in modeling cellular and tissue pharmacokinetics and enzyme kinetics. His Ph. D. thesis focused on mathematical modeling of biodegradable drug delivery devices and included the analysis of mechanisms leading to burst releases from bulk degrading polymer matrices, the derivation of the first mechanistic model of enzymatic degradation of insoluble collagen matrices and the extension of the Michaelis Menten approximation to high enzymesubstrate ratios. Dr. Tzafriri's postdoctoral research is focused on in silico modeling if therapeutic angiogenesis and the analysis of cellular trafficking of growth factors. He is a member of the Biophysical Society, the Society of Applied and Industrial Mathematics and the Society of Mathematical Biology and is a recipient of a Philip Morris External Research Postdoctoral Fellowship.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 61774]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25057]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4080-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 13 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-4080-DR), dated August 29, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, 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, 2012.

    The parishes of Allen, Morehouse, and St. Martin for Individual
Assistance (already designated Public Assistance [Categories A and
B], including direct federal assistance).
    The parishes Catahoula, Franklin, Lafayette, Morehouse, St.
Landry, St. Martin, Union, and Vermillion for Public Assistance
[Categories C-G] (already designated for Public Assistance [Category
A and B], including direct federal assistance).

(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.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-25057 Filed 10-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7616-7619]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2969]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63839; File No. SR-EDGA-2011-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGA Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

February 3, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 1, 2011, the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
the ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes

described herein are applicable to EDGA Members. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site
at http://www.directedge.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer, or any person
associated with a registered broker or dealer, that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    In SR-EDGA-2011-01,\4\ the Exchange filed for immediate
effectiveness a rule filing to amend Rule 11.9 to add its routing
strategies, which were contained in its fee schedule, to the rule and
to introduce additional routing strategies to the rule. Two of the
strategies that the Exchange added to Rules 11.9(b)(3)(h) and (i) were
the ROUT and ROUX routing strategies. Under both routing strategies, an
order checks the Exchange's system (``System'') for available shares
and then is sent to destinations on the System routing table. In Rule
11.9(b)(3) the Exchange defined the term ``System routing table'' to
mean the proprietary process for determining the specific trading
venues to which the System routes orders and the order in which it
routes them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-EDGA-2011-01 (January 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this filing, the Exchange proposes to add the corresponding
flags for the use of the ROUT and ROUX strategies to its fee schedule
and assign corresponding fees. For any order routed using the ROUT
routing strategy, the Exchange is proposing a fee of $0.0025 per share
to be assessed and a flag of ``RT'' to be yielded, except when routed
to EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), in which case a flag ``I'' is
yielded a flag and a fee of $0.0030 is assessed. The latter exception
is clarified in proposed footnote 10. Similarly, for any order routed
using the ROUX routing strategy, the Exchange is proposing a fee of
$0.0027 per share to be assessed and a flag of ``RX'' to be yielded,
except when routed to EDGX, in which case a flag ``I'' is yielded a fee
of $0.0030 is assessed. The latter exception is clarified in proposed
footnote 10. The Exchange notes that the fee is higher if an order is
routed to EDGX, which is affiliated with EDGA, rather than to other
destinations on the System routing table using the ROUT/ROUX
strategies.
    In SR-EDGA-2011-01, the Exchange also added the ROOC routing option
in Rule 11.9(b)(3)(p) for orders that the entering firm wishes to
designate for participation in the opening or closing process of a
primary listing market (NYSE, Nasdaq, NYSE Amex, or NYSE Arca) if
received before the opening/closing time of such market. If shares
remain unexecuted after attempting to execute in the opening or closing
process, they are either posted to the book, executed, or routed like a
ROUT routing option, as described in Rule 11.9(b)(3)(h). In this
filing, the Exchange proposes to add the corresponding flags for the
use of the ROOC strategy to its fee schedule and assign corresponding
fees. If the entering firm wishes the order to participate in the
listing market close via the ROOC strategy, it will be assigned a flag
of ``CL'' and a fee of $0.0010 per share, except for NYSE Arca. This
fee represents a blended rate of all four primary listing market fees
for participation in the market close. For ease of administration, the
Exchange uses this blended rate as it represents an average fee from
the primary listing markets. However, a flag of ``O'' will be yielded
and the associated fee for the ``O'' flag, $0.0005 per share, will be
assessed, if the order is routed to the NYSE Arca closing process. This
is clarified in proposed footnote 9 to the fee schedule and represents
a pass through of the NYSE Arca fee. If the entering firm wishes to
designate that the order participate in the opening process of NYSE
Amex and it adds liquidity, it will be assigned a flag of ``8'' and a
rebate of $0.0015 per share. This rebate represents a pass through of
the NYSE Amex rebate. If the entering firm wishes to designate that the
order participate in the opening process of NYSE Arca and it adds
liquidity, it will be assigned a flag of ``9'' and a rebate of $0.0021
per share. This rebate represents a pass through of the NYSE Arca
rebate. The Exchange proposes to add these flags effective February 1,
2011 but not implement them until the ROOC strategy is effective, which
is on or about February 14, 2011.
    Currently, the ``K'' flag is yielded when an order is routed to
BATS BZX Exchange using the ROBA order type. The Exchange proposes that
this flag be yielded and its associated fee of $0.0025 per share be
assessed when an order is routed to Nasdaq PSX using the ROUC order
type, as defined in Rule 11.9(b)(3)(a).\5\ This fee of $0.0025 per
share represents a pass through of the Nasdaq PSX rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 11.9(b)(3)(a) defines the ROUC order type as a routing
option under which an order checks the System for available shares,
and then is sent sequentially to destinations on the System routing
table, Nasdaq OMX BX, and NYSE. If shares remain unexecuted after
routing, they are posted on the EDGX Exchange's book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange provides a reduced rate for non-displayed
(``Flag H'') executions for a non-aggregated MPID representing the
volume of a Member and meeting certain criteria. For executions in
stocks priced $1.00 and over, if the average daily volume (``ADV'') of
Flag H executions for a non-aggregated MPID is increased such that its
ADV is 1,000,000 greater than its ADV of Flag H executions averaged
across the month of October 2010, then the non-aggregated MPID would
qualify for a rate of $0.00025 per share. For executions in stocks
priced below $1.00, if the ADV of Flag H executions for a non-
aggregated MPID is increased such that its ADV is 1,000,000 greater
than its ADV of Flag H executions averaged across the month of October
2010, then the non-aggregated MPID would qualify for a rate of .025% of
the total dollar volume of the Flag H executions. The Exchange is
proposing to delete these reduced rates, which are found in footnote 2
of the fee schedule, effective February 1, 2011 as it does not believe
that the reduced rates are effective at incenting Members to add
liquidity to the Exchange.
    Currently, stocks priced below $1.00 are charged 0.20% of the
dollar value of the transaction when routed to Nasdaq and removing
liquidity in securities on all Tapes, as noted in footnote 3 of the fee
schedule and as indicated on corresponding flag J. The Exchange
proposes to increase this fee to 0.30% of the dollar value of the
transaction to reflect an increase in rate provided by Nasdaq effective
January 3, 2011.
    Finally, in the description of the SW flag on the fee schedule the
Exchange proposes to make a technical change to amend the word
``routing'' to ``routed.''
    EDGA Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to the
Exchange fee schedule on February 1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\6\

in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\7\ in
particular, as it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other
persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes that the fees of
$0.0025 per share/$0.0027 per share, respectively, for the ROUT and
ROUX routing strategies, represent an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges. When compared to other
similar fees assessed for other Exchange routing strategies, the ROUT
and ROUX strategies route to more destinations and more costly ones and
thus, the Exchange passes on higher fees to its Members. In addition,
other market centers charge comparable rates. The comparable routing
strategy to the ROUT strategy is either Parallel D or Parallel 2D with
the DRT (Dark routing technique) option on BATS BZX Exchange (``BATS'')
and SCAN/STGY on Nasdaq OMX Exchange (``Nasdaq.'') BATS charges $0.0028
per share for its Parallel D and Parallel 2D routing strategies and
$0.0020 per share for its DRT option. Nasdaq charges $0.0030 per share
for its SCAN and STGY routing strategies. The comparable routing
strategy to the ROUX strategy is also the Parallel D or Parallel 2D
strategies on BATS and the SKIP/SKNY strategies on Nasdaq. BATS charges
$0.0028 per share for either of their strategies and Nasdaq charges
$0.0030 for either of their strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the fees associated with the new flags
described above represent an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges. The fee associated with the ``CL'' flag
($0.0010) (except for NYSE Arca) represents a blended rate of all four
primary listing market fees for participation in the market close.
However, a flag of ``O'' will be yielded and the associated fee for the
``O'' flag, $0.0005 per share, will be assessed, if the order is routed
to the NYSE Arca closing process. This represents a pass through of the
NYSE Arca fee. If the entering firm wishes to designate that the order
participate in the opening process of NYSE Amex and it adds liquidity,
it will be assigned a flag of ``8'' and a rebate of $0.0015 per share.
This rebate represents a pass through of the NYSE Amex rebate. If the
entering firm wishes to designate that the order participate in the
opening process of NYSE Arca and it adds liquidity, it will be assigned
a flag of ``9'' and a rebate of $0.0021 per share. This rebate also
represents a pass through of the NYSE Arca rebate. The fee associated
with the K flag ($0.0025 per share) also represents a pass through of
the Nasdaq PSX rate. In addition, as discussed above, stocks priced
below $1.00 are now proposed to be charged 0.30% of the dollar value of
the transaction when routed to Nasdaq and removing liquidity in
securities on all Tapes, as noted in proposed footnote 3 of the fee
schedule. This increase in fee (from 0.20% of the dollar value of the
transaction) reflects a pass through of the Nasdaq's increased rate,
effective January 3, 2011.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing structure
designed to incent market participants to direct their order flow to
the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable in that they apply uniformly to all Members. The Exchange
believes the fees and credits remain competitive with those charged by
other venues and therefore continue to be reasonable and equitably
allocated to Members.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \9\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGA-2011-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2011-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\10\ all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
EDGA-

2011-03 and should be submitted on or before March 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
Exchange's Web site at http://www.directedge.com, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at EDGA, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2969 Filed 2-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20021-20023]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0772; Special Conditions No. 25-520A-SC]

Special Conditions: Embraer Model EMB-550 Airplanes; Flight
Envelope Protection: Normal Load Factor (g) Limiting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These amended special conditions are issued for Embraer Model
EMB-550 airplanes. This airplane will have novel or unusual design
features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design
feature is associated with an electronic flight control system that
prevents the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the
positive or negative airplane limit load factor. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective May 8, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Jacobsen, Airplane & Flight Crew
Interface Section, AIR-671, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 9, 2016, Embraer applied for a change to Type Certificate
No. TC00062IB to include additional flexibility to the normal load
factor limit on the Embraer Model EMB-550 airplane, by requesting an
amendment to the existing Embraer Model EMB-550 Special Conditions No.
25-520-SC as a result of harmonization efforts in the Flight Test
Harmonization Working Group (FTHWG). The Embraer Model EMB-550
airplane, currently approved under Type Certificate No. TC00062IB, is a
twin-engine, transport category airplane with a maximum takeoff weight
of 42,857 pounds. The Embraer Model EMB-550 has a maximum seating
capacity of 12 passengers.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Embraer must show that the Embraer Model EMB-550 airplane,
as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the
regulations listed in Type Certificate No. TC00062IB or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except
for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Embraer Model EMB-550 airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Embraer Model EMB-550 airplane must comply with the
fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the
noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Embraer Model EMB-550 airplane will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features:
    The Embraer Model EMB-550 airplane flight control system design
incorporates normal load factor limiting on a full-time basis that will
prevent the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the
positive or negative airplane limit load factor. This feature is
considered novel and unusual in that the current regulations do not
provide standards for maneuverability and controllability evaluations
for such systems.

Discussion

    The normal load factor limit on the Embraer Model EMB-550 airplane
is unique in that traditional airplanes with conventional flight
control systems (mechanical linkages) are limited in the pitch axis
only by the elevator surface area and deflection limit. The elevator
control power is normally derived for adequate controllability and the
maneuverability at the most critical longitudinal pitching moment. The
result is that traditional airplanes have a significant portion of the
flight envelope where maneuverability in excess of limit structural
design values is possible. The Embraer Model EMB-550 airplane because
of the normal load factor limit does not have this excess
maneuverability.
    Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 does not
specify requirements for demonstrating maneuver control that impose any
handling qualities requirements beyond the design limit structural
loads. Nevertheless, some pilots are accustomed to the availability of
this excess maneuver capacity in case of extreme emergency such as
upset recoveries or collision avoidance.
    As a result of harmonization efforts with other civil aviation
authorities through the Flight Test Harmonization Working Group (FTHWG)
and Embraer's request to incorporate them into Special Conditions No.
25-520-SC, the FAA is including additional flexibility in
maneuverability limits by amending the existing Embraer Model EMB-550
airplane Special Conditions No. 25-520-SC. This additional flexibility
allows for reduced maneuverability limits beyond Vmo/
Mmo. The existing special conditions are otherwise
unchanged.
    The special conditions contain the additional safety standards that
the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-19-01-
SC for the Embraer Model EMB-550 airplane, which was published in the
Federal Register on April 8, 2019 (84 FR 13838). The FAA received a
response from one commenter, while generally supporting the new
technology requested a thorough review of the system reliability and
failure modes. The comment is already addressed in Sec.  25.1309,
Equipment, systems, and installations.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Embraer Model EMB-550 airplane. Should Embraer apply at a later date
for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.
    Under standard practice, the effective date of final special
conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
Federal Register. However, as the certification date for the Embraer
Model EMB-550 airplane is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause
exists to make these special conditions effective upon publication.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Embraer Model EMB-550 airplanes.
    1. To meet the intent of adequate maneuverability and
controllability required by Sec.  25.143(a), and in addition to the
requirements of Sec.  25.143(a) and in the absence of other limiting
factors, the following special conditions are based on Sec.  25.333(b):
    a. The positive limiting load factor must not be less than:
    (1) 2.5g for the normal state of the electronic flight control
system with the high lift devices retracted up to Vmo/
Mmo. The positive limiting load factor may be gradually
reduced down to 2.25g above Vmo/Mmo.
    (2) 2.0g for the normal state of the electronic flight control
system with the high lift devices extended.
    b. The negative limiting load factor must be equal to or more
negative than:
    (1) Minus 1.0g for the normal state of the electronic flight
control system with the high lift devices retracted.
    (2) 0.0g for the normal state of the electronic flight control
system with high lift devices extended.
    c. Maximum reachable positive load factor wings level may be
limited by the characteristics of the electronic flight control system
or flight envelope protections (other than load factor protection)
provided that:
    (1) The required values are readily achievable in turns, and
    (2) Wings level pitch up responsiveness is satisfactory.
    d. Maximum achievable negative load factor may be limited by the
characteristics of the electronic flight control system or flight
envelope protections (other than load factor protection) provided that:
    (1) Pitch down responsiveness is satisfactory, and
    (2) From level flight, 0g is readily achievable or alternatively, a
satisfactory trajectory change is readily achievable at operational
speeds. For the FAA to consider a trajectory change as satisfactory,
the applicant should propose and justify a pitch rate that provides
sufficient maneuvering capability in the most critical scenarios.
    e. Compliance demonstration with the above requirements may be
performed without ice accretion on the airframe.
    f. These special conditions do not impose an upper bound for the
normal load factor limit, nor does it require that the limiter exist.
If the limit is set at a value beyond the structural design limit
maneuvering load factor ``n'' of Sec. Sec.  25.333(b), 25.337(b) and
25.337(c), there should be a very obvious positive tactile feel built
into the controller so that it serves as a deterrent to inadvertently
exceeding the structural limit.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 2, 2019.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-09398 Filed 5-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 10075-10076]
[DOCID:fr25fe08-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57340; File No. SR-BSE-2007-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto,
Relating to the Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule Violations

February 15, 2008.
    On December 20, 2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Boston Options Exchange (``BOX'')
rules related to Contrary Exercise Advice violations. On January 7,
2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ On January 10, 2008, the Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 1
and simultaneously filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
was published for comment in the Federal Register on January 14,
2008.\5\ The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal.
This order approves the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment
No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 revised the proposed rule text to clarify
how fines for third and subsequent offenses are imposed.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 retained the clarification (submitted in
Amendment No. 1) regarding how fines for third and subsequent
offenses are imposed and corrected a page numbering error.
Therefore, Amendment No. 2 was technical in nature and therefore
does not need to be published for comment.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57108 (January 7,
2008), 73 FR 2294.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase and strengthen the sanctions
imposed under its Minor Rule Violation Plan (``MRVP'') on any member
who fails to submit to the Exchange in a timely manner pursuant to BOX
Rule Chapter X, Section 2(f), ``Contrary Exercise Advice Violations''
or exercise

instructions relating to the exercise or nonexercise of a noncash-
settled equity option. The Exchange believes that increasing the fine
levels specified with respect to both individual members and member
organizations and lengthening the surveillance period from a 12-month
period to a rolling 24-month period will serve as an effective
deterrent to such violative conduct.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In addition, as a member of the Intermarket Surveillance
Group, the Exchange, as well as certain other self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs''), executed and filed on October 29, 2007
with the Commission, a final version of an Agreement pursuant to
Section 17(d) of the Act (the ``17d-2 Agreement''). As set forth in
the 17d-2 Agreement, the SROs have agreed that their respective
rules concerning the filing of Expiring Exercise Declarations, also
referred to as Contrary Exercise Advices, are common rules. As a
result, the proposal to amend the MRVP will result in further
consistency in sanctions among the SROs that are signatories to the
17d-2 Agreement concerning Contrary Exercise Advice violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\ In
particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires that the rules of an
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to facilitate transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission further believes that the Exchange's proposal to
increase the fine levels imposed on individuals and member
organizations who fail to submit Advice Cancel or exercise instructions
in a timely manner is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of
the Act,\9\ which require that the rules of an exchange enforce
compliance with, and provide appropriate discipline for, violations of
Commission and Exchange rules. In addition, the Commission finds that
the proposal is consistent with the public interest, the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as
required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\10\ which governs minor
rule violation plans. The Commission believes that the proposed rule
change should strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its
oversight and enforcement responsibilities as an SRO in cases where
full disciplinary proceedings are unsuitable in view of the minor
nature of the particular violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission in no way
minimizes the importance of compliance with the Exchange's rules and
all other rules subject to the imposition of fines under the MRVP. The
Commission believes that the violation of any SRO rules, as well as
Commission rules, is a serious matter. However, the MRVP provides a
reasonable means of addressing rule violations that do not rise to the
level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, while providing
greater flexibility in handling certain violations. The Commission
expects that the Exchange would continue to conduct surveillance with
due diligence and make a determination based on its findings, on a
case-by-case basis, whether a fine of more or less than the recommended
amount is appropriate for a violation under the MRVP or whether a
violation requires formal disciplinary action.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\11\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\12\ that the proposed rule
change (SR-BSE-2007-54), as modified by Amendment No. 2, e, and hereby
is, approved and declared effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3444 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-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 feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I smoked 2 packs a day for 25 years. It will be 2 years July 16th  since i last smoked a combustible cigarette. I have been healthy and happy

Thank You  Kevin Elliott


[Federal Register: September 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 184)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57848-57849]
[DOCID:fr23se10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0248; Airspace Docket No. 10-ANE-10]

Revocation of Class E Airspace, Brunswick, ME; and Establishment
of Class E Airspace, Wiscasset, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes Class E Airspace at Brunswick NAS,
Brunswick, ME, as the airport has closed and the associated Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) removed, and establishes Class E
airspace at Wiscasset, ME, to accommodate the SIAPs developed for the
airport. This action will enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace
System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 18, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 29, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to remove Class E airspace at Brunswick,
ME and establish Class E airspace at Wiscasset, ME (75 FR 15361) Docket
No. FAA-2010-0248. Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal
to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations
are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18,
2019, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 removes the Class E airspace at Brunswick NAS, Brunswick, ME to
reflect the closing of the airport and the removal of the SIAPs, and
establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Wiscasset Airport, Wiscasset, ME. This action is necessary
for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it removes controlled airspace at Brunswick, ME and establishes
controlled airspace at Wiscasset Airport, Wiscasset, ME.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment:

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective September 15, 2010, is amended
as follows:

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.
* * * * *

ANE ME E5 Brunswick, ME [REMOVED]

* * * * *

ANE ME E5 Wiscasset, ME [NEW]

Wiscasset Airport, ME
    (Lat. 43[deg]57'40'' N., long. 69[deg]42'45'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the Wiscasset Airport and within 2 miles
each side of the 232[deg] bearing from the

airport, extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.2 miles southwest
of the airport and within 2 miles each side of the 052[deg] bearing
from the airport, extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 9.8 miles to
the northeast of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 15, 2010.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-23726 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27049-27053]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12178]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0809, FRL-9994-96-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; AK: Adoption Updates and Permitting Rule
Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
revisions to the Alaska State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on
October 25, 2018. The revisions adopt changes to federal emissions
factors and modeling guidelines, update pre-construction permitting of
stationary sources, and fix typographical and grammatical errors. Upon
final approval, the Alaska SIP will include provisions for electronic
permit applications, online notice of draft permits, revised modeling
guidelines, and updated fine particulate matter requirements in
nonattainment areas. The EPA also proposes to approve the submitted
revisions as meeting major source pre-construction permitting
requirements for the Fairbanks North Star Borough fine particulate
matter nonattainment area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0809, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not electronically submit any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions
(audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The
written comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Attn: Kristin Hall, Air and Radiation Division,
EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it means the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Evaluation of Submission
    A. Adoption Updates
    1. Air Pollutant Emissions Factors
    2. Air Quality Models
    3. New Source Review Provisions
    B. Permitting Revisions
    1. Electronic Notice and Submission
    2. Fine Particulate Matter
    3. Pre-Approved Emissions Limits
    C. Corrections
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) governs the process by which
a state submits air quality protection requirements to the EPA for
approval into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is the
state's plan to implement, maintain, and enforce the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the EPA. To ensure consistency
with federal requirements, Alaska generally submits an annual rule
update to the EPA for approval.
    On October 25, 2018, the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) submitted such an update. The submission includes
revisions to Alaska Administrative Code, Title 18, Environmental
Conservation, Chapter 50, Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50), state
effective September 15, 2018. Specifically, the submission updates the
dates by which certain EPA regulations are adopted by reference, brings
the major stationary source pre-construction permitting program up-to-
date with current fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
requirements, and fixes typographical and grammatical errors. We note
that the submission also addresses infrastructure and interstate
transport requirements. We intend to take action on those elements in
separate rulemakings.

II. Evaluation of Submission

A. Adoption Updates

1. Air Pollutant Emissions Factors
    Alaska updated the adoption by reference of federal Air Pollutant
Emissions Factors (AP-42), as of February 1, 2018.\1\ This update
captures a recent change to emissions factors for industrial flares in
Section 13.5 of AP-42, 5th Edition. Emissions estimates, informed by
AP-42, are used to determine the applicability of permitting programs
and to develop control strategies. This submitted revision keeps
reference materials in the Alaska SIP current.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 AAC 50.035(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Air Quality Models
    Alaska updated the adoption by reference of the federal Guidelines
on Air Quality Models, codified at 40 CFR part 51, appendix W (Appendix
W), as of July 1, 2017.\2\ Appendix W models are used in
preconstruction permitting, attainment planning, and other air
pollution control efforts. Alaska's submission incorporates the most
recent version of Appendix W, promulgated on January 17, 2017 (82 FR
5182). Among other things, the 2017 update to Appendix W addressed the
use of screening models, including AERSCREEN. Therefore, Alaska
repealed separate, redundant references to AERSCREEN and the AERSCREEN
User's Guide in state regulations.\3\ Alaska also updated a cross-
reference to alternative model recommendations and clarified that the
ADEC Commissioner may delegate their part in the alternative model
approval process to a designee.\4\ Alaska's regulations allows for the
use of alternative models to those described in Appendix W when
properly approved by the EPA and ADEC. These changes are consistent
with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I
for air quality modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 AAC 50.040(f).
    \3\ 18 AAC 50.215(e) and 18 AAC 50.035(a)(7).
    \4\ 18 AAC 50.215(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. New Source Review Provisions
    Alaska's major new source review (major NSR) program implements
pre-construction permitting for new and modified major stationary
sources. The major NSR program is established in Article 3 of 18 AAC
50, and references supporting rules throughout the Alaska SIP. To make
it easier to keep the program up-to-date, Alaska's major NSR program
incorporates by reference certain federal NSR regulations as of a
specific date, and the state routinely updates this citation date.\5\
In the October 25, 2018 submission, Alaska updated the adoption by
reference of portions of federal regulations that apply in areas
designated attainment and unclassifiable (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and in areas designated nonattainment (NNSR). More
specifically, Alaska adopted by reference portions of PSD regulations
in 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 and portions of NNSR regulations in
40 CFR 51.165 as of July 1, 2017.\6\ We note the state also updated the
definition of ``fugitive emissions'' to equate to the federal
definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(20), adopted by reference as of July 1,
2017.\7\ The definition of ``Volatile Organic Compound'' or ``VOC'' was
similarly updated to reference the federal definition in 40 CFR
51.100(s), revised as of July 1, 2017.\8\ Please see Section B in this
document for more discussion of the regulatory effect of these NSR
adoption updates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 AAC 50.040(h) and (i).
    \6\ 18 AAC 50.040(h) and (i).
    \7\ 18 AAC 50.990(40).
    \8\ 18 AAC 50.990(121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Permitting Revisions

1. Electronic Notice and Submission
    Alaska's major NSR program, established in Article 3 of 18 AAC 50,
includes PSD and NNSR. Alaska's PSD program is governed by 18 AAC
50.306 and refers to 18 AAC 50.040(h), which adopts certain provisions
of 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 by reference.\9\ The NNSR program is
governed by 18 AAC 50.311 and refers to 18 AAC 50.040(i), which adopts
certain provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 by reference. In the October 25,
2018 submission, Alaska updated this adoption by reference as of July
1,

2017.\10\ The update captures the EPA's removal of the requirement to
publish notice of draft major NSR permits in the local newspaper and
provides the option to publish notice on a publicly-accessible website,
along with the draft permit (October 18, 2016, 81 FR 71613). As a
result, Alaska's major NSR program no longer requires newspaper notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See also 40 CFR 52.96.
    \10\ 18 AA 50.040(h) and (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska also requested approval of a provision allowing ADEC to
require owners and operators of certain minor stationary sources to
apply for their permits online, through Alaska's Online System/
Permittee Portal.\11\ This electronic system was approved by the EPA on
August 13, 2015 as meeting the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule
(CROMERR) (80 FR 48531). The approval applies to SIP-approved
stationary source permitting programs, among other programs. Therefore,
we propose to approve the minor source electronic permit application
provision into the Alaska SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 18 AAC 50.542(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Fine Particulate Matter
    Alaska has a SIP-approved major NNSR program applicable in
designated PM2.5 nonattainment areas. On January 7, 2015,
the EPA approved revisions to that program as meeting Moderate area
attainment planning requirements for the only designated
PM2.5 nonattainment area in the state, the Fairbanks North
Star Borough (FNSB) area (January 7, 2015, 80 FR 832).\12\
Subsequently, on August 24, 2016, the EPA promulgated changes to NNSR
requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment areas (81 FR
58010).\13\ The EPA's changes were made in response to a D.C. Circuit
court decision remanding specific EPA PM2.5 rulemakings
promulgated in 2007 and 2008.\14\ After the FNSB PM2.5
nonattainment area was reclassified from Moderate to Serious by the
EPA, Alaska was required to update the SIP-approved PM2.5
NNSR program applicable in the FNSB area, in accordance with the August
24, 2016 regulatory changes (May 9, 2017, 82 FR 21711). Alaska made
updates in response and submitted the changes for approval as part of
the October 25, 2018 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See also 40 CFR 81.302.
    \13\ 18 AAC 50.040(h) and (i).
    \14\ NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska adopted key requirements that the EPA revised in accordance
with the D.C. Circuit court's decision, including the definitions for
``major source,'' ``regulated NSR pollutant,'' and ``significant,'' as
these definitions apply in PM2.5 nonattainment areas.\15\ In
areas classified as Serious, ``major source'' is now defined in Alaska
regulations as a stationary source that emits or has the potential to
emit 70 tons per year of direct PM2.5 emissions, or 70 tons
per year of any one of four regulated precursors: Nitrogen oxides
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), VOC, and
ammonia.\16\ For areas classified as Moderate, the major source
threshold for direct PM2.5 emissions and regulated
precursors remains at 100 tons per year. Alaska also defined the term
``regulated NSR pollutant'' in designated PM2.5
nonattainment areas as direct PM2.5 emissions and
NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia as precursors to
PM2.5.\17\ The effect of this change is that the Alaska NNSR
program, which previously regulated NOX and SO2
as precursors to PM2.5, now regulates all four precursors to
PM2.5 established by the EPA on August 24, 2016 (81 FR
58010).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1).
    \16\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv). See also CAA section 189(b)(3).
    \17\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii).
    \18\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska also revised the definition of ``significant.'' This term is
used to evaluate the extent to which construction at an existing major
stationary source becomes subject to NNSR as a major modification with
respect to the nonattainment pollutant. A major modification, defined
in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(A), is any physical change in or change in
the method of operation of a major stationary source that would result
in: (1) A significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant,
and (2) a significant net emissions increase of that pollutant.
``Significant'' is separately defined in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) to
mean a rate of emissions specified for each pollutant or precursor to
that pollutant. Alaska defined ``significant'' in PM2.5
nonattainment areas in the state to be 10 tons per year of direct
PM2.5 emissions and 40 tons per year of any one of the four
regulated precursors to PM2.5: NOX,
SO2, VOC, and ammonia. The rates established by Alaska for
NOX, SO2, and VOC are those set by the EPA and
adopted by reference.\19\ We note however, the EPA's August 24, 2016
rulemaking did not establish a significant emissions rate for ammonia
as a precursor to PM2.5 (81 FR 58010). Rather, if a state's
plan for a specific nonattainment area requires regulation of ammonia
as a precursors to PM2.5, the EPA directed the state to
define ``significant'' for ammonia for that nonattainment area.\20\ The
EPA declined to set a minimum significant emissions rate for ammonia on
a nationwide basis in part because, as stated in the preamble to the
August 24, 2016, rulemaking, ``[w]e anticipate that very few states
will actually need to control source modifications of ammonia under
their NNSR programs for PM2.5 since (1) stationary sources
of ammonia generally are not one of the primary causes of ambient
PM2.5 concentrations in most PM2.5 nonattainment
areas, and (2) according to information in the EPA's National Emissions
Inventory database, most existing PM2.5 nonattainment areas
do not have an existing major stationary source of ammonia to which the
ammonia significant emission rate would be applied to determine whether
a proposed modification of such major source would be `major' for
ammonia.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x).
    \20\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(F).
    \21\ August 24, 2016, 81 FR 58010, at page 58114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska's only designated PM2.5 nonattainment area is the
FNSB area.\22\ Alaska has undertaken planning efforts to reduce
PM2.5 levels in the area, resulting in the FNSB
PM2.5 Moderate plan, approved by the EPA on September 8,
2017 (82 FR 42457). In that plan, Alaska evaluated total
PM2.5 and speciated PM2.5 monitoring data to help
identify the appropriate emissions control strategy for the area. We
summarized Alaska's evaluation in the preamble to our proposed action
on the FNSB PM2.5 Moderate plan stating, ``Alaska concludes
that throughout the winter months, residential wood heating is the
major source of PM2.5 and accounts for 60 to 80 percent of
the observed PM2.5.'' \23\ Emissions inventories developed
by Alaska and approved by the EPA as part of the FNSB PM2.5
Moderate plan demonstrate there are no existing major stationary
sources of ammonia in the area and that the estimated total annual
ammonia emissions for existing major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 emissions or other precursors for PM2.5 is
less than 0.001 tons per day on days in which exceedances of the
PM2.5 NAAQS typically occur.\24\ Based on the analysis in
the FNSB PM2.5 Moderate Plan, it is unlikely that there will
be any major modifications to major stationary sources of ammonia in
the area. However, the EPA has reclassified the FNSB PM2.5
nonattainment area to Serious, triggering the requirement for

additional planning, including revisions to NNSR requirements
applicable in the area. In those revisions, Alaska included regulation
of ammonia under NNSR in PM2.5 nonattainment areas.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 40 CFR 81.302 for legal description.
    \23\ February 2, 2017, 82 FR 9035, at page 9036.
    \24\ February 2, 2017, 82 FR 9035, at pages 9037 through 9040
(2008 base-year emissions inventory; 2015 projected emissions
inventory).
    \25\ May 10, 2017, 82 FR 21711. See also 40 CFR part 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the October 25, 2018 revisions, Alaska set significant emissions
rates for all four regulated precursors to PM2.5, including
ammonia, and submitted the changes to the EPA for approval.
Specifically, Alaska adopted by reference the 40 tons per year
significant emissions rates for NOX, SO2, and VOC
set by the EPA, and also established a significant emissions rate of 40
tons per year for ammonia as a precursor for PM2.5,
consistent with the thresholds of the other PM2.5
precursors.\26\ The EPA addressed the evaluation of potential
thresholds in the preamble to the August 24, 2016, rulemaking
stating,''[I]n the event that a nonattainment area is classified
Serious for PM2.5, the maximum acceptable ammonia
[significant emissions rate] would be a rate no greater that 70 [tons
per year] in accordance with the major source thresholds being
finalized in this rule for major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors locating in
Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas.'' \27\ Forty tons per
year is well below the 70 tons per year new major source threshold for
ammonia in PM2.5 serious nonattainment area established by
the EPA and is consistent with the levels the EPA set for other
PM2.5 precursors.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 18 AAC 50.311(e).
    \27\ August 24, 2016, 81 FR 58010 at page 58114.
    \28\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv). See also CAA section 189(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the SIP-approved emissions inventories demonstrating no
existing major sources of ammonia and extremely low total estimated
ammonia emissions from existing stationary sources in the FNSB
PM2.5 nonattainment area, speciated monitoring data
identifying residential wood combustion as the primary source category
driving PM2.5 exceedances in the area, and the EPA's stated
maximum acceptable ammonia significant emissions rate of 70 tons per
year for Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the EPA proposes
to find that 40 tons per year is a reasonable threshold for requiring
review of major modifications to major stationary sources of ammonia in
the FNSB PM2.5 nonattainment area, should any be
constructed.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Again, the likelihood of there being a major modification
of a major stationary source of ammonia is extremely low. The most
likely potential construction scenario would be the addition of
controls to an existing combustion source that, as a by-product of
controlling NOX, generates 70 tons per year of ammonia
slip (which would be a very large source of NOX), and
then a subsequent modification of that facility that results in a
significant emissions increase of an additional 40 tons of ammonia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to approve the submitted revisions to the Alaska
PM2.5 NNSR program into the SIP. Upon final action, the
added NNSR requirements established in the EPA's 2016 PM2.5
implementation rule that were triggered upon reclassification of the
FNSB PM2.5 nonattainment area to Serious will be met.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ May 10, 2017, 82 FR 21711. See also 40 CFR part 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Pre-Approved Emissions Limits
    The submission clarified requirements for pre-approved stationary
source emissions limits. Specifically, the state revised rule language
to make clear that if a source terminates a pre-approved limit that had
allowed the source to avoid preconstruction review, the limit remains
in effect until a minor permit, as well as a construction permit, is
issued for the source.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 18 AAC 50.230(e)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Corrections

    Alaska submitted several corrections to typographical, grammatical,
and cross-reference errors. First, Alaska corrected the geographic name
of Mt. McKinley to Denali.\32\ Second, Alaska updated a provision to
fix an obsolete cross reference and to use the term ``coal-fired'' (vs.
``coal burning'').\33\ Third, Alaska made changes throughout 18 AAC 50
to consistently use and spell the term ``emissions unit.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 18 AAC 50.025(a)(2).
    \33\ 18 AAC 50.055(b)(6) and (a)(9).
    \34\ The October 25, 2018, submission requested approval of
spelling changes in 18 AAC 50.220(b)(2), (c)(3), (d)(1); 18 AAC
50.225(b)(2), (i); 18 AAC 50.230(b), (c)(1)(E); 18 AAC 50.260(g),
(j), (l); 18 AAC 50.345(h), (m); 18 AAC 50.502(c)(2)(B), (f)(1)(B),
(f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4), (h)(4); 18 AAC 50.540(c)(1)(a); 18 AAC
50.542(f)(6); 18 AAC 50.560(a); 18 AAC 50.990(8)(A), (65)(A), (78).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to approve, and incorporate by reference, the
revisions to the Alaska SIP submitted on October 25, 2018 and described
above. Upon final approval, the Alaska SIP will contain the following
rule sections, state effective September 15, 2018:
     18 AAC 50.025 Visibility and Other Special Protection
Areas;
     18 AAC 50.035 Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted
by Reference, except (a)(6), (a)(9), and (b)(4);
     18 AAC 50.040 Federal Standards Adopted by Reference,
except (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (j), (k);
     18 AAC 50.055 Industrial Processes and Fuel-Burning
Equipment, except (d)(2)(B);
     18 AAC 50.215 Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods, except
(a)(4);
     18 AAC 50.220 Enforceable Test Methods, except (c)(1)(A),
(B), (C), and (c)(2);
     18 AAC 50.225 Owner-Requested Limits;
     18 AAC 50.230 Preapproved Emission Limits, except (d);
     18 AAC 50.260 Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit
Technology under the Regional Haze Rule;
     18 AAC 50.311 Nonattainment Area Major Stationary Source
Permits;
     18 AAC 50.345 Construction, Minor and Operating Permits:
Standard Permit Conditions, except (b), (c)(3), and (l).
     18 AAC 50.502 Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection;
     18 AAC 50.540 Minor Permit: Application;
     18 AAC 50.542 Minor Permit: Review and Issuance;
     18 AAC 50.560 General Minor Permits; and
     18 AAC 50.990 Definitions.
    The listed exceptions were not submitted in the October 25, 2018
submission and are not part of the current federally-approved Alaska
SIP.\35\ For more information, please see our prior actions on
September 19, 2014 (79 FR 56268) and August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The excepted provisions implement New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS), National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs), and title V of the CAA and are not relied on
by the state to attain or maintain the NAAQS under CAA section 110
and the SIP; or are inconsistent with CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also proposes to approve the submission as fulfilling NNSR
requirements for the FNSB PM2.5 nonattainment area set forth
in the EPA's 2016 PM2.5 implementation rule and triggered
upon reclassification of the area to Serious.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA proposes to include in a final rule,
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference the provisions described in Section III. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these documents generally available
electronically through www.Regulations.gov and in hard copy at the
appropriate EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for
more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 29, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019-12178 Filed 6-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P