[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42682-42686]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17768]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0343; FRL-9701-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan;
Alabama; Disapproval of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) Infrastructure Requirement for
the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, submitted by the State of
Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(ADEM), on July 25, 2008, and on September 23, 2009, to demonstrate
that the State meets requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to disapprove sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) that requires the
State to comply with section 128 of the CAA. EPA is taking a separate
action to address all the other infrastructure elements for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0343 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-2012-0343, 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 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0343.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through

www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the 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. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, 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. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information
by addressing the following questions:

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's rulemaking?
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of Alabama's submission for section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's rulemaking?

    On July 25, 2008, and on September 23, 2009, the State of Alabama,
through ADEM, provided submissions to EPA certifying that the Alabama
SIP meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\
Specifically, Alabama certified that its current SIP adequately
addresses the elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that states comply with the requirements
respecting state boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act. In today's
action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of Alabama's July
25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, submissions related to the
requirements respecting state boards for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS because EPA has made the preliminary
determination that these submissions do not meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA for this NAAQS. EPA's rationale for
this proposed disapproval is provided in the Section III of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Alabama's July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, submissions
explained that Alabama's current SIP sufficiently addresses
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS, however, today's proposed action only
relates to the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is addressing
the other section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in relation to Alabama's SIP in
rulemaking separate from today's proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for this proposed action?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS of
65 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.7. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA
retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs
to EPA no later than July 2000 for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, no later than October 2009 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
    On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent
decree with Earthjustice which required EPA, among other things, to
complete a Federal Register notice announcing EPA's determinations
pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each state had made
complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008. In accordance with
the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings for each state based
upon what the Agency received from each state for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as of October 3, 2008.
    On October 22, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans
Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS''
making a finding that each state had submitted or failed to submit a
complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (see
73 FR 62902). For those states that did receive findings, the findings
of failure to submit for all or a portion of a state's implementation
plan established a 24-month deadline for EPA to promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) to address the outstanding SIP elements
unless, prior to that time, the affected states submitted, and EPA
approved, the required SIPs. The findings that all or portions of a
state's submission are complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA
to take action upon the complete SIP elements in accordance with
section 110(k).

    Alabama's infrastructure submissions were received by EPA on July
25, 2008, for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and on September
23, 2009, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The submissions
were determined to be complete on January 25, 2009, and March 23, 2010,
respectively. Alabama was among other states that did not receive
findings of failure to submit because it had provided a complete
submission to EPA to address the infrastructure elements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS by October 3, 2008.
    On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club filed an
amended complaint related to EPA's failure to take action on the SIP
revision related to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a
consent decree with WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club which required
EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice of the
Agency's final action either approving, disapproving, or approving in
part and disapproving in part the Alabama 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS Infrastructure SIP revision addressing the applicable
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except for section
110(a)(2)(C), the nonattainment area requirements and section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), interstate transport requirements, by September 30,
2012.
    Today's action is proposing to disapprove the portion of Alabama's
July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, submissions which was intended
to meet the requirement to address sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Alabama's submission for section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS?

    On July 25, 2008, and on September 23, 2009, the State of Alabama,
through ADEM, provided letters to EPA certifying that Alabama's SIP
meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, for
sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) Alabama's July 25, 2008, submission states
that ``Requirements dictating the roles of local or regional
governments (local programs) are derived from Ala Code Sec.  22-28-11
(2006 Rplc.Vol), as amended * * *'' and the September 23, 2009,
submission states that ``This requirement is met through Ala Code Sec.
22-22A-6(j) which ensures that the state comply with section 128 of the
CAA.''
    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that each implementation plan
provide that states comply with the requirements respecting state
boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act. Section 128 requires that:
(1) The majority of members of the state board or body which approves
permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not
derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to
permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential
conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an
executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. After
reviewing Alabama's SIP, EPA has made the preliminary determination
that the State's implementation plan does not contain provisions to
comply with section 128 of the Act, and thus Alabama's July 25, 2008,
and on September 23, 2009, submissions do not meet the requirements of
the Act. While Alabama has state statutes that may address, in whole or
part, requirements related to state boards at the state level, these
provisions are not included in the SIP as required by the CAA.
    Based on an evaluation of the federally-approved Alabama SIP, EPA
is proposing to disapprove Alabama's certification that its SIP meets
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The submitted provisions which
purport to address 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) are severable from the other
infrastructure elements. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove
those provisions which relate only to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of Alabama's July 25,
2008, and September 23, 2009, submissions, relating to section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). This proposed disapproval is based on EPA's
preliminary determination that Alabama's SIP does not satisfy these
requirements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS because provisions required by section 128 of the CAA are not
approved in the Alabama SIP. Today's proposed action only relates to
the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements for the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is addressing the other section
110(a)(2) requirements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for Alabama's SIP in a rulemaking separate from
today's proposed rulemaking.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a CAA Part D Plan or is required in
response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA
section 110(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock. Section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the provisions being proposed for
disapproval in today's notice) were not submitted to meet requirements
for Part D or a SIP call, and therefore, if EPA takes final action to
disapprove this submittal, no sanctions will be triggered. However, if
this disapproval action is finalized, that final action will trigger
the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later
than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects
the deficiency, and EPA approves the plan or plan revision before EPA
promulgates such FIP.

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 Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to act on state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq,
because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 of the CAA will
not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but
simply disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion into the
SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of
assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity
is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's regulations at

13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-
of itself create any new requirements but simply disapproves certain
state requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords
no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from
all or part of the rule. The fact that the CAA prescribes that various
consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will flow from
this disapproval does not mean that EPA either can or must conduct a
regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. EPA continues to be interested in the potential impacts
of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves
certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 the CAA will not in-
and-of itself create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain
state requirements for inclusion into the SIP.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. EPA believes that this action
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because
application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove state choices based on the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to disapprove certain
state requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 the CAA
and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly,
it does not provide 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, and

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: July 12, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-17768 Filed 7-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 50902]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16353]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4715-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Guam; Amendment No. 2 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 territory of Guam (FEMA-4715-DR), dated May 25, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued June 7, 2023.

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: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective May 29, 2023.

    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. 2023-16353 Filed 8-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 118 (Thursday, June 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36911-36913]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89059; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-50]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Temporarily the Auction Collars for Exchange-Facilitated Core
Open Auctions Under Rule 7.35C

June 12, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on June 11, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to add Commentary .04 to Rule 7.35C to
provide that, for a temporary period that begins June 15, 2020, and
ends on the earlier of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities
to Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'') or after the Exchange closes on
June 30, 2020, the Auction Collar for the Core Open Auction will be a
price that is the greater of $1.00 or 10% away from the Auction
Reference Price for the Core Open Auction. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to add Commentary .04 to Rule 7.35C to
provide that, for a temporary period that begins June 15, 2020, and
ends on the earlier of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities
to DMMs or after the Exchange closes on June 30, 2020, the Auction
Collar for the Core Open Auction will be a price that is the greater of
$1.00 or 10% away from the Auction Reference Price for the Core Open
Auction.
Background
    On March 18, 2020, the CEO of the Exchange made a determination
under Rule 7.1(c)(3) that beginning March 23, 2020, the Trading Floor
facilities located at 11 Wall Street in New York City would close and
the Exchange would move, on a temporary basis, to fully electronic
trading.\4\ On May 14, 2020, the CEO of the Exchange made a
determination under Rule 7.31(c) to reopen the Trading Floor on a
limited basis on May 26, 2020 to a subset of Floor brokers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange's rules establish how the Exchange will
function fully-electronically. The CEO also closed the NYSE American
Options Trading Floor, which is located at the same 11 Wall Street
facilities, and the NYSE Arca Options Trading Floor, which is
located in San Francisco, CA. See Press Release, dated March 18,
2020, available here: https://ir.theice.com/press/press-releases/all-categories/2020/03-18-2020-204202110. Pursuant to Rule 7.1(e),
the CEO notified the Board of Directors of the Exchange of this
determination.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88933 (May 22, 2020)
(SR-NYSE-2020-47) (Notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of
proposed rule change).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Trading Floor facilities are now temporarily closed to
DMMs, DMMs are not on the Trading Floor and therefore cannot manually
facilitate most types of Auctions.\6\ While the Trading Floor is
temporarily closed, DMMs electronically participate in continuous
trading and facilitate Auctions. As provided for under Rule 7.35C, any
Auctions that cannot be facilitated electronically by the DMM will be
facilitated by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ During this temporary closure of the Trading Floor, a DMM
may manually facilitate either on the Trading Floor or remotely an
IPO Auction, a Core Open Auction for a post-IPO public offering, or
a Trading Halt Auction following a regulatory halt. See Commentaries
.02, .03, .04, and .05 to Rule 7.35A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7.35C sets forth the procedures for Exchange-facilitated
Auctions.

Currently, the Exchange will facilitate an Auction only if a DMM cannot
facilitate an Auction for one or more securities. The Exchange
determines an Auction Price based on the Indicative Match Price for a
security, which is bound by Auction Collars.\7\ Currently, the Auction
Collars for the Core Open Auction are at a price that is the greater of
$0.15 or 10% away from the Auction Reference Price.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 7.35C(b)(2).
    \8\ See Rule 7.35C(b)(3)(A)(i). Rule 7.35C(b)(1) provides that
the Auction Reference Price for a Core Open Auction is the same as
the Imbalance Reference Price determined under Rule 7.35A(e)(3).
Pursuant to Rule 7.35A(e)(3), the Imbalance Reference Price for a
Core Open Auction is the Consolidated Last Sale Price, unless a pre-
opening indication has been published. Pursuant to Rule
7.35(a)(11)(A), the term ``Consolidated Last Sale Price'' means the
most recent consolidated last-sale eligible trade in a security
during Core Trading Hours on that trading day, and if none, the
Official Closing Price from the prior trading day for that security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the period while the Trading Floor has been temporarily
closed, the Exchange has facilitated 2.35% of the Core Open Auctions,
with DMMs electronically facilitating the balance of more than 97% of
Core Open Auctions. Approximately 30% of the Exchange-facilitated Core
Open Auctions have had an Indicative Match Price that was subject to an
Auction Collar, and approximately 50% of these collared Exchange-
facilitated Core Open Auctions were in securities trading at prices
under $10.00. If Auction Collars had not been applied to these
securities priced under $10.00, they would have opened at a price
between $0.15 and $1.00 away from the Auction Reference Price.
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to add Commentary .04 to Rule 7.35C to
provide that, for a temporary period that begins June 15, 2020, and
ends on the earlier of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities
to DMMs or after the Exchange closes on June 30, 2020, the Auction
Collar for the Core Open Auction will be a price that is the greater of
$1.00 or 10% away from the Auction Reference Price for the Core Open
Auction.
    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change would reduce
the number of Exchange-facilitated Core Open Auctions subject to
Auction Collars during the temporary Trading Floor closure, and
therefore would reduce the potential number of securities that would
open at a price that may not represent the current value of the
security due to unfilled marketable auction interest, while still
preserving investor protections by preventing significantly dislocated
openings.
    The Exchange proposes to keep the 10% price parameter, but increase
the size of the static price change from $0.15 to $1.00. This proposed
rule change would therefore modify the price parameters for determining
Auction Collars only for securities priced under $10.00.\9\ As noted
above, approximately 50% of the Exchange-facilitated Core Open Auctions
that have been subject to Auction Collars have been in securities
priced under $10.00. Therefore, the Exchange believes that this
proposed wider Auction Collar would significantly reduce the number of
securities subject to a collared Exchange-facilitated Core Open
Auction. More specifically, with this proposed rule change, securities
with an Auction Reference Price under $10.00 would be more likely to
open at a price that is consistent with the buy and sell interest in
the security at the opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, currently, a security with an Auction Reference
Price of $9.00 would have Auction Collars of $0.90, and a security
with an Auction Reference Price of $2.00 would have Auction Collars
of $0.20. With this proposed change, both securities would have an
Auction Collar of $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are technology changes associated with this proposed rule
change that the Exchange anticipates will be implemented on June 11,
2020.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    To reduce the spread of COVID-19, the CEO of the Exchange made a
determination under Rule 7.1(c)(3) that beginning March 23, 2020, the
Trading Floor facilities located at 11 Wall Street in New York City
would close and the Exchange would move, on a temporary basis, to fully
electronic trading. On May 14, 2020, the CEO made a determination under
Rule 7.1(c)(3) that, beginning May 26, 2020, the Trading Floor would be
partially reopened to allow a subset of Floor brokers to return to the
Trading Floor. However, the Trading Floor has not yet been reopened in
full to DMMs.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it would reduce the number of
securities that would be subject to a collared Exchange-facilitated
Core Open Auction. As noted above, the Exchange has facilitated only
2.35% of the Core Open Auctions during the temporary Trading Floor
closure, and only 30% of those Exchange-facilitated Auctions have been
subject to an Auction Collar. The proposed rule change would change how
the Auction Collars are determined for securities with an Auction
Reference Price under $10.00. Because approximately 50% of the collared
Exchange-facilitated Auctions to date were priced under $10.00, the
Exchange believes that this proposed rule change would reduce the
number of Exchange-facilitated Core Open Auctions subject to Auction
Collars, and therefore would reduce the potential number of securities
that would open at a price that may not represent the current value of
the security due to unfilled marketable auction interest, while still
preserving investor protections by preventing significantly dislocated
openings. This proposed rule change would therefore promote the fair
and orderly operation of Exchange-facilitated Auctions by allowing such
securities to open at a price that is consistent with the buy and sell
interest in the security, even if such price is more than $0.15 away
from the Auction Reference Price, which would also allow more buy and
sell interest to participate in such Auction.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any competitive issues but rather is designed
to provide for wider Auction Collars for Exchange-facilitated Core Open
Auctions in securities priced under $10.00 during a temporary period
when the Trading Floor has been closed in response to social-distancing
measures designed to reduce the spread of the COVID-19.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\17\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The proposed rule change
would provide for wider Auction Collars for Exchange-facilitated Core
Open Auctions in securities priced under $10.00 during a temporary
period, when the Trading Floor has been closed in response to social-
distancing measures designed to reduce the spread of the COVID-19. The
Exchange has represented that approximately 50% of the collared
Exchange-facilitated Auctions are in securities priced under $10.00.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote fair
and orderly Core Open Auctions by allowing more buy and sell interest
to participate at prices consistent with such buy and sell interest.
The Exchange has also represented that it will be able to implement
these changes on June 15, 2020. The Commission notes that the proposed
wider collars would only apply to Exchange-facilitated Core Open
Auctions.\18\ Furthermore, the proposed rule change would modify the
price parameters for determining Auction Collars only for securities
priced under $10.00. The Commission also notes that the proposal is a
temporary measure designed to respond to current, unprecedented market
conditions, and would end on the earlier of a full reopening of the
Trading Floor facilities to DMMs or after the Exchange closes on June
30, 2020. For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiver of the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ As the Exchange notes above, during the period while the
Trading Floor has been temporarily closed, it has facilitated 2.35%
of the Core Open Auctions, with DMMs electronically facilitating the
balance of more than 97% of Core Open Auctions.
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2020-50 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-50. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-50, and should be submitted on
or before July 9, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13119 Filed 6-17-20; 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.  I’ve already begun researching and documenting my opinion, but the sheer number of questions this regulations pose are vast. The current 75 day period is simply too short to adequately formulate an educated response which is why I am requesting the extension of time. It took the FDA years to develop this proposal, so I don’t think it’s out of line to give the public 6 months to develop our responses.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. My parents were both smokers, and I grew up in a household were smoking was always present. I lost my Mother to lung cancer, and I have watched my Father quit smoking through the use of an e-cigarette.  I want to share their stories as well as my evidence and research so that you can take my comments into account. 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: July 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 129)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32417-32419]
[DOCID:fr08jy09-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0380; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-153-AD;
Amendment 39-15959; AD 2009-14-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    An internal review of design data has shown that the web of the
left hand side (LH) stringer 13 near frame 8 might have been
improperly trimmed on a few aircraft.
    If not corrected, possible crack initiations could occur in the
upper stringer web, and therefore could impair the structural
strength of the adjacent door stop. This latent failure could
ultimately lead to the loss of redundancy of the door stops, thereby
affecting the structural integrity of the fuselage.
* * * * * * *
    We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 12, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 12,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2009 (74
FR 19027). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    An internal review of design data has shown that the web of the
left hand side (LH) stringer 13 near frame 8 might have been
improperly trimmed on a few aircraft.
    If not corrected, possible crack initiations could occur in the
upper stringer web, and therefore could impair the structural
strength of the adjacent door stop. This latent failure could
ultimately lead to the loss of redundancy of the door stops, thereby
affecting the structural integrity of the fuselage.
    Computational analysis has revealed a substantial reduced
fatigue life for the stringer abutting onto the improperly trimmed
web and has determined the need for an inspection and repair action
no later than the first ``C'' check.
    To address this unsafe condition, the present Airworthiness
Directive (AD) mandates an inspection and a conditional rework or
replacement of the web of the LH stringer 13 between frames 7 and 8.

Required actions include measuring the trimmed length of the web,
inspecting for any sharp and unprotected edges of the web, and doing
corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions include reworking
the web and applying protection to the web, or replacing the web, if
improperly trimmed. You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or

on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 12 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $960, or $80 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2009-14-09 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-15959. Docket No. FAA-
2009-0380; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-153-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August
12, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes,
certificated in any category, serial numbers 102 through 124
inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    An internal review of design data has shown that the web of the
left hand side (LH) stringer 13 near frame 8 might have been
improperly trimmed on a few aircraft.
    If not corrected, possible crack initiations could occur in the
upper stringer web, and therefore could impair the structural
strength of the adjacent door stop. This latent failure could
ultimately lead to the loss of redundancy of the door stops, thereby
affecting the structural integrity of the fuselage.
    Computational analysis has revealed a substantial reduced
fatigue life for the stringer abutting onto the improperly trimmed
web and has determined the need for an inspection and repair action
no later than the first ``C'' check.
    To address this unsafe condition, the present Airworthiness
Directive (AD) mandates an inspection and a conditional rework or
replacement of the web of the LH stringer 13 between frames 7 and 8.

    Required actions include measuring the trimmed length of the
web, inspecting for any sharp and unprotected edges of the web, and
doing corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions include
reworking the web and applying protection to the web, or replacing
the web, if improperly trimmed.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the later of the times in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and
(f)(1)(ii) of this AD: Perform a detailed visual inspection to
detect any sharp and unprotected edges of the web of the LH stringer
13 between frames 7 and 8, and measure the trimmed length of the
web, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault
Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX-178, dated July 1, 2008.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 3,750 total flight cycles, or
within 74 months since the date of issuance of the original French
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
French export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) If, during the inspection and measurement required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, any sharp or unprotected edge is found,
or if the trimmed length is 1.57 inches (40 mm) or greater, before
further flight, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service
Bulletin F2000EX-178, dated July 1, 2008.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal maintenance inspector
(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or
lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District
Office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2008-0143, dated July 31, 2008; and Dassault
Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX-178, dated July 1, 2008; for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX-
178, dated July 1, 2008, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey
07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://
www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, WA, on June 25, 2009.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-15855 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82496-82497]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket: FAA-2023-2249]

Notice of Availability; Adoption of the United States Air Force's
Final Environmental Impact Statement--Airspace Optimization for
Readiness at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, and the Record of
Decision for Federal Aviation Administration Actions

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

ACTION: Notice of availability (NOA) for the adoption of the United
States Air Force (USAF) final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and
FAA's record of decision (ROD).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA announces its decision to adopt the USAF FEIS--
Airspace Optimization for Readiness at Mountain Home Air Force Base
(MHAFB), Mountain Home, Idaho. Based on its independent review and
evaluation of the FEIS and supporting documents, the FAA is adopting
the FEIS and issuing a ROD for the modification of special use airspace
(SUA) at the Mountain Home Range Complex (MHRC).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lonnie Covalt, Operations Support
Group, Western Service Center, 2200 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    As described in the FEIS, the Proposed Action consists of USAF
military flight training operations at low altitudes in the Paradise
North Military Operations Area (MOA), Paradise South MOA, Owyhee South
MOA, and Jarbidge South MOA. USAF would conduct supersonic operations
at lower altitudes within the same four MOAs. To accommodate the
Proposed Action, the FAA would modify SUA to ensure safe operations
continue within the National Airspace System and allow for optimized
airspace at the MHRC.
    The MHRC and the SUA associated with MHAFB provide airspace for
combat air power and combat support training to U.S. forces--and its
allies--and support unit-level and larger force combat skills training.
In addition, mission activities such as search and rescue training,
survival training, convoy escort training, and ground-based air defense
radio detection and ranging (radar) threat simulation occur on the land
areas of the MHRC. The airspace and ranges primarily support Idaho-
based units from MHAFB Air National Guard units from Gowen Field in
Boise, Idaho, in addition to other USAF and Department of Defense
(DoD)-approved users. The MHRC SUA consists of six MOAs and two
Restricted Areas (RA) with associated ranges for inert weapons use. The
airspace overlies portions of Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon.
    The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) underwent a 109-day
public comment period from July 9, 2021, to October 25, 2021, and there
were 2,894 comment letters (not including duplicate submittals)
submitted during the public comment period via mail, email, written at
public hearings, verbal at public hearings, and the public website. A
summary of the DEIS public involvement, agency coordination, and tribal
consultation is contained in the FEIS. The FAA circularized the
aeronautical proposal. The FEIS was made available to the public for 30
days on March 3, 2023, through a NOA in the Federal Register (88 FR
13443). The USAF issued their ROD on July 14, 2023, and a NOA of USAF's
ROD was published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2023 (88 FR
50849).

Implementation

    After evaluating the aeronautical study and the FEIS, the FAA has
issued a ROD for the requested SUA. The Proposed Action consists of
changes to lower the altitude of the floors within the MHAFB Military
Operations Areas (MOA) of Paradise North MOA, Paradise South MOA,
Owyhee South MOA, and Jarbidge South MOA. The designated altitudes are
at 100 feet (ft) above ground level (AGL) up to 17,999 ft mean sea
level (MSL). The times of use are between 0730-2200 mountain time,
Monday through Friday; other times by Notice of Air Missions (NOTAM)
expected use is estimated to be 260 days per year, 12 hours per day.
The legal descriptions for the modified MOAs will be published in the
National Flight Data Digest.
    In accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ)
regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and other
applicable authorities (including FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 8-2, and FAA Order JO
7400.2P, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, paragraph 32-2-3),
the FAA has conducted an independent review and evaluation of the USAF
FEIS. As a cooperating agency with responsibility for approving SUA
under 49 U.S.C.

40103(b)(3)(A), the FAA provided subject matter expertise and
coordinated with the USAF during the environmental review process.
    The FAA signed the ROD on [November 17, 2023]. The ROD is available
on the FAA website at: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/environmental_issues.

    Issued in Des Moines, WA, on November 17, 2023.
Lonnie Covalt,
Lead Environmental Protection Specialist, Operations Support Group,
Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-25978 Filed 11-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P