[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60011-60012]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27213]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0180; FRL-9970-45]

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific
Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) Request for Ad Hoc Expert Nominations;
Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency is issuing this notice to announce the opportunity
to provide additional nominations for experts to serve as ad hoc
members for the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) reviewing physiologically-based
pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling to address pharmacokinetic differences
between and within species on six selected pesticidal active
ingredients. This meeting of the FIFRA SAP, originally scheduled for
October 24-27, 2017, has been postponed until 2018. New dates for this
meeting will be announced in a separate notice.

DATES: The meeting will be rescheduled for 2018. The Agency will issue
another announcement once the new date for the SAP meeting on PBPK
modeling has been determined.
    Nominations. Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP for this meeting should be provided on or before January
17, 2018. See Request for Nominations section for more detail.
    Submit nominations to serve as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP,
requests for special accommodations, or requests to present oral
comments to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Marquea D. King, DFO, Office of

Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may
be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing
of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) and FIFRA. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action.
    Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc expert members of FIFRA
SAP for this meeting. As part of a broader process for developing a
pool of candidates, FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the stakeholder
community for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad
hoc members of FIFRA SAP. Both U.S. citizens and permanent residents
who can demonstrate they are actively seeking U.S. citizenship will be
considered. Any interested person or organization may nominate
qualified individuals to be considered as prospective candidates for a
specific meeting. Individuals nominated for this meeting should have
expertise in one or more of the following areas: PBPK modeling,
pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamic (PD) modeling, in vitro to in vivo
extrapolation, human health risk assessment, neurotoxicity,
organophosphate pesticides, pyrethroids pesticides, N-methyl carbamate
pesticides, fungicides, acetylcholinesterase inhibition, and exposure
assessment. Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient
professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be
capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this
meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position,
address, email address, and telephone number. Nominations should be
provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or
before January 17, 2018. The Agency will consider all nominations of
prospective candidates for this meeting that are received on or before
that date. However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting
is a discretionary function of the Agency.
    The selection of scientists to serve on FIFRA SAP is based on the
function of the Panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's
charge to the Panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to
serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to
a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal
department or agency, except EPA. Other factors considered during the
selection process include availability of the potential Panel member to
fully participate in the Panel's review, absence of any conflicts of
interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, independence with
respect to the matters under review, and lack of bias. Although
financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack of
impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in
disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a
candidate will be selected to serve on FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified
candidates are identified for each Panel. Therefore, selection
decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the
candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and
achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on
the Panel.
    FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part
2634--Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, Qualified Trusts, and
Certificates of Divestiture, as supplemented by EPA in 5 CFR part 6401.
In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates for service
on FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential financial information
which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the
candidate's employment, stocks, and bonds, and where applicable,
sources of research support. EPA will evaluate the candidate's
financial disclosure form to assess whether there are financial
conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality, or any
prior involvement with the development of the documents under
consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the
candidate is considered further for service on FIFRA SAP. Those who are
selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to
attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key
issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be
asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes and the final
meeting report. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this
meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website at https://www.epa.gov/sap or may be obtained from the OPP Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

Purpose of FIFRA SAP

    The Agency is issuing this notice to announce the opportunity to
provide additional nominations for experts to serve as ad hoc members
for the FIFRA SAP reviewing PBPK modeling to address pharmacokinetic
differences between and within species on six selected pesticidal
active ingredients. The meeting, originally scheduled for October 24-
27, 2017 as announced in the Federal Register on June 6, 2017 (82 FR
26086) (FRL 9962-78), has been postponed until 2018. The new meeting
dates will be announced once they are selected. For additional
information, please visit the public docket for this meeting at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0180), the FIFRA SAP
website at http://www.epa.gov/sap or contact the Designated Federal
Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et. seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: November 16, 2017.
Stanley Barone, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-27213 Filed 12-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 36866-36867]
[DOCID:fr30jn08-68]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8686-6]

Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health; Draft Technical Support Document, Volume 3:
Development of Site-Specific Bioaccumulation Factors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft for scientific views.

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

SUMMARY: In 2000, EPA announced the availability of final revisions to
the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health (2000) (hereafter ``2000 Human Health
Methodology'') published pursuant to section 304(a)(1) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). Along with the 2000 Human Health Methodology, EPA
committed to publishing several technical support documents to provide
additional detail to the Methodology document, including two documents
that describe the development of bioaccumulation factors for use in
ambient water quality criteria calculations. In 2003, EPA announced the
release of the Technical Support Document Volume 2: Development of
National Bioaccumulation Factors (hereafter ``National BAF TSD'').
Today, the Agency is soliciting scientific views on the Draft Technical
Support Document, Volume 3: Development of Site-Specific
Bioaccumulation Factors (hereafter ``Draft Site-Specific BAF TSD'')
that accompanies the Methodology and the National BAF TSD. The National
BAF TSD contains technical details on how EPA develops national
bioaccumulation factors for use in deriving national recommended
ambient water quality criteria for protecting human health. The Draft
Site-Specific BAF TSD contains technical details on how States and
Tribes may develop site-specific bioaccumulation factors for use in
deriving site-specific ambient water quality criteria for protecting
human health. The goal in deriving site-specific BAFs is to determine
the most accurate estimates of bioaccumulation feasible for each site.

DATES: Scientific views must be received on or before August 14, 2008.
Scientific views postmarked after this date may not receive the same
consideration.

ADDRESSES: Submit your scientific views, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0494, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting scientific views.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) Water Docket, MC 2822T; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave,
NW., EPA West, Room 3334, Washington DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your scientific views to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2008-0494. EPA's policy is that all scientific views received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at http://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 information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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 docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Water
Docket/EPA/DC, 1301 Constitution Ave, NW., EPA West, Room 3334,
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30
p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Office of Water is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi L. Bethel, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division (4304T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The intended audience for the Draft Site-Specific BAF TSD includes
State and Tribal water quality staff scientists or risk assessors
(``investigators'') who are responsible for deriving State or Tribal
water quality standards, stakeholders interested in developing site-
specific BAFs, and other users interested in site-specific
bioaccumulation issues for other applications.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Scientific Views for EPA?

    EPA requests scientific views on all aspects of the Draft Site-
Specific BAF TSD, including the soundness of the technical approaches
described in the document, the usefulness of the document for States
and Tribes in calculating BAFs, and the guidance's clarity of
presentation.
    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Scientific views. When submitting
scientific views, remember to:
     Identify the notice by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize scientific views by referencing a Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your scientific views by the deadline
identified.

II. What are Water Quality Criteria?

    Water quality criteria are scientifically derived numeric values
that protect aquatic life or human health from the deleterious effects
of pollutants in ambient water. Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water
Act requires EPA to develop and publish and, from time to time, revise
water quality criteria to accurately reflect the latest scientific
knowledge. Water quality criteria developed under section 304(a) are
based solely on data and scientific judgments on the relationship
between pollutant concentrations and environmental and human health
effects. Section 304(a) criteria do not reflect consideration of
economic impacts or the technological feasibility of meeting the
chemical concentrations in ambient water. Section 304(a) criteria
provide guidance to States and authorized Tribes in adopting water
quality standards that ultimately provide a basis for controlling
discharges or releases of pollutants. The criteria also provide
guidance to EPA when promulgating federal regulations under section
303(c) when such action is necessary.
    The 2000 Human Health Methodology, along with the Technical Support
Documents, provides States and authorized Tribes the necessary guidance
to adjust water quality criteria developed under Section 304 to reflect
local conditions or to develop their own water quality criteria using
scientifically defensible methods. EPA believes that ambient water
quality criteria inherently require several risk management decisions
that are, in many cases, better made at the State, Tribal, or regional
level. EPA encourages States and authorized Tribes to use the final
Methodology and Technical Support Documents to develop site-specific
water quality criteria to appropriately reflect local conditions. When
final, the Draft Site-Specific BAF TSD, released for scientific views
with today's announcement, will assist States and authorized Tribes in
development of site-specific BAFs for use in site-specific ambient
water quality criteria calculations.

III. Background Information on the Draft Bioaccumulation Factors
Technical Support Document Volume III (Draft Site-Specific BAF TSD)

    In order to prevent harmful exposures to chemicals in water through
eating contaminated fish and shellfish, national 304(a) water quality
criteria for protecting human health must address chemical
bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms. Bioaccumulation occurs when
aquatic organisms accumulate chemicals in their bodies when they are
exposed to these chemicals through the surrounding media (water, food,
sediment). The extent of bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms varies
widely depending on the chemical and the species, but it can be
extremely high for some highly persistent and lipid-soluble chemicals.
For such highly bioaccumulative chemicals, concentrations in aquatic
organisms may pose unacceptable human health risks from eating fish and
shellfish even when concentrations in water are too low to cause
unacceptable health risks from drinking the water.
    EPA developed detailed procedures and guidelines described in the
2000 Human Health Methodology for estimating bioaccumulation factor
(BAF) values for use in deriving or revising ambient water quality
criteria. The National BAF TSD discusses the technical basis for
developing national BAFs, the underlying assumptions and uncertainties
inherent to the approach, and applying the bioaccumulation component of
the 2000 Human Health Methodology. The Draft Site-Specific BAF TSD
expands on the information presented in the National BAF TSD by
providing users specific information on how to calculate site-specific
BAFs for use in modifying the national 304(a) criteria and is available
from EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/
humanhealth/method/index.html. Both documents rely on a framework for
selecting the appropriate procedure for deriving BAFs that is based on
chemical properties, biological activity and scientific information.
The Draft Site-Specific BAF TSD presents methods for States, Tribes and
other interested parties to calculate BAFs that are specific to their
site. The goal in deriving site-specific BAFs is to determine the most
accurate estimates of bioaccumulation feasible for each site.
    EPA requests scientific views on all aspects of the Draft Site-
Specific BAF TSD, including the soundness of the technical approaches
described in the document, the usefulness of the document for States
and Tribes in calculating BAFs, and the guidance's clarity of
presentation.

    Dated: June 24, 2008.
Ephraim King,
Office Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. E8-14796 Filed 6-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  That's for the comments.  Let me just remind the Committee that we're not here to make regulatory decisions at all.
                  DR. CHRISTINE CHAISSON:  Right.
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  So, an interpretation of regulatory statutes as well.  I'll just say that again.  We need to stick to the science, obviously, and make those recommendations based upon that.  Dr. Cobb.
                  DR. GEORGE COBB:  Really quick, just to the point of a tiered approach.  Actually, just overnight or maybe this morning, Charge Question 1, there was some language starting to emerge around that topic.  We can try to incorporate that, or I can try to incorporate that into Q1.  Having said that, Dan, I'll just fess up.  I am probably the least qualified person to be smoothing and combining and merging other people's comments into something coherent.
                  I'm certainly happy for that to be in Charge Question 3 or in a separate question.  But if you want it in Q1, we can certainly do it.  And there's starting to be a little bit of momentum in that direction for Q1.
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  Yeah, that's where I see it fitting the best, George.  And if you already have material there, Dr. Li and Heiger-Bernays, if you want to focus in on that, I think that would be appropriate for Question 1, if that's okay.
                  DR. GEORGE COBB:  Thank you, Dan.  This is George Cobb, again.  I think Bill Doucette had sent some comments that were -- it wasn't necessarily speaking of a tiered approach, however, it was leaning along those lines.  And I think Dr. Reiss had also sent something.  Perhaps even some of the comments that Dr. Johnson had sent in were kind of touching on the tiered approach kind of concepts.
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  Sure, yeah.  I think it's very appropriate for one.  Fantastic.  Dr. Heiger-Bernays.
                  DR. WENDY HEIGER-BERNAYS:  Yeah.  Thank you, Dr. Chaisson.  I absolutely agree.  This is a triage as opposed to a tier.  And I absolutely agree this is the opportunity.  The time is now to encompass for the screen -- as we call it a screen -- to cast the wide net to include the information and data from and about fenceline communities.  No questions asked.  I really do like the triage approach, and I will work with Dr. Cobb in a -- I guess, provide some specific comment with that regard.  Thank you.
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  Thank you.  Thanks a lot.  Dr. Unseld, do you want to go ahead make the comments about your community engagement link?  That would be great.
                  DR. MONICA UNSELD:  Yeah.  I wasn't sure if this fit under the charge questions, but I do have resources because this is part of my job on how to have effective community engagements and building trust and that sort of thing.  So, I just wasn't sure if I should send those in or who they go to.
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  4b.  I would put it under 4b under your -- now that you have it on the record, I think we're good.  Dr. Doucette.
                  DR. WILLIAM DOUCETTE:  Dan, just clarification based on your last comment.  The general comment that I made about potentially restructuring or at least considering restructuring the way the charge questions, I'm still not a hundred percent sure where that should go.
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  At the end.
                  DR. WILLIAM DOUCETTE:  At the end of -- so it doesn't go into a specific charge question?
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  No.  It will go into -- I mean, this is the way I see it is this will go at the end because it's not a formal charge question that was addressed.
                  DR. WILLIAM DOUCETTE:  Okay.  Right.
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  So, this will be a recommendation that normally we put at the end of the document to say we'll make a recommendation for a more generalized approach if overlap -- I mean, I'm interpreting your comment here so if I'm wrong.  But if the Agency thinks overlap is going to be consistent with specific components, that maybe a more generalized open-ended question might be more appropriate.
                  But that would go after the charge questions because we obviously haven't been asked that, so that's a recommendation.
                  DR. WILLIAM DOUCETTE:  Okay.  Also, there would be, not necessarily, consensus on that, right?
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  No, it's going to go out to the Committee, and we'll begin it with one Committee member thought dot, dot, dot.
                  DR. WILLIAM DOUCETTE:  Okay, we'll see what happens.
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  Exactly.
                  DR. WILLIAM DOUCETTE:  Okay.  All right, thank you.
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  Yeah.  George, are you still -- do you have something else?  Your hand's still up.  No.  You're mute.
                  DR. GEORGE COBB:  I do not.  I'm trying to send an email.  Sorry.
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  No worries.  Okay, great.  All right.  Any other comments or concerns?  Okay, let me just remind the Committee that we need to stay on after the meeting is adjourned to discuss the logistics of the report and Alaa will fill us in on that.  And I think we're ready to close.  Dr. Choudhary, do you have any final comments from the Agency?
                  DR. REHAN CHOUDHARY:  Yes, good afternoon, everybody.  Rehan Choudhary from the EPA.  We appreciate all the deliberations that the Committee members have gone through, and we look forward to receiving your written recommendations.  As we emphasized before, the more prescriptive and specific you can be, I believe the more actionable this team can be to try and be responsive.  Thank you very much.
                  DR. DANIEL SCHLENK:  Thank you. Thanks to you, and to your team, for the presentations that you made.  They were very clear.  And thank you for the questions and answering the questions or clarification that came from the Committee as well.
                  And at this point, I'd like to thank the EPA staff for putting this together and the back and forths that we've had trying to do a Zoom meeting here for, I believe, the first time for us anyway outside of the teams' concepts.
                  It's actually, I know, Sheela, you had mentioned we would much rather be in person, but this is way better than the teams was where we couldn't even see each other's face.  So, I guess we're moving in the right direction, at least, in terms of interactions.  But hopefully, at some point, we'll be able to interact in person.  So again, thanks to the Committee, thanks to the public commenters, and thanks to the EPA staff and Alaa for putting all this together.
                  With that, I'll turn it over to Alaa.
                  DR. ALAA KAMEL:  Well, thank you, Dan.  In closing, I want to thank everyone who contributed to this meeting.  I would first like to thank the peer review and ethics branch in EPA for preparing for this meeting.  And it includes the executive secretary, Steve Knott; and the designated federal officials that are also involved, Dr. Sharlene Matten and Dr. Todd Peterson; and also, the administrative staff who participated in preparing for this meeting.  I'd also like to thank the contractor EnDyna for their help in the Zoom meeting preparations and in the YouTube webcasting.
                  Dr. Schlenk, you really did a great job in organizing this meeting and leading all the discussions, going through all the agenda items following the FACA requirements.  Thank you very much.
                  Thank you, also, to all the SACC members who participated in this meeting and for the ad hoc reviewers for their input and participation.
                  I would also importantly like to thank the EPA's assistant administrator, Dr. Michal Freedhoff, and the Deputy Office Director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Mark Hartman, for their welcome and introductory remarks.
                  Thanks are also due to the OPPT team, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.  Sorry.  For all the team for presenting the draft methodology and for responding to the Committee questions.
                  Thank you, Rehan.  Thank you, Kevin.  Thank you for all the team.
                  And then, thank you to the public commenters who sent written comments and presented oral comments.
                  And then, in the end, we will be meeting after this meeting, and Committee members will stay in the meeting and everyone else can leave, including EPA staff.  And the meeting is now adjourned.

                              [MEETING ADJOURNED]


Technical Support Document (TSD)

for the Transport Rule

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491

Status of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs

Final Rule TSD

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

June 2011

Status of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs

Final Rule TSD

This document gives the status of each Clean Air Act (CAA)
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) state implementation plan (SIP) for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for each state subject to a
Federal implementation plan (FIP) under the Transport Rule.

Alabama

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date, received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency.  (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina
(North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on
rehearing, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
the CAIR SIP submitted on March 7, 2007 and approved on October 1, 2007
(72 FR 55659), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to
submit.  In addition, on [INSERT DATE AND CITE FR NOTICE], EPA
disapproved a SIP revision submitted by the state of Alabama to address
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP
that corrects that deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions of
section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate
FIPs for the state of Alabama addressing the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Arkansas

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and has not, subsequent to that date, received and
approved a SIP revision to correct the deficiency.  (See 70 FR 21147.)
As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following the D.C.
Circuit decision in North Carolina, the CAIR SIP submitted August 10,
2007 and approved on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54556), cannot be said to
correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the April 25,
2005 finding of failure to submit.  Based on this fact, the provisions
of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall
promulgate a FIP for the state of Arkansas addressing the requirements
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Florida

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and has not, subsequent to that date, received and
approved a SIP revision to correct the deficiency.  (See 70 FR 21147.)
As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following the D.C.
Circuit decision in North Carolina, the CAIR SIP submitted on March 16,
2007 and approved on October 12, 2007 (72 FR 58016), cannot be said to
correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the April 25,
2005 finding of failure to submit.  Based on this fact, the provisions
of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall
promulgate a FIP for the state of Florida addressing the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Georgia

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date, received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency.  (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted on March 28, 2007 and approved on October 9, 2007
(72 FR 57202), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to
submit.  In addition, on [INSERT DATE AND CITE FR NOTICE], EPA
disapproved a SIP revision submitted by the state of Georgia to address
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP
that corrects that deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions of
section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate
FIPs for the state of Georgia addressing the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Illinois

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted on September 14, 2007 and approved on October 16,
2007 (72 FR 58528), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to
submit. In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to
submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with the respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (75 FR
32673), and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP
that corrects the deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of
section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate
FIPs for the state of Illinois addressing the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Indiana

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted in parts including the part submitted on June 29,
2009 and approved on November 29, 2010 (75 FR 72956, also 72 FR 59480),
cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified
in the April 25,2005 finding of failure to submit. In addition, on
[INSERT DATE AND CITE FR NOTICE] EPA disapproved a SIP revision
submitted by the state of Indiana to address the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and has not,
subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP that corrects that
deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA
110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the
state of Indiana addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Iowa

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to that date received and
approved a SIP revision to correct the deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)
As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following the D.C.
Circuit decision in North Carolina, the CAIR SIP submitted on August 15,
2006 and approved on August 6, 2007 (72 FR 43539), cannot be said to
correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the April 25,
2005 finding of failure to submit. In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA
made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to the date received and
approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency.  Based on these facts, the
provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator
shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Iowa addressing the requirements
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

Kansas

On [INSERT DATE AND CITE FR NOTICE], EPA disapproved a SIP revision
submitted by the state of Kansas to address the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and has not,
subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP that corrects the
deficiency. Based on this fact, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1)
establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of
Kansas addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Kentucky

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted on July 19, 2007 and approved on October 4, 2007
(72 FR 56623), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to
submit.  In addition, on [INSERT DATE AND CITE FR NOTICE], EPA
disapproved a SIP revision submitted by the state of Kentucky to address
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP
that corrects that deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions of
section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate
FIPs for the state of Kentucky addressing the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Louisiana

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and has not, subsequent to that date received and
approved a SIP revision to correct the deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)
As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following the D.C.
Circuit decision in North Carolina, the CAIR SIP addressing NOX
submitted on August 20, 2007 and approved on September 28, 2007 (72 FR
55064), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency
identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit.  Based on
this fact, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the
Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Louisiana
addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS.

Maryland

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted on October 24, 2007, revised June 30, 2008 and
approved on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56117), cannot be said to correct
the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005
finding of failure to submit.  In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA made a
finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to that date received and
approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency.  Based on these facts, the
provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator
shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Maryland addressing the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Michigan

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to that date received and
approved a SIP revision to correct the deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)
As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following the D.C.
Circuit decision in North Carolina, the CAIR SIP submitted in parts
including the part submitted on July 16, 2007 and June 10, 2009 and
approved on August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41637, also 72 FR 72256), cannot be
said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the
April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit.  In addition, on June 9,
2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency with respect
to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to that
date received and approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency.  Based on
these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the
Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Michigan addressing
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Minnesota

On June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and has not,
subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP that corrects the
deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA
110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for
the state of Minnesota addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Mississippi

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and has not, subsequent to that date received and
approved a SIP revision to correct the deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)
As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following the D.C.
Circuit decision in North Carolina, the CAIR SIP submitted on January
16, 2007 and approved on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56268), cannot be said
to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the April 25,
2005 finding of failure to submit.  Based on this fact, the provisions
of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall
promulgate a FIP for the state of Mississippi addressing the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Missouri

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to that date received and
approved a SIP revision to correct either deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)
 As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following the D.C.
Circuit decision in North Carolina, the CAIR SIP submitted on May 18,
2007 and approved on December 14, 2007 (72 FR 71073), cannot be said to
correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the April 25,
2005 finding of failure to submit.  In addition, on [INSERT DATE AND
CITE FR NOTICE], EPA disapproved a SIP revision submitted by the state
of Missouri to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date,
received and approved a SIP that corrects that deficiency.  Based on
these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the
Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Missouri addressing
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Nebraska

On June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS  (75 FR 32673) and has not,
subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP that corrects the
deficiency.  Based on this fact, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1)
establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of
Nebraska addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect
to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

New Jersey

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and has not, subsequent to that date received and
approved a SIP revision to correct the deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)
As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following the D.C.
Circuit decision in North Carolina, the CAIR SIP submitted on February
6, 2007, revised July 9, 2007 and approved on October 1, 2007 (72 FR
55666), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency
identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit.  In
addition, on [INSERT DATE AND CITE FR NOTICE], EPA disapproved a SIP
revision submitted by the state of New Jersey to address the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP that
corrects that deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions of
section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate
FIPs for the state of New Jersey addressing the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.

New York

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted on September 17, 2007 and approved on January 24,
2008 (73 FR 4109), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to
submit.  In addition, on [INSERT DATE AND CITE FR NOTICE], EPA
disapproved a SIP revision submitted by the state of New York to address
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP
that corrects that deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions of
section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate
FIPs for the state of New York addressing the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

North Carolina

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted in parts including the part submitted on June 20,
2008 and approved on November 30, 2009 (74 FR 62496, also 72 FR 56914),
cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified
in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit.  In addition, on
[INSERT DATE AND CITE FR NOTICE], EPA disapproved a SIP revision
submitted by the state of North Carolina to address the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and has not,
subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP that corrects that
deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA
110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the
state of North Carolina addressing the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Ohio

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted in parts including the part submitted on July 15,
2009, supplemented August 13, 2009 and approved on September 25, 2009
(74 FR 48857, also 73 FR 6034), cannot be said to correct the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding
of failure to submit.  In addition, on [INSERT DATE AND CITE FR NOTICE],
EPA disapproved a SIP revision submitted by the state of Ohio to address
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP
that corrects that deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions of
section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate
FIPs for the state of Ohio addressing the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Pennsylvania

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted on May 23, 2008 and approved on December 10, 2009
(74 FR 65446), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to
submit.  In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to
submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS  (75
FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a
SIP that corrects the deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions
of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall
promulgate FIPs for the state of Pennsylvania addressing the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

South Carolina

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted in parts including the part submitted on December
4, 2008 and approved on October 16, 2009 (74 FR 53167, also 72 FR
57209), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies
identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit.  Based on
these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the
Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of South Carolina
addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Tennessee

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted in parts including the part submitted on July 13,
2009 and approved on November 25, 2009 (74 FR 61535, also 72 FR 46388),
cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified
in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit.  In addition, on
[INSERT DATE OF SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS NOTICE AND FR CITATION], EPA made
a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP
that corrects the deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions of
section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate
FIPs for the state of Tennessee addressing the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Texas

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted on August 4, 2006 and approved on July 30, 2007
(72 FR 41453), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to
submit.  In addition, on [INSERT DATE AND CITE FR NOTICE], EPA
disapproved a SIP revision submitted by the state of Texas to address
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP
that corrects that deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions of
section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate
FIPs for the state of Texas addressing the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Virginia

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and has not, subsequent to that date received and
approved SIP revisions to correct the deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As
noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit
decision in North Carolina, the CAIR SIP submitted on March 30, 2007,
supplemented on April 30, 2007, and June 11, 2007 and approved on
December 28, 2007 (72 FR 73602), cannot be said to correct the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the April 25, 2005 finding
of failure to submit.  In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding
of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS  (75
FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a
SIP that corrects the deficiency.  Based on these facts, the provisions
of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall
promulgate FIPs for the state of Virginia addressing the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.

West Virginia

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to
that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either
deficiency. (See 70 FR 21147.)  As noted in the preamble to the
Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina,
the CAIR SIP submitted in parts including the part submitted on April
22, 2008 and approved on August 4, 2009 (74 FR 38536, also 72 FR 71576),
cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified
in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit.  In addition, on
June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency with
respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS  (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent
to that date received and approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency.
Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish
that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of West
Virginia addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect
to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Wisconsin

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to that date received and
approved a SIP revision to correct the deficiency.  (See 70 FR 21147.)
As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following the D.C.
Circuit decision in North Carolina, the CAIR SIP submitted on June 19,
2007 and approved on October 16, 2007 (72 FR 58542), cannot be said to
correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the April 25,
2005 finding of failure to submit.  In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA
made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS  (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to that date received and
approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency.  Based on these facts, the
provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator
shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Wisconsin addressing the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

Deliberative – Do Not Cite or Quote


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47559-47560]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19204]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0990; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification and Establishment of Air Traffic Service (ATS)
Routes in the Vicinity of Huntingburg, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies VOR Federal airway V-243 and establishes
area navigation (RNAV) route T-325 in the vicinity of Huntingburg, IN.
The FAA is taking this action due to the scheduled decommissioning of
the Huntingburg, IN (HNB), VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)/Distance
Measuring Equipment (DME) facility, which provides navigation guidance
for a portion of V-243.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 13, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend VOR Federal airway V-243 and establish RNAV
route T-325, in the Huntingburg, IN, area (78 FR 78302, December 26,
2013). Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Two
comments were received. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
supported the modification, but encouraged the FAA to utilize
stakeholders in developing a national air traffic service route
modernization plan.
    The second commenter requested inclusion of the WEGEE fix in the T-
325 routing, even if it and/or the BUNKA fix had to be moved to
accommodate, and that the route have a single course change using the
APALO fix for that course change. In considering the commenter's
request, the FAA determined the WEGEE fix supports a reporting point on
VOR Federal airway V-305, an instrument departure procedure from
Indianapolis International Airport, and an instrument approach
procedure to a different airport. Additionally, the BUNKA fix supports
a reporting point on VOR Federal airway V-221, a holding pattern, and
five instrument approach procedures to three different airports. To
minimize changes to the National Airspace System (NAS) infrastructure,
beyond the decommissioning of the Huntingburg VOR/DME, and to avoid a
host of cascading route and procedure changes that would be required by
moving the WEGEE and BUNKA fixes, this action establishes RNAV route T-
325 as proposed in the NPRM.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airway V-243 and establishing RNAV
route T-325. The scheduled decommissioning of the HNB VOR/DME facility
has made this action necessary. The route modification and
establishment actions are outlined below.
    V-243: V-243, previously extending between the Craig, FL, VOR/
Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC, is
modified to retain the airway routing between the Craig, FL, VORTAC and
Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC. The route segment between the Bowling Green,
KY, VORTAC and the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC is removed. The new RNAV
route T-325, described below, replaces the V-243 route segment removed.
    T-325: T-325 is established between the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC
and the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC, replacing the V-243 route segment
removed as described above. The RNAV route segments between the Bowling
Green, KY, VORTAC and the APALO, IN, waypoint (WP) fix and between the
BUNKA, IN, WP fix and the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC overlay the V-243
route segments that were removed. The route segment between the APOLO
and BUNKA WP fixes provides a shorter and almost direct RNAV routing
between the Bowling Green, KY, and Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC facilities.
Additionally, T-325 uses existing waypoints to minimize changes to the
NAS infrastructure and to retain the existing functionality and
supported procedures by the waypoints used to describe the route.
    In the NPRM, the geographic coordinates published for the Bowling
Green, KY, and Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC facilities in the T-325 route
description contained errors and are corrected in this rule. The
Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC coordinates are changed from ``lat.
36[deg]55'43'' N., long. 086[deg]26'36'' W.'' to ``lat. 36[deg]55'44''
N., long. 086[deg]26'36'' W.''; and the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC
coordinates are changed from ``lat. 39[deg]29'20'' N., long.
087[deg]14'56'' W.'' to ``lat. 39[deg]29'20'' N., long. 087[deg]14'57''
W.'' With the exception of these changes, this rule is the same as that
proposed in the NPRM.
    Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and
low altitude RNAV routes (T) are published in paragraph 6011,
respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective
September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The VOR Federal airway and low altitude RNAV route listed in this
document will be subsequently published in the Order.
    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.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial

number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.

    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
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 modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe
and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9X,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013 and
effective September 15, 2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a)--Domestic VOR Federal Airways

* * * * *

V-243 [Amended]

    From Craig, FL; Waycross, GA; Vienna, GA; LaGrange, GA; INT
LaGrange 342[deg] and Choo Choo, GA, 189[deg] radials; Choo Choo; to
Bowling Green, KY.

Paragraph 6011--United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

T-325 Bowling Green, KY to Terre Haute, IN [New]
Bowling Green, KY (BWG)                               VORTAC                      (Lat. 36[deg]55'44'' N., long. 086[deg]26'36'' W.)
RENRO, KY                                             WP                          (Lat. 37[deg]28'51'' N., long. 086[deg]39'19'' W.)
LOONE, KY                                             WP                          (Lat. 37[deg]44'14'' N., long. 086[deg]45'18'' W.)
APALO, IN                                             WP                          (Lat. 38[deg]00'21'' N., long. 086[deg]51'35'' W.)
BUNKA, IN                                             WP                          (Lat. 39[deg]04'57'' N., long. 087[deg]09'07'' W.)
Terre Haute, IN (TTH)                                 VORTAC                      (Lat. 39[deg]29'20'' N., long. 087[deg]14'57'' W.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7, 2014.

Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-19204 Filed 8-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 46441-46442]
[DOCID:fr09se09-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0410]

Request for Notification from Industry Organizations Interested
in Participating in the Selection Process for Nonvoting Industry
Representatives on Medical Device Advisory Committee Panels and Request
for Nonvoting Industry Representatives on Medical Device Advisory
Committee Panels

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any
industry organization interested in participating in the selection of
nonvoting industry representatives to serve on certain device panels of
the Medical Devices Advisory Committee in the Center for Devices and
Radiological Health notify FDA in writing. A nominee may either be
self-nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a nonvoting
industry representative. Nominations will be accepted for current
vacancies effective with this notice.

DATES: Any industry organizations interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests must send a letter stating that interest to FDA by October 9,
2009, for the vacancies listed in this notice. Concurrently, nomination
materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA by October
9, 2009.

ADDRESSES:  Send all letters of interest and nominations to Kathleen L.
Walker (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen L. Walker, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5238, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
5964, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 520(f)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and

Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(f)(3)), as amended by the
Medical Device Amendments of 1976, provides that each medical device
panel include one nonvoting member to represent the interests of the
medical device manufacturing industry.
    FDA is requesting nominations for nonvoting members representing
industry interests for the following vacancies listed in table 1 of
this document.

                                                    Table 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Medical Devices Panels                                  Approximate Date Needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dental Products Panel                                                        November 1, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Hospital and Personal Use Devices Panel                              January 1, 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hematology and Pathology Devices Panel                                       March 1, 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immunology Devices Panel                                                     March 1, 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ophthalmic Devices Panel                                                     November 1, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Functions

    The functions of the medical device panels are listed as follows:
(1) Review and evaluate data on the safety and effectiveness of
marketed and investigational devices and make recommendations for their
regulation, (2) advise the Commissioner of Food and Drugs regarding
recommended classification or reclassification of these devices into
one of three regulatory categories, (3) advise on any possible risks to
health associated with the use of devices, (4) advise on formulation of
product development protocols, (5) review premarket approval
applications for medical devices, (6) review guidelines and guidance
documents, (7) recommend exemption to certain devices from the
application of portions of the act, (8) advise on the necessity to ban
a device, (9) respond to requests from the agency to review and make
recommendations on specific issues or problems concerning the safety
and effectiveness of devices, and (10) make recommendations on the
quality in the design of clinical studies regarding the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices.

II. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests should send a letter stating that interest to the contact
person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of
publication of this notice. Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will
send a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest,
attaching a complete list of all such organizations, and a list of all
nominees along with their current resumes. The letter will also state
that it is the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer
with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the
receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to
represent industry interests for a particular device panel. The
interested organizations are not bound by the list of nominees in
selecting a candidate. However, if no individual is selected within the
60 days, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs will select the nonvoting
member to represent industry interests.

III. Qualifications

    Persons nominated for the device panels should be full time
employees of firms that manufacture products that would come before the
panel, or consulting firms that represent manufacturers, or have
similar appropriate ties to industry.

IV. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate
one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry
representative. Within the 30 days, the following information should be
sent to the FDA contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT): A
current curriculum vitae of each nominee, current business and/or home
address, telephone number, e-mail address, and the name of the device
panel of interest. FDA will forward all nominations to the
organizations expressing interest in participating in the selection
process for the device panel. (Persons who nominate themselves as
nonvoting industry representatives will not participate in the
selection process).
    FDA has a special interest in ensuring that women, minority groups,
individuals with physical disabilities, and small businesses are
adequately represented on its advisory committees, and therefore,
encourages nominations for appropriately qualified candidates from
these groups.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: September 2, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-21555 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 28, 2007

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET DOT-OST-2007-0077

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of   SHUTTLE AMERICA CORPORATION (Shuttle), filed 11/16/07,
for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Atlanta, Georgia, and Guadalajara, Mexico, and to integrate this
authority with Shuttle’s other exemption and certificate authority
granted by the Department, to the extent permitted by international
agreements.  Shuttle intends to operate seasonal regional jet aircraft
service on the route as a Delta Connection carrier, replacing the
currently operated services of Atlantic Southeast Airlines (ASA), on the
route, effective on or about April 8, 2008.

Applicant rep: Robert E. Cohn<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst: Linda L.
Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX	Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: November 28, 2007, through
November 28, 2009.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

- see next page -

												2

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	XX  The holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2, and the notice requirements for seasonal/intermittent
services as set forth in Order 96-11-24, at 5.  Consistent with our
standard policy, the dormancy notice period will begin on April 8, 2008,
the applicant’s proposed start-up date for the subject services.

The exemption authority granted to Shuttle for direct-carrier
(own-aircraft) service is awarded subject to the terms of the
correspondence dated April 6, 2005, referenced in footnote 1, above.

With respect to the proposed replacement of the currently operated ASA
services on the Atlanta-Guadalajara route, we remind Shuttle that ASA
will be required to file a dormancy notice with the Department as soon
as the proposed replacement services begin.

The route integration authority granted to Shuttle is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in award of
the route integration authority granted should be construed as
conferring upon Shuttle rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless Shuttle notifies the Department of its intent to serve
such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any
necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a
request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are
included in Shuttle’s authority by virtue of the route integration
exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by Shuttle, the
holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for Shuttle in a competitive carrier selection
proceeding.

Code-share operations conducted under this authorization are subject to
the following conditions:

The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must comply
with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment to the Department’s regulations
concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding
any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our approval here
is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the subject foreign
air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier holding out such
service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere; that the carrier
selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket)
accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share journey for all
obligations established in its contract of carriage with the passenger;
and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier be unaffected;
and

- see next page -

												3

The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither
Shuttle nor Delta shall give any force or effect to any contractual
provisions between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

Remarks:  We acted on this application without awaiting expiration of
the 15-day answer period to the application with the consent of all
parties served with a copy of the application.

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found Shuttle qualified to provide the
exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov

				APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, including,
but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.  To assure compliance with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, the holder
shall, before commencing any new service (including charter flights) to
or from a foreign airport, contact its International Principal Security
Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether
the Transportation Security Administration has determined that security
is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

11/06

     Shuttle is a commuter carrier certificated to provide scheduled
interstate air transportation using aircraft with fewer than 60 seats
(Order 98-11-15).  By letter dated April 6, 2005, to Mr. Robert Cohn
(Counsel for Shuttle America) from Mr. William Bertram (then Chief of
the Air Carrier Fitness Division, Office of Aviation Analysis), the
Department authorized Shuttle to engage in interstate scheduled
transportation using large aircraft, subject to the restriction that
Shuttle’s operations are performed under a fee-for-service agreement
with a major U.S carrier.

   The applicant states that, to ensure that the Delta Connection
service is not disrupted, ASA’s designation to serve the route should
not be withdrawn until Shuttle has commenced its new service and ASA has
given notice that its Atlanta-Guadalajara authority is dormant.

   In this regard, we note that we are specifically serving this notice
on ASA and Delta.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 47492]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a New Approval of Information Collection: FAA Customer
Service Surveys

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection.
This is a new generic clearance for the purpose of gathering customer
satisfaction data directly from customers for a wide variety of
services.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 9, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-XXXX.
    Title: FAA Customer Service Surveys.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this generic
collection.
    Type of Review: New generic information collection.
    Background: Executive Order 12862, Setting Customer Service
Standards, requires that Federal agencies provide the highest quality
service to our customers by identifying them and determining what they
think about our existing services and products. The surveys covered in
the generic clearance will provide the FAA with a means to gather this
data directly from our customers.
    The information obtained from the surveys will be used to assist in
evaluating service delivery and processes. The responses to the surveys
will be voluntary and will not involve information that is required by
regulations. There will be no direct cost to the respondents other than
their time. The FAA plans to provide an electronic means for responding
to the majority of the surveys via the World Wide Web.
    Respondents: State and local governments, aviation industry
organizations, and the general public.
    Frequency: Information will be collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: The burden time will vary
for each survey. Generally we estimate an average burden of 15 minutes
per response.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: We estimate that FAA will survey
approximately 55,000 respondents annually during the next three years.
Therefore, the estimated total annual burden is 13,750 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-200, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 1, 2012.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2012-19450 Filed 8-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 9435]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02848]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[OMB Control No. 3235-0383, SEC File No. 270-331]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form F-7.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form F-7 (17 CFR 239.37) is a registration statement under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) used to register
securities that are offered for cash upon the exercise of rights
granted to a registrant's existing security holders to purchase or
subscribe such securities. The information collected is intended to
ensure that the information required to be filed by the Commission
permits verification of compliance with securities law requirements and
assures the public availability of such information. The information
provided is mandatory and all information is made available to the
public upon request. Form F-7 takes approximately 4 hours per response
to prepare and is filed by approximately 5 respondents. We estimate
that 25% of 4 hours per response (one hour) is prepared by the company
for a total annual reporting burden of 5 hours (one hour per response x
5 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: February 4, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02848 Filed 2-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P