[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2530-2532]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01481]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-0125]

Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting;
Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory
Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice
and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be
open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on
this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held on February 26, 2019, from 12:30 p.m.
to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2019-N-0125. The docket will close on February
25, 2019. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
meeting by February 25, 2019. Please note that late, untimely filed
comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted
on or before February 25, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov
electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time at the end of February 25, 2019. Comments received by mail/hand
delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered
timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance
receipt is on or before that date.
    Comments received on or before February 22, 2019, will be provided
to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically,

including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to
the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are
solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any
confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be
posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social
Security number, or confidential business information, such as a
manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name,
contact information, or other information that identifies you in the
body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-N-0125 for ``Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.''
Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see the ADDRESSES
section), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted
as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren D. Tesh, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the FDA's website at
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to
the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory
committee information line to learn about possible modifications before
coming to the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application (NDA)
212306 for selinexor tablets, application submitted by Karyopharm
Therapeutics Inc. The proposed indication (use) for this product is in
combination with dexamethasone, for the treatment of patients with
relapsed refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least three
prior therapies and whose disease is refractory to at least one
proteasome inhibitor, at least one immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-
CD38 monoclonal antibody.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see the
ADDRESSES section) on or before February 22, 2019, will be provided to
the committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before February 19, 2019. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by February 20, 2019.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Lauren D. Tesh (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee

meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 1, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-01481 Filed 2-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 6551]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03023]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-814-000]

Carlsbad Energy Center LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Carlsbad Energy Center LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 28, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 8, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03023 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 56)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14658-14662]
[DOCID:fr23mr06-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-MS-0001-200606; FRL-8048-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Mississippi State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to include changes made to Mississippi
regulations entitled, ``Permit Regulations for the Construction and
Operation of Air Emissions Equipment'' and ``Regulations for the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.'' The proposed
revisions amend the State permitting rules in order to address changes
to the federal New Source Review (NSR) regulations, which were
promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186) and reconsidered
with minor changes on November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021) (collectively,
these two final actions are called the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules'').
EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules, proposed for inclusion in the Mississippi
SIP, contain provisions for baseline emissions calculations, an actual-
to-projected-actual methodology for calculating emissions changes,
options for plant-wide applicability limits, and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. The proposed revisions also include changes
made to the NSR program for minor stationary sources, including a new
provision allowing construction to commence on certain minor sources
prior to the applicant receiving a final permit to construct.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 24, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2005-MS-0001, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: (Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-MS-0001), Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2005-0001. EPA's policy is that all comments 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

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official business hours are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the
Mississippi SIP, contact Ms. Nacosta Ward, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Telephone number: (404) 562-
9140; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding
New Source Review, contact Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Permits Section, at
the same address above. Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, references to
``EPA,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our,'' are intended to mean the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The supplementary information is
arranged as follows:

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Is EPA's Analysis of Mississippi's NSR Rule Revisions?
    A. Requirements for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
of Air Quality
    B. General Permitting Requirements
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take?

    On August 10, 2005, the State of Mississippi, through the
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), submitted
revisions to the Mississippi State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP
submittal consists of revisions to the Mississippi Administrative Code
(MAC) regarding Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control
of Air Contaminants. Specifically, the proposed SIP revisions include
changes to MDEQ regulations entitled, ``Permit Regulations for the
Construction and Operation of Air Emissions Equipment,'' Air Pollution
Control Section 2 (APC-S-2), found at MAC 08-034-002, and ``Regulations
for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,'' Air
Pollution Control Section 5 (APC-S-5), found at MAC 08-034-005. MDEQ
submitted its revision to APC-S-5 in response to EPA's December 31,
2002, revisions to the federal NSR program. EPA is proposing to approve
the submitted SIP revisions to APC-S-2 and APC-S-5.

II. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On December 31, 2002, EPA published final rule changes to 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 52, regarding the Clean Air
Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment
New Source Review (NNSR) programs. 67 FR 80186. On November 7, 2003,
EPA published a notice of final action on the reconsideration of the
December 31, 2002, final rule changes. 68 FR 63021. In that November
7th final action, EPA added the definition of ``replacement unit,'' and
clarified an issue regarding plant-wide applicability limitations
(PALs). The December 31, 2002, and the November 7, 2003, final actions,
are collectively referred to as the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules.'' The
purpose of today's action is to propose to approve the SIP submittal
from the State of Mississippi, which includes the provisions of EPA's
2002 NSR Reform Rules, and a change to Mississippi's minor source NSR
program.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of EPA's implementation of parts
C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), 42 U.S.C. 7470-
7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD
program, which applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS)--``attainment'' areas--as well as in areas
for which there is insufficient information to determine whether the
area meets the NAAQS--``unclassifiable'' areas. Part D of title I of
the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the NNSR program, which applies in
areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment'' areas.
Collectively, the PSD and NNSR programs are referred to as the ``New
Source Review'' or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these
programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part
51, appendix S.
    The CAA's NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting
programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air
pollutants regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include
a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control
technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public
health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets
those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for
approval, a SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control
measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to
contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and
modification of any stationary source of air pollution to ensure that
the NAAQS are achieved and maintained, to protect areas of clean air,
to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national
parks and other areas, to ensure that appropriate emissions controls
are applied, to maximize opportunities for economic development
consistent with the preservation of clean air resources, and to ensure
that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full
public consideration of the consequences of the decision.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, the 2002 NSR Reform Rules: (1) Provide a new
method for determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-
to-projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major
modification has occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply
with PALs to avoid having a significant emissions increase that
triggers the requirements of the major NSR program; (4) provide a new
applicability provision for emissions units that are designated clean
units; and (5) exclude pollution control projects (PCPs) from the
definition of ``physical change or change in the method of operation.''
On November 7, 2003, EPA published a notice of final action on its
reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules (68 FR 63021), which added
a definition for ``replacement unit'' and clarified an issue regarding
PALs. For additional information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, see 67
FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and http://www.epa.gov/nsr.

    After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March
3, 2003), industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged
numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of
EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit Court) issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules. New York v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
In summary, the D.C. Circuit

Court vacated portions of the rules pertaining to clean units and PCPs,
remanded a portion of the rules regarding recordkeeping, e.g. 40 CFR
52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did not
comment on the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules. EPA has not yet responded to the Court's remand regarding the
recordkeeping provisions. Today's action is consistent with the
decision of the D.C. Circuit Court because Mississippi's submittal does
not include any portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were vacated
as part of the June 2005, decision.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that state agencies adopt and
submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the
minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than
January 2, 2006. (Consistent with changes to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(6)(i),
state agencies are now required to adopt and submit SIP revisions
within 3 years after new amendments are published in the Federal
Register.) State agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51,
and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with different but equivalent
regulations. However, if a state decides not to implement any of the
new applicability provisions, that state is required to demonstrate
that its existing program is at least as stringent as the federal
program. In adopting changes to federal law, a state may write the
federal requirements into the state rules or the state may incorporate
the federal rule by referencing the citation of the federal rule. As is
discussed in greater detail below, with regard to the present revision,
Mississippi primarily incorporated the federal rule by reference.
    On August 10, 2005, the State of Mississippi submitted a SIP
revision for the purpose of revising the State's NSR permitting
provisions for both major and minor stationary sources. These changes
were made primarily to adopt EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. The submittal
also contains revisions to the State's general regulations for the
construction and operation of sources of air pollution. These changes
are discussed below. EPA believes the revisions contained in the
Mississippi submittal are approvable for inclusion into the Mississippi
SIP.

III. What Is EPA's Analysis of Mississippi's NSR Rule Revisions?

    Mississippi currently has a SIP-approved NSR program for new and
modified stationary sources. Today, EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to Mississippi's existing NSR program in the SIP. These
proposed revisions were submitted to EPA on August 10, 2005, and became
state-effective on August 27, 2005. Copies of the revised rules, as
well as the State's Technical Support Document, can be obtained from
the Docket, as discussed in the ``Docket'' section above. A discussion
of the specific changes to Mississippi's rules, proposed for inclusion
in the SIP, follows.

 A. Requirements for Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality

    Incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21, 51.166(f), and
51.166(q). The State of Mississippi's PSD program incorporates by
reference the federal requirements, found at 40 CFR 52.21, into the
State's major source PSD program, found at APC-S-5 (MAC 08-034-005).
The original incorporation by reference was adopted on June 28, 1990,
and amended in 1991, 1993, and 1996. The current revision to APC-S-5,
which EPA is now proposing to approve into the SIP, incorporates by
reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21, as amended and promulgated on
July 1, 2004. In addition, the federal provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(f),
``Exclusions from Increment Consumption,'' and 40 CFR 51.166(q),
``Public Participation,'' are also incorporated by reference into the
Mississippi rule. In summary, the revisions update Mississippi's
existing incorporation by reference of the federal NSR program to
include the 2002 NSR Reform Rules plus subsequent revisions to the
federal program made through July 1, 2004.
    Mississippi did not adopt those sections of the federal rules that
do not apply to state activities or are reserved for the Administrator
of the EPA, such as the ``delegation of authority,'' and ``plan
disapproval'' sections found in 40 CFR 52.21. The Mississippi
incorporation by reference properly clarified the circumstances in
which the term ``Administrator,'' found throughout the federal rules,
was to remain Administrator, and when it was intended to refer to the
``Mississippi Environmental Quality Board,'' instead. The Mississippi
rule does not incorporate the portions of the federal rules that were
recently stayed or vacated, including the clean unit provisions, the
PCP exclusion, and the equipment replacement provision which was
promulgated shortly after the 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
    The revised Mississippi rule includes the recordkeeping provisions
set forth in the federal rules at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6). However,
Mississippi chose to exclude the phrase, ``reasonable possibility.''
This phrase in the federal rule limits the recordkeeping provisions to
modifications at facilities that use the actual-to-future-actual
methodology to calculate emissions changes and that may have a
``reasonable possibility'' of resulting in a significant emissions
increase. The Mississippi rule, therefore, requires all modifications
that use the actual-to-future-actual methodology to meet the
recordkeeping requirements. Mississippi's minor source permitting
regulations already contain recordkeeping requirements for
modifications, so there is limited practical effect of this difference
in Mississippi. As noted earlier, EPA has not yet responded to the D.C.
Circuit Court's remand of the recordkeeping provisions of EPA's 2002
NSR Reform Rules. As a result, EPA's final decision with regard to the
remand may require EPA to take further action on this portion of
Mississippi's rules. At this time, however, Mississippi's recordkeeping
provisions are at least as stringent as the federal requirements, and
are therefore, approvable.
    The requirements included in Mississippi's PSD program are
substantively the same as the federal provisions, due to Mississippi's
incorporation of the federal rules by reference. EPA has, therefore,
determined that the proposed revisions are consistent with the program
requirements for the preparation, adoption and submittal of
implementation plans for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of
Air Quality, as set forth at 40 CFR 51.166, and are approvable as part
of the Mississippi SIP.

B. General Permitting Requirements

    Minor Source Program Rule Revisions. Mississippi's general
permitting requirements, including permit requirements for minor
sources, are contained in the State rule entitled, ``Permit Regulations
for the Construction and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment,''
(APC-S-2), found at MAC 08-034-002. Today's action proposes to approve
recent changes to this rule. EPA has reviewed the proposed revisions
and finds them to be consistent with the requirements of EPA's
regulations for minor NSR programs found at 40 CFR 51.160 through
51.164.
    On May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21443), EPA approved APC-S-2 as meeting the
criteria necessary to allow the State of Mississippi to issue federally
enforceable state operating permits (FESOPs). The provisions in APC-S-2
that were relied upon for the approval of the FESOP program have not
changed with this latest revision of that rule.

Therefore, the FESOP program approval remains effective.
    Mississippi's minor source permit regulations do contain a new
provision. APC-S-2, Section XV.B., entitled ``Optional Pre-Permit
Construction,'' allows construction to commence on certain non-major
sources and non-major modifications prior to receiving a final permit
to construct, provided certain conditions are met. EPA approved this
approach to minor source permitting for the State of Idaho's permit to
construct regulations, which were approved into the Idaho SIP in 2003.
68 FR 2217 (January 16, 2003). As discussed below, Mississippi's new
provision is consistent with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
of the CAA and federal regulations found at 40 CFR 51.160 through
51.164, including 40 CFR 51.160(b), which requires states to have
legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification
of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Mississippi's Optional Pre-Permit Construction provision includes
requirements and safeguards to ensure that no major source or major
modification would be allowed to commence construction prior to
receiving a final permit to construct. For example, the provision does
not allow new major stationary sources, major modifications, medical
waste incinerators, hazardous waste incinerators, any modification
involving medical waste incineration or hazardous waste incineration,
or new stationary sources or modifications requiring a case-by-case
Maximum Achievable Control Technology determination, to commence
construction prior to receiving a final permit to construct.
Furthermore, no source, including minor sources, can begin actual
construction unless the source has received approval from the State in
the form of either a written approval described in the rule, or an
actual permit to construct.
    Mississippi's Optional Pre-Permit Construction provision also
includes requirements that limit its applicability to only sources that
have sufficiently demonstrated that they will be able to comply with
all requirements, and therefore, will receive a final permit to
construct. These requirements include: submittal of a comprehensive
permit application, public notice of the application for pre-permit
construction approval, and written approval from the Permit Board
before a source can commence construction. Additionally, the permit
application must include the request for pre-permit construction,
certification that construction is at the applicant's risk,
certification that the applicant will not contest the final permit on
the basis that construction has begun, and certification that the
applicant will comply with any restrictions being sought to limit
potential to emit, including applicable monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements.
    Furthermore, the Optional Pre-Permit Construction provision
precludes any actual operation of the new or modified source until the
final permit to construct is issued. Regardless of the status of the
construction, the Permit Board may deny the pre-permit construction
approval application, or revoke an existing pre-permit construction
approval, for any reason it deems valid, including objections from the
public. The Mississippi Optional Pre-Permit Construction provision also
allows a source with a valid CAA title V operating permit to
incorporate the preconstruction modification provisions into the title
V permit, rather than obtaining a separate permit to construct.
    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires that state SIPs include a
program for regulating the construction and modification of stationary
sources as necessary to ensure that the NAAQS are achieved. Federal
regulations require that the SIP include a procedure to prevent the
construction of a source or modification that would violate a SIP
control strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS. As discussed above, the Mississippi Optional Pre-Permit
Construction provision includes enforceable procedures to prevent the
construction of any source or modification that would violate SIP
requirements or the NAAQS. Although the Mississippi provision is
somewhat different than traditional minor NSR programs in other states,
the Mississippi program is consistent with the requirements of the CAA
and EPA's regulations, and is therefore approvable as part of the SIP.

IV. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Mississippi SIP
submitted by MDEQ on August 10, 2005. The submittal consists of
revisions to the State ``Permit Regulations for the Construction and
Operation of Air Emissions Equipment,'' APC-S-2, and ``Regulations for
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,'' APC-S-5.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and,
therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the

State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: March 16, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
 [FR Doc. E6-4199 Filed 3-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3737-3738]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0124; Notice 2]

Custom Glass Solutions Upper Sandusky Corporation, Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Custom Glass Solutions Upper Sandusky Corporation (Custom
Glass), a subsidiary of Guardian Industries Corporation, has determined
that certain laminated glass panes, other than windscreens, do not
fully comply with paragraph S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. FMVSS 205, Glazing Materials. Custom Glass has filed an
appropriate report dated September 17, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Luis
Figueroa, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Custom Glass's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and the rule implementing those provision at 49 CFR part 556,
Custom Glass submitted a petition for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 25, 2014 in the Federal Register
(79 FR 57654). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2013-0124.''
    II. Glazing Involved: Approximately 160 laminated glass panes,
other than windscreens, intended for the cabs of approximately twenty
mining vehicles being manufactured by Atlas Copco in Australia. The
panes consist of two 4.0 mm tempered panes manufactured by Auto Temp,
Inc. (ATI) that were bonded together with a 0.76 mm PVB layer by Custom
Glass and then shipped to Angus Palm, Watertown, South Dakota between
August 1, 2013 and September 4, 2013.
    III. Noncompliance: Custom Glass explains that the noncompliance is
that the labeling on the subject laminated glass panes does not fully
meet the requirements of paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205. The panes were
labeled with the incorrect manufacturer's code mark, incorrect
manufacturer's trademark, and incorrect manufacturer's model number,
and were incorrectly marked as Tempered.
    IV. Rule Text: Refer to the entire text of Paragraph S6 of FMVSS
No. 205 for requirements and contextual restrictions.
    V. Summary of Custom Glass's Analyses: Custom Glass stated its
belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety based on the following reasoning:
    The parts are incorrectly labeled with the manufacturer's code mark
and manufacturer's trademark belonging to the tempered glazing
supplier, ATI. The correct manufacturer's code mark, which should have
been affixed to the parts at issue, is DOT 22. The correct
manufacturer's model number is M85L2 (which identifies laminated glass
construction with an 8.5 mm nominal thickness, from which Guardian
fabricates automotive parts for use anywhere in a motor vehicle except
windshields). The panes are marked with the correct item-of-glazing
number.
    Although the subject laminated glass panes are affixed with the
incorrect manufacturer's code mark, manufacturer's model number and
manufacturer's trademark, the laminated glass parts were fabricated is
in full compliance with the technical requirements of FMVSS No. 205
that currently apply to laminated glass for use anywhere in a motor
vehicle except windshields (item-of-glazing number ``2,'' i.e., ``AS-
2'')
    Custom Glass also asserts that the subject noncompliance could not
result in the wrong part being used in an OEM or ARG application given
that the part would be ordered by its unique part number and not the
manufacturer's model number (which corresponds to the glass
construction from which the part is fabricated). The parts are also
easily traceable back to Custom Glass since they are the only glazing
supplier for this particular vehicle.
    Custom Glass has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected
the noncompliance so that all future production vehicles delivered with
laminated glass will comply with FMVSS No. 205.
    In summation, Custom Glass believes that the described
noncompliance of the subject laminated glass parts is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt from
providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120 should be granted.

NHTSA Decision

    NHTSA Analysis: FMVSS No. 205 specifies labeling and performance
requirements for automotive glazing. Paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205
requires glazing material manufacturers to certify, in accordance with
49 U.S.C. 30115, each piece of glazing material to which this standard
applies. A prime glazing material manufacturer certifies its glazing by
adding to the marks required in Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996), the
symbol ``DOT'' and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by the NHTSA's
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996)
requires manufacturers to mark automotive glazing with the item of
glazing number, e.g., ``AS-1'', the manufacturer's distinctive
designation or trademark, and a model number that will identify the
type of construction of the glazing material. Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1
(1996) states that the item of glazing number is to be placed in close
proximity to other required markings.
    In its petition Custom Glass stated that labeling on the affected
glazing that did meet all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and
ANSI Z26.1 (1996). Specifically, the glazing was marked with the
incorrect manufacturer's code mark, incorrect manufacturer's trademark,
and incorrect manufacturer's model number (i.e., M number). The glazing
was also incorrectly marked ``Tempered'' as opposed to

``Laminated''. The noncompliance is limited to laminated glass panes,
other than windscreens, to be used in the cabs of approximately twenty
mining vehicles manufactured by Atlas Copco in Australia.
    NHTSA believes that the subject labeling errors are inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety because; the marking of glazing as ``Tempered''
or ``Laminated'' is not required by FMVSS No. 205, the probability of
anyone in the United States obtaining the subject incorrectly marked
glazing as replacement glazing is very unlikely since the affected
glazing is specifically designed for use in mining vehicles
manufactured by Atlas Copco in Australia. In addition, there is no
concern that the wrong model number on the subject glazing would result
in an incorrect replacement part being used because replacement parts
are ordered by referring to the glazing part number or by identifying
the vehicle for which the replacement glazing is intended. Custom Glass
is the only glazing supplier for the vehicles and any replacement
glazing acquired from Custom Glass in the future is expected to be
marked correctly, and the subject glazing appears to comply with all
other applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 205.
    NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that Custom Glass has met its burden of persuasion that the
FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Custom Glass's petition is hereby granted and Custom Glass
is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a
remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject laminated glass parts that Custom Glass no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve
equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant motor laminated glass parts
under their control after Custom Glass notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-01038 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63812-63813]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25491]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Meeting, Notice of Vote, Explanation of Action Closing
Meeting and List of Persons To Attend

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section
3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

Agency Holding Meeting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Date and Time: October 18, 2012.
     Note: The Closed meeting will begin at the conclusion of the Open
meeting.

Place: Room 2C, Commission Meeting Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.

Status: Closed. Non-Public.

Matters to Be Considered: Investigations and Inquiries, Enforcement
Related Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Chairman Wellinghoff and Commissioners Moeller, Norris, LaFleur,
and Clark voted to hold a closed meeting on October 18, 2012. The
certification of the General Counsel explaining the action closing the
meeting is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public
Reference Room at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Chairman and the Commissioners, their assistants, the
Commission's Secretary, the General Counsel and members of his staff,
and a stenographer are expected to attend the meeting. Other staff
members from

the Commission's program offices who will advise the Commissioners in
the matters discussed will also be present.

     Dated: Issued October 11, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25491 Filed 10-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 237 (Thursday, December 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 76629]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 774

The Commerce Control List

ACTION: CFR Correction

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

    In Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300 to 799,
revised as of January 1, 2015, on page 829, in supplement no. 1 to part
774, make the following two corrections:

0
1. In Category 2, ECCN 2B008, in the List of Items Controlled section,
under ``Items'', correctly revise paragraph a. to read as follows:

2B008 Assemblies or Units, Specially Designed for Machine Tools, or
Dimensional Inspection or Measuring Systems and Equipment, as Follows
(see List of Items Controlled)

* * * * *

List of Items Controlled

* * * * *
    Items:
    a. Linear position feedback units having an overall ``accuracy''
less (better) than (800 + (600 x L x 10-3)) nm (L equals
the effective length in mm);
    N.B.: For ``laser'' systems see also 2B006.b.1.c and d.

0
2. In Category 2, ECCN 2B009, in the List of Items Controlled section,
under ``Items'', correctly revise paragraph a. to read ``a. Three or
more axes which can be coordinated simultaneously for ``contouring
control''; and''

[FR Doc. 2015-31130 Filed 12-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71709-71710]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0111]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice
that by a document dated October 4, 2013, CSX Transportation (CSX)
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval
for the discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned
the petition Docket Number FRA-2013-0111.
    Applicant: CSX Transportation, Mr. David B. Olson, Chief Engineer
Communications and Signals, 500 Water Street, Speed Code J-350,
Jacksonville, FL 32202.
    CSX seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance of the traffic
control system (TCS) on main tracks between Control Point (CP) Beck,
Milepost (MP) CH-27.0 and CP Seymour, MP CH-148.17, on the Chicago
Division, Plymouth Subdivision, Plymouth, MI. A total of 51 controlled
signals and 58 automatic signals will be removed, with 11 power-
operated switches converted to hand operation. Approach signals will be
installed at MPs CH-29.0, CH-53.8, CH-50.9, CH-86.5, CH-83.6, and CH-
147.4. CSX Rule 261 will be replaced and operation will be under Form D
Control System and track warrant control rules. There are two locations
that will remain as TCS, with signals and power-operated switches
remaining in operation. Those locations are at Ann Pere, MP CH-52.87,
at a grade crossing with the Great Lakes Central Railroad, and W.E.
Trowbridge, MP CH-84.9, at a grade crossing with the Grand Trunk
Western Railroad. These locations will continue to be operated under
CSX Rule CPS-261.
    The reason given for the proposed changes is that CPS Rule 261 is
no longer needed for present-day operations.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by

submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by January 13, 2014 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-28684 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 73492]
[DOCID:fr12de05-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52892; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its $2.50
Strike Price Interval Program

December 5, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On May 13, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend CBOE Rule 5.5,
Interpretation and Policy .05, to allow the listing of options with
$2.50 strike price intervals for strike prices between $50 and $75. The
Commission published the proposed rule change for comment in the
Federal Register on November 3, 2005.\3\ The Commission received two
comments each from two different commenters on the proposal.\4\ This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52689 (October 27,
2005), 70 FR 66871.
    \4\ See e-mail from Marc Brown, Managing Partner, Equitec/Brown,
to Cyndi Rodriguez, Special Counsel, Commission, dated September 2,
2005; e-mail from Marc Brown, Managing Partner, Equitec/Brown, to
the Commission, dated November 16, 2005; e-mail from Peter Bottini,
Executive Vice President, optionsXpress, Inc., to Cyndi Rodriguez,
Special Counsel, Commission, dated September 7, 2005; letter from
Peter Bottini, Executive Vice President, optionsXpress, Inc., to
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated November 22, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The $2.50 Strike Price Interval Program (``Program'') was initially
adopted in 1995 as a joint pilot program of the options exchanges,
which permits them to list options with $2.50 strike price intervals up
to $50 on a total of up to 100 option classes.\5\ The Program was later
expanded and permanently approved in 1998 to allow the options
exchanges collectively to select up to 200 classes on which to list
options with $2.50 strike price intervals.\6\ Of these 200 option
classes eligible for the Program, 60 classes were allocated to CBOE
pursuant to a formula approved by the Commission as part of the
permanent approval of the Program. Each options exchange, in addition,
is permitted to list options with $2.50 strike price intervals on any
option class that another exchange selects as part of its Program.
Under the Program currently, an option with a $2.50 strike price
interval may be listed only if the strike price is between $25 and
$50.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35993 (July 19,
1995), 60 FR 38073 (July 25, 1995)(approving File Nos. SR-Phlx-95-
08, SR-Amex-95-12, SR-OPPSE-95-07, SR-CBOE-95-19, and SR-NYSE-95-
12).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40662 (November 12,
1998), 63 FR 64297 (November 19, 1998)(approving File Nos. SR-Amex-
98-21, SR-CBOE-98-29, SR-PCX-98-31, and SR-Phlx-98-26).
    \7\ See, e.g., CBOE Rule 5.5, Interpretation and Policy .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 5.5, Interpretation and
Policy .05, to allow the listing of options with $2.50 strike price
intervals for options with strike prices between $50 and $75. However,
the $2.50 strike price intervals between $50 and $75 must be no more
than $10 from the closing price of the underlying stock in its primary
market on the preceding day. For example, and as expressly described in
the proposed change to CBOE Rule 5.5, if an option class has been
selected as part of the Program, and the underlying stock closes at
$48.50 in its primary market, CBOE could list options with strike
prices of $52.50 and $57.50 on the next business day. If the underlying
stock closes at $54, CBOE could list options with strike prices of
$52.50, $57.50, and $62.50 on the next business day. The proposed rule
change does not increase the total number of option classes that CBOE
may select for the Program.
    In addition, the Exchange has proposed other technical changes to
CBOE Rule 5.5, Interpretation and Policy .05, including expressly
noting in the rule text that: (1) The total number of option classes,
i.e., 60, that CBOE has been allocated of the 200 classes that are
eligible for the Program; and (2) an option class shall remain in the
Program until otherwise designated by the Exchange and a
decertification notice is sent to the Options Clearing Corporation.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and in general to protect
investors and the public interest.\9\ The Commission believes that this
proposal is a reasonable means of providing investors with greater
flexibility to establish equity options positions that can be better
tailored to meet their investment objectives. The Commission notes that
both commenters supported the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this rule proposal, the Commission notes that
it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has previously noted a concern with the pressures on
system capacity caused by the proliferation of illiquid options series.
However, this proposal should not exacerbate the problem of increased
quote traffic. As a result of this proposal, CBOE will be permitted to
list options with $2.50 strike price intervals with strike prices
between $50 and $75, but the total number of classes that CBOE is
authorized to list pursuant to its $2.50 Strike Price Interval Program
remains unchanged.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2005-39) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7191 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82500-82502]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25924]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Safety Advisory 2023-07; Review and Implement New Predictive
Weather Modeling and Proactive Safety Processes Across the National
Rail Network To Prevent Weather-Related Accidents and Incidents

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of safety advisory.

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

SUMMARY: Since the beginning of 2021, 123 rail accidents/incidents have
been reported to FRA as having been caused, in whole or in part, by
severe weather conditions or weather-related events (e.g., hurricanes,
tornadoes, wildfires, flooding, mudslides, and summer heat). These
extreme weather conditions and events not only present hazards to
railroad workers, operations and infrastructure but can also severely
impact the customers and communities relying on the railroads for
travel and transportation of critical goods. To reduce weather-related
accidents/incidents and improve the efficiency of the national rail
network during severe weather events, FRA is issuing this Safety
Advisory to recommend that railroads review existing policies,
procedures, and operating rules related to predicting, monitoring,
communicating, and operating during severe weather conditions or
subsequent to extreme weather events. FRA also recommends that
railroads collaborate to develop best practices for utilizing weather
forecasting technologies, predictive weather models, and weather-
related action plans throughout the industry.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles P. King, Director, Office
of Railroad Infrastructure and Mechanical Equipment, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    Disclaimer: This Safety Advisory is considered guidance pursuant to
DOT Order 2100.6A (June 7, 2021). Except when referencing laws,
regulations, policies, or orders, the information in this Safety
Advisory does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to
bind the public in any way. This document does not revise or replace
any previously issued guidance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    From January 2021 through the end of July 2023, there have been 123

accidents/incidents reported to FRA where one of the cause codes was
related to weather conditions (cause codes M102, M103, M105, M199, and
T109 on FRA Form 6180.54). Over half of these accidents/incidents were
main-track derailments. A detailed breakdown is provided below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
             Accident cause                  Number of       mainline
                                             incidents      derailments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M102--Extreme environmental condition--               11               4
 TORNADO................................
M103--Extreme environmental condition--               16              10
 FLOOD..................................
M105--Extreme environmental condition--               40              12
 EXTREME WIND VELOCITY..................
M199 \1\--Other extreme environmental                  7               0
 conditions.............................
T109--Track alignment irregular (buckled/             49              40
 sun kink)..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA has previously issued Safety Advisories concerning weather-
related accidents/incidents. On September 4, 1997, FRA issued Safety
Advisory 97-1, recommending safety practices to reduce the risk of
casualties from train derailments caused by damage to tracks, roadbeds,
and bridges resulting from uncontrolled water flows and similar
weather-related phenomena. FRA amended Safety Advisory 97-1 on November
14, 1997, by revising the recommendation concerning the transmission of
flash flood warnings to train dispatchers or other employees
controlling the movement of trains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Includes all other environmental conditions such as falling
trees, rockslides, ice or snow, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, FRA issued Safety Advisory 2012-03 on July 16, 2012,
to remind track owners, railroads, and their employees of the
importance of complying with their continuous welded rail (CWR) plan
procedures and reviewing their current internal engineering
instructions that address inspecting CWR track to identify conditions
that increase the likelihood of buckling of rail. To heighten awareness
of the potential consequences of an unexpected track buckle,
particularly considering the unusually high and prolonged, record-
breaking temperatures that affected much of the United States in the
summer of 2012, Safety Advisory 2012-03 highlighted a series of train
accidents that were caused by the rail buckling under severe heat
conditions (commonly referred to as sun kinks in the rail). The number
of mainline derailments caused by track buckles or sun kinks continues
to be unacceptable to FRA.
    In addition to FRA's Safety Advisories, MxV Rail Service released a
Technology Digest Article earlier this year, addressing some of the
challenges the rail industry is experiencing with weather and heat-
related track defects.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ MxV Rail Technology Digest TD23-015, Climatic Impacts on
Railroad Infrastructure (July 2023) (available at https://www.mxvrail.com/technology-digest/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendations

    In light of the continued occurrence of weather-related rail
accidents/incidents, FRA is making the following recommendations to
railroads:
    1. Railroads should evaluate their communication and training
programs, rules, policies, and procedures related to severe weather and
ensure those programs are adequate to ensure weather-related action
plans can be promptly implemented. In evaluating these rules, policies,
and procedures, railroads should ensure preparation and response
training curriculums are up to date and include critical information
necessary for operating personnel, whether simulated drills are
performed to test employee response and recovery from severe weather
events, whether employees receive sufficient training on weather
monitoring software (including updated new training when software
enhancements are introduced); whether policies and procedures for
communicating weather events are adequate; whether backup communication
and dispatching systems are present and tested regularly; and whether
evacuation and safety plans are all-encompassing, to include railroad
personnel working in the field and those in transit (e.g., on the
rails, in yards, and traveling on roadways).
    2. Railroads should evaluate their weather forecasting policies and
procedures. In assessing the relevant policies and procedures,
railroads should consider integrating weather forecasting policies and
procedures (and the outcomes from those policies and procedures) into
dispatch operations and whether those policies and procedures should be
incorporated into positive train control systems. Railroads should
additionally consider whether the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and United States Geological Survey (USGS)
predicting, and monitoring capabilities are utilized adequately and
consistently within those policies and procedures.
    3. Railroads should evaluate their operating infrastructure to
identify critical and geographical elements susceptible to severe
weather events. Railroads should identify operating infrastructure
sensitive to extreme weather events and review plans and policies to
monitor the infrastructure proactively and reactively. Railroads should
consider issues such as whether technology can be introduced to monitor
critical infrastructure in real-time and how weather-related action
plans can be revised to establish standardized interfaces with other
railroads, agencies, and municipalities (e.g., United States Coast
Guard and local and State authorities) in the event of a weather-
related event. Railroads should review and update these plans and
policies periodically and ensure weather-related action plans address
specific risks to the identified critical infrastructure.
    4. Railroads should evaluate existing weather-related action plans
and ensure that those plans detail the necessary proactive planning,
maintenance, communication, and other actions necessary to address the
risks presented by severe weather conditions. As part of these action
plans, railroads should consider developing and implementing an
auditing program for severe weather alert systems or other alternative
methods to ensure such systems remain in working condition. Railroads
should ensure such systems are tested routinely, and their
functionality is consistent with all current weather-related action
plans.
    5. Railroads should establish standard operating thresholds to
ensure their weather-related action plans adequately prepare for severe
weather events. Railroads should ensure sufficient rules, policies, and
procedures are implemented and periodically reviewed and updated to
enable effective determinations as to when it is safe to operate in
extreme weather conditions and when it is not (considering
environmental exposures for railroad personnel and other relevant
factors). Rules, policies, and procedures should address weather events
such as wind,

heat, cold, flooding, flash flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes, fire,
visibility, snow, ice, sand drifts, earthquakes, landslides, and
environmental factors such as the air quality index.
    6. Railroads should work together to develop best practices for
utilizing weather forecasting technologies, predictive weather models,
and weather-related action plans throughout the industry. In doing so,
railroads should consider how much deviation exists between railroads
related to operational weather rules, policies, and procedures.
Railroads should consider whether those deviations are justified and to
what extent rail safety would benefit from industry-wide
standardization of weather-related rules, policies, procedures, and
weather-related action plans in general. Railroads should also consider
whether individual railroad weather-related rules, policies, and action
plans include adequate collaboration with tenant and interchange
railroads.

Conclusion

    FRA encourages all railroad industry members to take actions
consistent with the recommendations of this Safety Advisory to prevent
weather-related accidents/incidents. FRA may modify this Safety
Advisory, issue additional safety advisories, or take other appropriate
action necessary to ensure the highest level of safety on the Nation's
railroads, including pursuing other corrective measures under its rail
safety authority.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-25924 Filed 11-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P