[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4540-4542]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1497]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1033; A-1-FRL-9209-3]

Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Colorado; Revisions to Regulation 1

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado
regarding its Regulation 1. Regulation 1 provides certain emission
controls for opacity, particulates, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide.
The revision involves the deletion of obsolete, the adoption of new,
and the clarification of ambiguous provisions within Regulation 1. The
intended effect of EPA's action is to make Federally enforceable the
revised portions of Colorado's Regulation 1 that EPA is approving and
to disapprove portions of the regulation that EPA deems are not
consistent with the Clean Air Act. This action is being taken under
section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1033. 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 Air
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Komp, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number (303)
312-6022, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Colorado mean the State of Colorado, unless
the context indicates otherwise.
    (v) The words Provision or Regulation refer to Colorado's
Regulation 1.
    (vi) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide, HC mean or
refer to hydrocarbons and CO mean or refer to Carbon Monoxide.
    (vii) The initials RACT mean or refer to Reasonably Available
Control Technology.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information Regarding Colorado's Submittal
II. Response to Comments
III. Section 110(l) of the CAA
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background Information Regarding Colorado's Submittal

    On July 31, 2002, the State of Colorado submitted a formal revision
to its SIP. The July 31, 2002 revision deleted obsolete provisions in
Sections II.A.6, A.7, A.9 and C.3 \1\ regarding, respectively, alfalfa
dehydrating plant drum dryers, wigwam burners, the static firing of
Pershing missiles and a notice regarding waste materials. The
provisions were deleted from the regulation because these sources no
longer exist in the State and the notice regarding waste materials
appears in other Colorado regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references in this notice to particular section numbers
are to the designated sections within Regulation 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Colorado added language to its open burning provisions (Section
II.C.2.d) to clarify that the open burning of animal parts and
carcasses are not exempt from permit requirements. However, a special
allowance to conduct open burning activities without a permit is
provided where the State Agricultural Commission declares a public
health emergency or a contagious or infectious outbreak of disease that
imperils livestock is evident. Such activities require a telephone
notice to State and local health departments prior to conducting such
open burning activities. All necessary safeguards must be used to
minimize impacts on public health or welfare.
    The State revised the method in Section III.A.1.d for calculating
emissions from multiple fuel burning units ducting to a common stack.
Emissions are to be calculated on a pound per million British thermal
unit (lbs/mmBtu) input and must be based on a weighted average of the
individual allowable limits for each unit.
    The State added clarifying language in several provisions of
Regulation 1 stating that alternative performance test methods may be
used with approval from the State. It also specified that ASTM or
equivalent methods approved by the State may be used for fuel sampling
from sources subject to Regulation 1.
    In sections VI A.3.e. and VI.B.4.g. regarding SO2
emissions, the State changed the overall emission limit for petroleum
and oil shale refineries from 0.3 lbs per barrel of oil processed per
day to 0.7 lbs per barrel of oil processed per day. The State also
added new language that modifies the method for calculating compliance
with emission limits for petroleum refining and cement manufacturing.
The State deleted Section VI.B.5, which stipulates that new sources of
SO2 emissions that do not fall in specific source categories
are subject to a 2 ton per day emission limit and are to utilize best
available control technology.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA did not receive comments on our July 21, 2010 Federal Register
proposed action regarding the partial approval and partial disapproval
of Colorado's SIP revisions to their Regulation 1.

III. Section 110(l) of the CAA

    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states that a SIP revision
cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Those portions of the
revision to Colorado's Regulation 1 that we are approving satisfy
section 110(l), because those portions do not relax existing SIP
requirements. Instead, the portions of the July 31, 2002 submittal EPA
is

approving increase stringency of existing requirements, clarify
existing requirements, or remove obsolete requirements. Therefore,
section 110(l) is satisfied.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving revisions to the following provisions in
Regulation 1: (1) Deletion of Sections II.A.6, II.A.7, and II.A.9
regarding emission limits for sources that no longer exist in the State
and the deletion of Section II.C.3 regarding an obsolete notice
involving the disposal of waste materials. The deletion of Sections II.
A6, A.7 and A.9 will cause a numbering change of subsequent paragraphs
within Sections II.A. EPA is adopting the new numbering scheme for
section II.A.; (2) revisions to Section II.C.2.d. regarding the burning
of diseased animal carcasses to prevent a public health emergency; (3)
revision of Section III.A.1.d involving the State's method for
calculating emissions from multiple fuel burning units ducted to a
common stack; (4) the deletion of Section III.C.2 regarding the
deletion of process weight emission standards for alfalfa drum dryers.
The deletion of Section III.C.2 will cause a numbering change of
subsequent paragraphs within Section III.C. EPA is adopting the new
numbering scheme for section III.C.; (5) Federal adoption of Section V
regarding emission standards for electric arc furnaces, except for a
portion of Section V.A.2 where the State has specified that their
director has discretion to approve other credible methods for
determining emission rates; and (6) revisions to Sections VI.A.3.e,
VI.A.3.f, VI.B.4.e, and VI.B.4.g.(ii) regarding the methods used for
the averaging of emissions over a 24 hour period.
    EPA is disapproving revisions to the following provisions in
Regulation 1: (1) Revisions to Section III.A.2. and Section III.C.3
involving director's discretion regarding the method for conducting
performance tests; (2) the revision within Section V.A.2. where the
State gives its director's discretion regarding the method used to
determine compliance with electric arc furnaces' emission standards;
(3) revisions to Sections VI.B.4.e and VI.B.4.g(ii) regarding changes
in the SO2 emission limits for petroleum and oil shale
refining; (4) revisions to Section VI.B.5 regarding SO2
emission limits for new sources not falling in specified source
categories; and (5) revisions to Sections VI.C. and VI.F. regarding the
use of director's discretion for alternative methods to show compliance
with fuel sampling plans and alternative compliance procedures
respectively.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 28, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 23, 2010.
Carol Rushin,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(115) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

    (115) On July 31, 2003, the State of Colorado submitted revisions
to Colorado's 5 CCR 1001-3, Regulation 1, that deleted Sections II.A.6,
A.7, A.9 and C.3, regarding, respectively, alfalfa dehydrating plant
drum dryers, wigwam burners, the static firing of Pershing missiles and
a notice regarding waste materials. The State also deleted emission
limitations for alfalfa plant drum dyers by removing Section III.C.2.
Colorado's deletion of Sections II. A6, A.7 and A.9 and Section III.C.2
will cause a numbering change of subsequent paragraphs within Sections
II.A and III.C. EPA is adopting the new numbering scheme for sections
II.A. and III C. Section II.C.2.d. regarding agricultural open burning
is modified to include the burning of diseased animal carcasses to
prevent a public health emergency. Section III.A.1.d is modified for
incorporation of new State's method for calculating emissions from
multiple fuel burning units ducted to a common stack. Section V is
added regarding emission standards for electric arc furnaces, except
for the director's discretion provision provided for in Section V.A.2.
Sections VI.A.3.e, VI.A.3.f, VI.B.4.e, and VI.B.4.g(ii) are modified
regarding the methods used for the averaging of emissions over a 24
hour period.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) 5 CCR 1001-3, Regulation 1, Emission Control for Particulates,
Smokes, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides, Section II, Smoke and
Opacity, Section II.C.2.d, effective March 2, 2002.
    (B) 5 CCR 1001-3, Regulation 1, Emission Control for Particulates,
Smokes, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides, Section III, Particulate
Matter, Fuel Burning Equipment, Section III.A.1.d, effective September
30, 2001.
    (C) 5 CCR 1001-3, Regulation 1, Emission Control for Particulates,
Smokes, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides, Section V, Emission Standard
for Existing Iron and Steel Plant Operations, effective September 30,
2001.
    (1) The submittal contains Section V.A.2 with the language:
    ``Emissions from gas-cleaning device shall not exceed a mass
emission rate of 0.00520 gr/dscf of filterable particulates maximum
two-hour average, as measured by EPA Methods 1-4 and the front half of
Method 5 (40 CFR 60.275, and Appendix A, Part 60), or by other credible
method approved by the Division. This particulate emissions standard
does not include condensable emissions, or the back half emissions of
Method 5''. The language ``or by other credible method approved by the
Division'' is disapproved. The language ``Appendix A, Part 60'' is
changed to ``appendices A1 through A3, Part 60'' in order to comply
with the current nomenclature of Part 60.
    (D) 5 CCR 1001-3, Regulation 1, Emission Control for Particulates,
Smokes, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides, Section VI, Sulfur Dioxide
Emission Regulations, Sections VI.A.3.e, VI.A.3.f, VI.B.4.e, and
VI.B.4.g(ii), effective September 30, 2001.
    (1) Sections VI.B.4.e and VI.B.4.g(ii) list an emission rate of 0.7
lbs. sulfur dioxide, for the sum of all SO2 emissions from a
given refinery per barrel of oil processed, per day. This emission rate
is disapproved. The emission rate remains unchanged at 0.3 lbs. All
remaining language within Sections VI.B.4.e and VI.B.4.g(ii) is
approved.

[FR Doc. 2011-1497 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 229)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71965-71966]
[DOCID:fr26no08-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0987; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-19]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace for the Corpus
Christi, TX, area. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate Area
Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at
Mustang Beach Airport, Port Aransas, TX; and T.P. McCampbell Airport,
Ingleside, TX. Also, Class E airspace around Aransas County Airport,
Rockport, TX, and San Jose Island Airport, Rockport, TX, would be
incorporated into the Corpus Christi, TX, area Class E airspace. The
Rockport, TX, designation is being removed under a separate rulemaking.
The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft operations in and around the
Corpus Christi, TX, airspace area.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before January 12,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2008-0987/Airspace Docket No. 08-
ASW-19, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Area,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone: (817)
222-5582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0987/
Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-19.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/

air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by amending the Class E airspace area for IFR
operations in the Corpus Christi, TX area. This action would
incorporate Aransas County Airport and San Jose Island Airport,
Rockport, TX, into the Corpus Christi, TX airspace area. Also, with the
addition of RNAV SIAPs at Mustang each Airport, Port Aransas, TX; and
T.P. McCampbell Airport, Ingleside, TX controlled airspace 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth is necessary for IFR operations at
these airports The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical
charts.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9S, dated October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends
controlled airspace at Corpus Christi, TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

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

    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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005, Class E Airspace Extending Upward From 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Corpus Christi, TX [Amended]

Corpus Christi International Airport, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]46'13'' N., long. 97[deg]30'04'' W.)
Corpus Christi NAS/Truax Field, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]41'34'' N., long. 97[deg]17'25'' W.)
Port Aransas, Mustang Beach Airport, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]48'43'' N., long. 97[deg]05'20'' W.)
Rockport, San Jose Island Airport, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]56'40'' N., long. 96[deg]59'06'' W.)
Rockport, Aransas County Airport, TX
    (Lat. 28[deg]05'12'' N., long. 97[deg]02'41'' W.)
Ingleside, T.P. McCampbell Airport, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]54'47'' N., long. 97[deg]12'41'' W.)
Robstown, Nueces County Airport, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]46'43'' N., long. 97[deg]41'26'' W.)
Corpus Christi VORTAC, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]54'14'' N., long. 97[deg]26'42'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.5 mile radius of Corpus Christi International Airport and
within 1.4 miles each side of the 200[deg] radial of the Corpus
Christi VORTAC extending from the 7.5 mile radius to 8.5 miles north
of the airport, and within 1.5 miles each side of the 316[deg]
bearing from the airport extending from the 7.5 mile radius to 10.1
miles northwest of the airport, and within an 8.8-mile radius of
Corpus Christi NAS/Truax Field, and within a 6.3-mile radius of
Mustang Beach Airport, and within a 6.4-mile radius of T.P.
McCampbell Airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Nueces County
Airport, and within a 7.6-mile radius of Aransas County Airport, and
within a 6.5-mile radius of San Jose Island Airport, and within 8
miles west and 4 miles east of the 327[deg] bearing from the San
Jose Island Airport extending from the airport to 20 miles northwest
of the airport, and within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the
147[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the airport to 16
miles southeast of the airport, excluding that portion more than 12
miles from and parallel to the shoreline.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX on November 17, 2008.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Area.
[FR Doc. E8-28074 Filed 11-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 115)]
[Notices]
[Page 34203]
[DOCID:fr16jn10-121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

New Jersey Transit Rail

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2010-0099]

    The New Jersey Transit Rail (NJTR) seeks a waiver of compliance
with the Locomotive Safety Standards, 49 CFR 229.129(b)(2), which
requires that the sound level of horns of locomotives manufactured
before September 18, 2006, be tested before June 24, 2010. NJTR
operates approximately 700 pieces of equipment (locomotives) with train
horns that were manufactured before the September 18, 2006, date. NJTR
states in their request the site requirements required by the horn test
regulation and community noise complaints has caused NJTR to perform
all horn testing at their Meadows Maintenance Facility in Kearny, NJ.
NJTR requests that the requirements to complete testing of horns on
locomotives built prior to September 18, 2006, be extended to June 24,
2012.
    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 (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number 2010-
0099) 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 within 30 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    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 comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 10, 2010.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-14471 Filed 6-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37031-37032]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14367-001]

Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered
for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 14367-001.
    c. Date filed: May 30, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Gilbert Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project would utilize unnamed springs near the
Bear River, eight miles southwest of Grace in Caribou County, Idaho.
The project would be located on lands owned by the applicant and would
not occupy any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
[For 5-MW exemptions, use the following language instead: Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708.]
    h. Applicant Contact: Don W. Gilbert and DeAnn G. Somonich, Don W.
Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC, 1805 Grace Power Plant Road, Grace, Idaho
83241. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: July 30, 2012.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http:[sol][sol]www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters
can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http:[sol][sol]www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Gilbert Project would consist of the following new features:
(1) A 8-foot-long, 3-foot-wide, 3-foot-deep drop inlet structure; (2) a
2-foot-diameter, 700-foot-long partially buried steel or plastic
penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing two 45-kilowatt (kW) turbine/
generator units for a total installed capacity of 90 kW; (4) a tailrace
to convey flows from the powerhouse to the Bear River; (5) a 150-foot-
long, 480-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
The project is estimated to generate an average of 550 megawatthours
annually. The project would be located on lands owned by the applicant
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http:[sol][sol]www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http:[sol][sol]www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate (e.g., if scoping is waived, the
schedule would be shortened).

Issue Deficiency and/or Additional        July 2012.
 Information Letter.
Issue Notice of Acceptance..............  August 2012.
Issue Scoping Document..................  August 2012.
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental   October 2012.
 Analysis.
Commission issues EA....................  February 2013.

    Dated: June 12, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14984 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 79675]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32739]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. PR09-23-003]

Overland Trail Transmission, LLC; Notice of Extension of Time

    On November 30, 2011, Overland Trail Transmission, LLC (OTTCO)
filed a request to extend the date for filing its next rate case
pursuant to sections 284.224 and 284.123 (2011) of the Commission's
regulations.\1\ In support of this request, OTTCO states that in Order
No. 735 the Commission modified its policy concerning periodic reviews
of rates charges by section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines to extend the
cycle for such reviews from three to five years.\2\ Therefore, OTTCO
requests that the date for its next rate filing be extended to March
31, 2014, which is five years from the date of OTTCO's most recent rate
filing with this Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 284.123 and 284.224 (2011).
    \2\ Contract Reporting Requirements of Intrastate Natural Gas
Companies, Order No. 735, 131 FERC ] 61,150 (May 20, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that an extension of
time for OTTCO to file its section 284.123 rate petition is granted to
and including March 31, 2014.

    Dated: December 15, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32739 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52920-52922]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18910]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78479; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-105]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

August 4, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 29, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective August 1, 2016. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to add the concepts of ``Appointed
OFP'' and ``Appointed MM'' to the Exchange's Fee Schedule, effective
August 1, 2016, which would increase opportunities for firms to qualify
for various volume tier discounts and rebates.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to allow NYSE Arca Market
Makers (``Marker Makers'') to designate an Order Flow Provider
(``OFP'') \4\ as its ``Appointed OFP'' and to likewise allow OFPs to
designate a Market Maker as its ``Appointed MM.'' \5\ As proposed, OTP
Holders and OTP Firms (each, an ``OTP''; collectively, ``OTPs'') would
effectuate the designation--of an Appointed OFP or Appointed MM--by
each sending an email to the Exchange.\6\ The Exchange would view
corresponding emails as acceptance of such an appointment and would
only recognize one such designation for each party once every 12-
months, which designation would remain in effect unless or until the
Exchange receives an email from either party indicating that the
appointment has been terminated.\7\ The Exchange believes that this
requirement would impose a measure of exclusivity and would enable both
parties to rely upon each other's, and potentially increase,
transaction volumes executed on the Exchange, which is beneficial to
all Exchange participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 6.1A(a)(21) (defining OFP as any OTP Holder that
submits, as agent, orders to the Exchange).
    \5\ See proposed Endnote 15 to Fee Schedule.
    \6\ See id.
    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to allow an OTP to opt to combine its volume
with that of its Appointed OFP/Appointed MM to qualify for the various
incentive programs offered on the Exchange. First, an OTP with an
Appointed OFP/Appointed MM would be able to aggregate certain of its
volumes with that of its Appointed OFP/Appointed MM for purposes of
qualifying for certain posting credits available in the Customer and
Professional Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and Qualifications
for Executions in Penny Pilot Issues (``Customer Posting Tiers'') and
Market Maker Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and Qualifications for
Executions in Penny Pilot Issues and SPY (``Market Maker Posting
Tiers'').\8\ Currently, an OTP can only aggregate its volume with that
of its affiliate(s).\9\ The concept of Appointed OFP/Appointed MM would
apply in those instances where an OTP qualifies for a favorable fee by
calculating qualifying volume through combining its transactions with
that of Appointed OFP/Appointed MM. However, an OTP that has both an
Appointed OFP/Appointed MM and any affiliate(s) may only aggregate
volumes with one of these two, not both. Thus, the Exchange proposes to
modify the Fee Schedule to provide that in calculating qualifications
for monthly posting credits, ``the Exchange would include the activity
of either (i) affiliates or (ii) an Appointed OFP/Appointed MM.'' \10\
To make clear that the volume of any affiliate(s) or an Appointed OFP/
Appointed MM may be included in the monthly calculations for achieving
any of the tiers, the Exchange proposes to remove the asterisks from
Tiers 2 and 5 of the Customer Posting Tiers and the Super Tier of the
Market Maker Posting Tiers, as well as the corresponding asterisk at
the bottom of each table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See Fee Schedule, available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (explicitly providing that OTPs
may combine volumes with affiliates to take advantage of Tiers 2 and
5 of the Customer Posting Tiers, and the Super Tier of the Market
Maker Posting Tiers). See also Endnote 8 citing Rule 1.1(a)
(defining an affiliate as being a person that directly, or
indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls or is
controlled by, or is under common control with, the person
specified).
    \10\ See proposed Endnote 8 to Fee Schedule Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the Customer Posting Tiers and the Market Maker
Posting Tiers, as proposed, volumes of an Appointed OFP/Appointed MM
(or, of any affiliate(s)) would also be applied in calculating whether
an OTP achieved credits or rebates available through the Exchange's
other incentive programs, including (i) the Customer and Professional
Customer Incentive Program; (ii) the Market Maker Incentive Program;
(iii) the Customer and Professional Customer Posting Credit Tiers In
Non Penny Pilot Issues; and (iv) the Discount in Take Liquidity Fees
for Professional Customer, Market Maker, Firm, and Broker Dealer
Liquidity Removing Orders. In this regard, Exchange proposes to add
language making clear that the calculations for achieving the monthly
volume thresholds would include transaction volume from any of an OTP's
affiliates or its Appointed MM or Appointed OFP (as applicable), which
would add clarity and transparency to the Fee Schedule. As noted above,
an OTP that has both

an Appointed OFP/Appointed MM and any affiliate(s) may only aggregate
volumes with one of these two, not both.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add reference to Endnote 8, as
modified, to the beginning of each of the incentive programs discussed
herein to make clear how the Exchange calculates the qualifications for
monthly posting credits and discounts.\12\ Given the proposal to refer
to Endnote 8 at the beginning of each incentive program, the Exchange
proposes to delete references to Endnote 8 that appear elsewhere in the
text regarding the incentives, which would eliminate redundancy and add
clarity to the Fee Schedule.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id. The Exchange has added the word ``discount'' to the
first sentence of Endnote 8 to make clear that the calculation for
monthly qualification also apples to the Discount in Take Liquidity
Fees for Professional Customer, Market Maker, Firm, and Broker
Dealer Liquidity Removing Orders. See proposed Endnote 8 to Fee
Schedule Fee.
    \13\ For example, the Exchange proposes to delete reference to
Endnote 8 from Tiers 4 and 7 of the Customer Posting Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose to modify any of the volume
qualifications or the associated credits and discounts for the various
incentive programs at this time.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\15\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for the following reasons. First, the proposal would be
available to all Market Makers and OFPs and the decision to be
designated as an ``Appointed OFP'' or ``Appointed MM'' would be
completely voluntary and an OTP may elect to accept this appointment or
not. In addition, the proposed changes would enable firms that are not
currently eligible for certain credits or discounts to avail themselves
of these credits/discounts as well increase opportunities for firms
that are currently eligible for certain credits/discounts to
potentially achieve a higher tier, thus qualifying to higher credits.
The Exchange believes these proposed changes would incent firms to
direct their order flow to the Exchange. Specifically, the proposed
changes would enable any Market Maker--not just those with affiliates--
to pool certain volumes to potentially qualify its Appointed OFP for
credits/discounts available on the Exchange. Moreover, the proposed
change would allow any OFP, by virtue of designating an Appointed MM,
to aggregate certain of its own volumes with the activity of its
Appointed MM, which would enhance the OFP's potential to qualify for
additional credits and discounts. The Exchange believes these proposed
changes would incent Appointed OFPs and OFPs with an Appointed MM to
direct their order flow to the Exchange, which additional liquidity
would benefit all market participants (including those market
participants that are not currently affiliated and/or opt not to become
an Appointed OFP) by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads. The Exchange also notes that the proposed changes are
reasonable as other exchanges have adopted similar concepts for their
own affiliate-based incentive programs.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule, available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (allowing aggregation of volume
to qualify for the Amex Customer Engagement (``ACE'') Program);
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') fee schedule,
available here, https://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf (allowing aggregation of volume to qualify for
credits available under an Affiliated Volume Plan or ``AVP''); Bats
BZX Exchange, Inc.'s (``BZX'') fee schedule, available here, https://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/bzx/ (allowing aggregation of
volume to qualify for tiered pricing); NASDAQ Options Market LLC
(``NOM'') fee schedule, available here, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=OptionsPricing (allowing aggregation of volume to
qualify for various pricing incentives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the proposal, which would permit the opportunity for
both parties to rely upon each other's, and potentially increase,
transaction volumes, are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it may encourage market making firms to
participate in the Exchange's Market Maker Incentive Program or the
Market Maker Posting Tiers, which potential increase in order flow,
capital commitment and resulting liquidity on the Exchange would
benefit all market participants by expanding liquidity, providing more
trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
    The proposal is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would only process one designation
of an ``Appointed OFP'' or ``Appointed MM'' per year, which requirement
would impose a measure of exclusivity while allowing both parties to
rely upon each other's, and potentially increase, transaction volumes
executed on the Exchange to the benefit of all Exchange participants.
    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposal to make clarifying
changes to the incentive programs, including to make clear that the
volumes of affiliates or an Appointed OFP/Appointed MM would apply to
all tiers and that the calculations for achieving the monthly volume
posting credits and discounts are set forth in Endnote 8, would add
transparency and internal consistency to the Fee Schedule, which would
make it easier for market participants to navigate and comprehend.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes
are pro-competitive as they would increase opportunities for additional
firms to qualify for various credits and discounts, which may increase
intermarket and intramarket competition by incenting Appointed OFPs and
Appointed MMs to direct their orders to the Exchange, thereby
increasing the volume of contracts traded on the Exchange and enhancing
the quality of quoting. Enhanced market quality and increased
transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase in order
flow directed to the Exchange would benefit all market participants and
improve competition on the Exchange. Moreover, the clarifying changes
are pro-competitive to the extent the changes add transparency and
internal consistency to the Fee Schedule, which would make it easier
for market participants to navigate and comprehend.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \17\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \18\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or.
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-105 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-105. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-105, and
should be submitted on or before August 31, 2016.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18910 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63155]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4188-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Washington; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Washington (FEMA-4188-DR), dated August 11, 2014, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 12, 2014.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Washington is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 11, 2014.

    Kittitas County for Public Assistance.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-25075 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30986-30987]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10264]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-2029]

Final Decision on Withdrawal of MAKENA (Hydroxyprogesterone
Caproate) and Eight Abbreviated New Drug Applications Following Public
Hearing; Availability of Final Decision

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of the final decision withdrawing approval of MAKENA
(hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, 250 milligrams (mg) per
milliliter (mL), once weekly), under the new drug application (NDA)
021945, held by Covis Pharma Group/Covis Pharma GmbH (Covis), and the
eight abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from multiple ANDA
holders that reference NDA 021945. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs
(the Commissioner) and the Chief Scientist jointly issued the decision
following an October 2022 public hearing.

DATES: Approval of MAKENA and the ANDAs that reference MAKENA is
withdrawn as of April 6, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Raulerson, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6260, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3522, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On February 3, 2011, FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(CDER) approved NDA 021945 for MAKENA (hydroxyprogesterone caproate)
Injection to reduce the risk of preterm birth (PTB) in women with a
singleton pregnancy who have a history of singleton spontaneous PTB
(sPTB). FDA approved MAKENA under the accelerated approval pathway,
pursuant to section 506(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 356(c)) and 21 CFR 314.510, based on evidence of
the drug's effect on

an intermediate clinical endpoint that was considered reasonably likely
to predict the drug's clinical benefit.
    As a condition of MAKENA's approval, the sponsor was required to
complete a postmarketing trial to verify and describe the clinical
benefit of MAKENA in reducing neonatal morbidity and mortality from
complications of PTB among babies born to women with a singleton
pregnancy who had a previous singleton sPTB. This postmarketing
confirmatory trial, Trial 003, failed to show that MAKENA reduced the
risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality from complications of PTB and
failed to show a treatment effect of MAKENA on the intermediate
clinical endpoint that was the basis of MAKENA's approval.
    On October 5, 2020, CDER issued a proposal to withdraw approval of
MAKENA and a notice of opportunity for hearing (NOOH) on two
independent grounds using expedited procedures under section 506(c)(3)
of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 314.530(a): (1) the confirmatory trial
failed to verify the clinical benefit of the drug and (2) the evidence
demonstrates that the drug is not shown to be effective under its
conditions of use. CDER's NOOH and proposal to withdraw approval of
MAKENA also provided notice to all holders of approved ANDAs
referencing the NDA for MAKENA (NDA 021945) that, if the Agency were to
withdraw approval of MAKENA, CDER would withdraw approval of those
ANDAs under 21 CFR 314.151(b)(3).
    MAKENA's sponsor submitted a hearing request dated October 14,
2020, followed by a submission of data and information in support of
the hearing request. The Agency granted the sponsor's hearing request
on August 18, 2021, and on August 17, 2022, published a notice of
hearing (87 FR 50626). The hearing was held on October 17, 18, and 19,
2022. The Obstetrics, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory
Committee was present at the hearing to review the issues involved and
to provide advice and recommendations to the Commissioner. The
presiding officer issued a report, dated January 19, 2023, that
summarized the legal and factual background, content of the hearing,
and her analysis and recommendations. On April 6, 2023, after
considering CDER's and Covis' March 6, 2023, post-hearing submissions,
the Commissioner and Chief Scientist jointly issued a final decision
withdrawing approval of MAKENA and the ANDAs that referenced MAKENA.
    FDA has withdrawn approvals of the following NDA and eight ANDAs:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Application No.                  Drug             Holder/sponsor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 021945.................  Makena                   Covis Pharma Group/
                              (hydroxyprogesterone     Covis Pharma
                              caproate) Injection,     GmbH.
                              250 mg per mL.
ANDA 208381................  Hydroxyprogesterone      Sun Pharmaceutical
                              Caproate Injection       Industries, Ltd.
                              USP, 250 mg/mL.
ANDA 210618................  Hydroxyprogesterone      Slayback Pharma
                              Caproate Injection       LLC.
                              USP, 250 mg/mL.
ANDA 210723................  Hydroxyprogesterone      American Regent,
                              Caproate Injection       Inc.
                              USP, 250 mg/mL.
ANDA 210724................  Hydroxyprogesterone      Do.
                              Caproate Injection
                              USP, 250 mg/mL.
ANDA 210877................  Hydroxyprogesterone      Slayback Pharma
                              Caproate Injection       LLC.
                              USP, 250 mg/mL.
ANDA 211070................  Hydroxyprogesterone      Eugia Pharma
                              Caproate Injection       Specialities Ltd.
                              USP, 250 mg/mL.
ANDA 211071................  Hydroxyprogesterone      Do.
                              Caproate Injection
                              USP, 250 mg/mL.
ANDA 211777................  Hydroxyprogesterone      Aspen Pharma USA
                              Caproate Injection       Inc.
                              USP, 250 mg/mL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Withdrawal of approval of the applications listed in the table
includes all strengths, dosage forms, amendments, and supplements to
these applications, effective April 6, 2023. As discussed in the
decision of the Commissioner and Chief Scientist, FDA has withdrawn
approval of the MAKENA NDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness, as
well as approval of the ANDAs that reference MAKENA.
    Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)) requires
FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as
part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence
Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange Book,''
available at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/index.cfm.
Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency
withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of
safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness 21 CFR
314.162. Accordingly, the Agency has removed the applications listed in
the table from the list of drug products published in the Orange Book.
FDA will not accept or approve ANDAs that reference MAKENA.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the final decision
at https://downloads.regulations.gov/FDA-2020-N-2029-0385/attachment_1.pdf. The final decision, a transcript of the hearing, and
other documents pertaining to the withdrawal of the NDA for MAKENA (NDA
021945) are available at https://www.regulations.gov under the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    Dated: May 8, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-10264 Filed 5-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63977-63978]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25273]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9011-6]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 09/30/2013 Through 10/18/2013
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20130300, Revised Draft EIS, FWS, CA, South Farallon Islands
Invasive House Mouse Eradication Project, Farallon National Wildlife
Refuge, Comment Period Ends: 12/09/2013, Contact: Gerry McChesney 510-
792-0222 ext. 222.
EIS No. 20130301, Draft EIS, USAF, OK, KC-46A Formal Training Unit
(FTU) and First Main Operating Base (MOB 1) Beddown, Comment Period
Ends: 12/09/2013, Contact: Jean Reynolds<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130302, Draft EIS, FERC, NY, Rocaway Delivery Lateral and
Northeast Connector Projects, Comment Period Ends: 12/09/2013, Contact:
Kara Harris<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130303, Final Supplement, FTA, HI, Honolulu Rail Transit
Project, Review Period Ends: 11/25/2013, Contact: Ted Matley 415-744-
3133.
EIS No. 20130304, Draft Supplement, BOEM, TX, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil
and Gas Lease Sales: 2014-2016 Western Planning Area Lease Sales 238,
246, and 248, Comment Period Ends: 12/09/2013, Contact: Gary Goeke 504-
736-3233.
EIS No. 20130305, Final Supplement, USFS, CA, Tehachapi Renewable
Transmission Project, Review Period Ends: 11/25/2013, Contact: Lorraine
Gerchas<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20130249, Draft EIS, USACE, LA, West Shore Lake Pontchartrain
Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction, Comment Period Ends: 10/25/
2013, Contact: William Klein<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR Notice
Published 08/23/2013; Extended Comment Period from 10/07/2013 to 10/24/
2013.
EIS No. 20130250, Draft EIS, USACE, FL, Central Everglades Planning
Project, Comment Period Ends: 11/01/2013, Contact: Gretchen Ehlinger
904-232-1682. Revision to FR Notice Published 08/30/2013; Extending
Comment Period from 10/15/2013 to 11/01/2013.
EIS No. 20130255, Draft EIS, NOAA, 00, Amendment 7 to the 2006
Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management
Plan (FMP), Comment Period Ends: 12/10/2013, Contact: Thomas A. Warren
978-281-9260. Revision to FR Notice Published 08/30/2013; Extending
Comment Period from 10/23/2013 to 12/10/2013.
EIS No. 20130260, Draft EIS, BIA, NV, Moapa Solar Energy Center,
Comment Period Ends: 10/21/2013, Contact: Amy Heuslein<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Revision to FR Notice Published 08/30/2013; Extending Comment Period
from 10/23/2013 to 12/10/2013.
EIS No. 20130264, Final EIS, FHWA, CO, Interstate 25 Improvements
through Pueblo, Review Period Ends: 10/31/2013, Contact: Chris Horn
720-963-3017. Revision to FR Notice

Published 09/13/2013, Extending Review Period from 10/15/13 to 10/31/
2013.
EIS No. 20130266, Draft EIS, USN, GU, The Mariana Islands Training and
Testing, Comment Period Ends: 12/06/2013, Contact: John Van Name 808-
471-1714. Revision to FR Notice Published 09/13/2013; Extending Comment
Period from 11/12/2013 to 12/06/2013.
EIS No. 20130276, Draft Supplement, USN, WA, Introduction of the P-8A
Multi-Mission Aircraft into the U.S. Navy Fleet, Comment Period Ends:
12/02/2013, Contact: Cory Zahm<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR Notice
Published 09/20/2013; Extending Comment Period from 11/04/2013 to 12/
02/2013.
EIS No. 20130285, Final EIS, FHWA, FL, St. Johns River Crossing, Review
Period Ends: 11/19/2013, Contact: Cathy Kendal<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision
to FR Notice Published 09/27/2013; Extending Review Period from 10/28/
2013 to 11/19/2013.
EIS No. 20130286, Final EIS, FHWA, FL, US 301 (SR 200) from CR 227 to
CR 233, Review Period Ends: 11/19/2013, Contact: Joseph Sullivan 850-
553-2248. Revision to FR Notice Published 09/27/2013; Extending Review
Period from 10/29/2013 to 11/19/2013.

    Dated: October 22, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-25273 Filed 10-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 210 (Thursday, October 29, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68431-68434]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0592; Project Identifier 2019-NE-19-AD; Amendment
39-21298; AD 2020-22-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2A5F, -80C2B1F, -80C2B2F, -
80C2B4F, -80C2B5F, -80C2B6F, -80C2B6FA, -80C2B7F, -80C2B8F, -80C2D1F, -
80C2K1F, -80C2L1F, -80E1A2, -80E1A3, -80E1A4, and -80E1A4/B model
turbofan engines with a certain hydromechanical unit (HMU) installed.
This AD was prompted by a report of fuel coking of the HMU fuel
metering valve (FMV) electro-hydraulic servo valves (EHSV) resulting in
tailpipe fire. This AD requires removal of the HMU and its replacement
with a part eligible for installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 3, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 3,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington,
MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0592.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0592; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Elwin, Aerospace Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-
238-7236; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all GE CF6-80C2A5F, -
80C2B1F, -80C2B2F, -80C2B4F, -80C2B5F, -80C2B6F, -80C2B6FA, -80C2B7F, -
80C2B8F, -80C2D1F, -80C2K1F, -80C2L1F, -80E1A2, -80E1A3, -80E1A4, and -
80E1A4/B model turbofan engines with a certain HMU installed. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2019 (84 FR 46896).
The NPRM was prompted by a report of fuel coking of the HMU FMV EHSV
resulting in tailpipe fire. The NPRM proposed to require the removal of
the HMU and its replacement with a part eligible for installation. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Update Applicability To Exclude Engines With Updated
Electronic Control Unit (ECU) Software

    GE requested that the FAA update paragraph (c), Applicability, of
this AD, to include ``For CF6-80E engines that have complied with [GE
Service Bulletin (SB)] CF6-80E1 SB 73-0129 `Introduction of ECU
Software Version E.1.Q' no action is required.'' GE reasoned that CF6-
80E1 ECU Software Version E.1.Q was designed to avoid tailpipe fires
caused by the malfunction of the HMU FMV EHSV. There have been no
reported tailpipe fires on GE CF6-80E1 model turbofan engines that have
installed ECU Software Version E.1.Q.
    The FAA disagrees with updating the applicability of this AD to
exclude engines with updated ECU Software Version E.1.Q. Although GE
CF6-80E1 ECU Software Version E.1.Q addresses the known sequence of
tailpipe fires by monitoring the HMU FMV position at low N2 speeds,
which may relate to the unsafe condition in this AD, the FAA would need
additional data that shows how the ECU software update addresses the
potential for this failure to occur at other phases of flight. If the
data reveal information relevant to this unsafe condition, the FAA will
consider future rulemaking. The FAA did not change this AD.

Request To Allow Modification of the HMU as an Alternative Method of
Compliance (AMOC)

    An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA consider whether the

modification of the HMU using GE CF6-80C2 SB 73-0378 R00, dated July
14, 2010 (``GE SB 73-0378''), is an AMOC [alternative method of
compliance] to this AD. The commenter reasoned that the modification
results in an HMU FMV EHSV with a new part number (P/N).
    The FAA disagrees. GE SB 73-0378 introduces material properties to
the HMU that improves corrosion resistance. GE SB 73-0378 does not,
however, require the installation of a new or overhauled HMU FMV EHSV.
The HMU with improved corrosion resistance introduced by GE SB 73-0378
is not related to the unsafe condition of this AD. Additionally,
although GE SB 73-0378 results in a new HMU P/N after modification of
the HMU, this AD still applies to this new P/N.

Request To Change the Compliance Time

    Honeywell requested that the FAA reduce the compliance time of
paragraph (g), Required Actions, of this AD from 40,000 to 20,000
flight hours (FHs) since new or since last overhaul.
    The FAA disagrees. The FAA does not have data to support reducing
the removal and replacement of the HMU from 40,000 FHs to 20,000 FHs.
According to reports from GE, which were considered by the FAA when
preparing the NPRM, the related tailpipe fire incidents occurred in
engines with HMUs exceeding 40,000 FHs since new or since the last
overhaul. The FAA did not change this AD.
    Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that the FAA increase the initial
compliance time to remove and replace the HMU from 180 days to 12
months or to a number of hours or cycles greater than 40,000 FHs, based
on the level of risk. DAL stated that they have attempted to purchase
additional units to support the compliance time of 40,000 FHs or 180
days proposed in the NPRM; however, there are few spares on the market.
Additionally, DAL reasoned that the turnaround time for an overhaul of
the HMU has not allowed DAL to progress as fast as required to meet the
expected compliance deadline for units in their fleet.
    Atlas Air Inc. (Atlas Air) also indicated that the volume of HMUs
wherein operators will be unable to determine HMU FMV EHSV compliance
will exceed the available compliant spares in the market. The lack of
available HMUs will cause the grounding of a significant number of
aircraft unless the AD allows for the completed overhaul to count as
evidence of compliance (EoC) as documented by FAA Form 8130-3,
Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag.
    The FAA disagrees with increasing the compliance time for the
required actions of this AD. The FAA infers that DAL's and Atlas Air's
request to increase the compliance time of this AD, while mentioning
the lack of spares and delays with the overhaul of the HMU, is the
result of the definition of ``an overhaul of the HMU'' in paragraph
(h)(2), Definitions, in the NPRM. The concern is that operators do not
track usage time on the HMU FMV EHSV separately from the HMU and,
therefore, would need to replace the complete HMU in all scenarios
within 180 days. The FAA changed the definition of ``an overhaul of the
HMU'' in this AD to clarify the methods that an HMU may be overhauled.

Request To Require Complete Overhaul of HMU

    Honeywell requested that the FAA revise the definition of ``an
overhaul of the HMU'' in the Definitions, paragraph (h)(2), of this AD,
to clarify that an overhaul of the HMU is a ``complete overhaul'' of
the HMU rather than just an overhaul of HMU FMV EHSV.
    Based on its requested change to the definition, Honeywell also
requested that the FAA add additional estimated costs to the Cost of
Compliance section of this AD to include the estimated costs of a
complete HMU overhaul.
    The FAA agrees that performing a complete overhaul of the HMU
addresses the unsafe condition of this AD. The FAA disagrees with
requiring a complete overhaul of the HMU as only an overhaul of the HMU
FMV EHSV is required to prevent fuel coking or fuel deposits in the HMU
FMV EHSV. The FAA, however, changed the definition of ``an overhaul of
the HMU'' to include either overhaul of the HMU (complete) or overhaul
of the HMU FMV EHSV. The FAA added an estimate for the cost of a
complete HMU overhaul since this is an acceptable means of complying
with the requirements of this AD.

Request To Clarify the Definition of an Overhaul of the HMU

    Several commenters requested clarification, as described below, of
the definition of ``an overhaul of the HMU'' provided in paragraph
(h)(2) of this AD.

Clarification of Other FAA-Approved Methods

    FedEx Express (FedEx) and United Airlines (UAL) requested that the
FAA clarify overhauled by ``other FAA-approved methods.'' FedEx asked
what is the intended scope of this phrase and if it includes
accomplishment of earlier revisions of GE SB CF6-80C2 SB 73-0436, as
well as work performed using the applicable component maintenance
manual (CMM) which was classified as an overhaul in block 11 of FAA
Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag
(or equivalent). UAL also asked if ``other FAA-approved methods''
included work accomplished using the CMM for the HMU FMV EHSV.
    The FAA agrees ``other FAA-approved methods'' was unclear and has
removed it from the definition for ``an overhaul of the HMU.'' The FAA
added a credit for previous actions paragraph to provide credit for the
initial removal and replacement required actions contained in paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD if the HMU FMV EHSV was overhauled before the
effective date of this AD using GE SB CF6-80C2 SB 73-0436 R01, dated
May 14, 2019, or GE SB CF6-80C2 73-0142 R01, dated May 14, 2019. The
FAA also changed the definition of ``an overhaul of the HMU'' in this
AD to clarify that an HMU may be overhauled using Honeywell-approved
maintenance procedures.

Clarification of Approved Facility

    DAL, Kalitta Air Group (Kalitta Air), and United Parcel Service
(UPS) requested that an overhaul of the HMU at an FAA or Honeywell-
approved facility be considered an overhaul of the HMU that resets the
40,000 FHs requirement.
    The FAA agrees and clarified the definition of ``an overhaul of the
HMU'' in this AD to include ``An overhaul of the HMU (complete) using
Honeywell-approved maintenance procedures.''

Clarification That HMU Overhaul Includes HMU EHSVs

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) asked if an overhaul of the HMU includes
overhauling all HMU EHSVs.
    The FAA agrees that the overhaul of the HMU includes overhauling
all HMU EHSVs. The FAA changed the definition of ``an overhaul of the
HMU'' to include either overhaul of the HMU (complete) or overhaul of
the HMU FMV EHSV. The FAA notes, however, that complete overhaul of the
HMU is not required by this AD.

Clarification of Tracking of HMU FMV EHSVs

    ANA, Atlas Air, DAL, FedEx, Kalitta Air, Thai Airways, and UPS
stated that the HMU EHSVs are sub-assemblies of the HMU and repair or
overhaul of these sub-components is not typically tracked separately
from the HMU at an engine shop visit level. Therefore, overhaul of

the HMU FMV EHSV is not recorded by most operators in a separate
maintenance program record. The commenters reasoned that they received
FAA Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval
Tag, documenting the HMU approval for return to service, but FAA Form
8130-3 does not include information about the EHSVs within the HMU.
Atlas Air suggested that if the time since the most recent replacement
of the HMU FMV EHSVs cannot be determined, then the time since overhaul
(TSO) based on FAA Form 8130-3 be used as EoC to the AD for HMUs
overhauled before the effective date of this AD.
    The FAA acknowledges that the HMU FMV EHSVs are not typically
tracked separately from the HMU. The FAA agrees that in cases where the
overhaul of the HMU FMV EHSV cannot be determined, the TSO can be used
as EoC to the AD for HMUs overhauled before the effective date of this
AD. The FAA changed the definition of ``an overhaul of the HMU'' to
include either overhaul of the HMU (complete) or overhaul of the HMU
FMV EHSV.

Request To Clarify Previous Compliance With the AD

    DAL stated that paragraph (f) of this AD states, ``Comply with this
AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.'' Yet,
the NPRM does not address what constitutes previous compliance.
    The FAA notes that ``unless already done,'' as used in this AD,
means performing the actions in paragraph (g), Required Actions, before
the effective date of this AD.

Request To Clarify if This AD Affects SAIB NE-09-25R2

    An anonymous commenter asked if this AD affects the following
statements in SAIB NE-09-25R2: ``The FAA has determined that the
performance properties of aviation turbine fuel are not impacted with
up to 50 mg/kg of FAME [fatty acid methyl ester] under continuous usage
. . .'' and ``At high enough concentrations, FAME can impact the
thermal stability of the fuel that could lead to coke deposits in the
fuel system.''
    While FAME can impact the thermal stability of the fuel, leading to
coke deposits in the fuel system, the HMU FMV EHSV fuel coking and fuel
deposits of this AD is not related to FAME. The HMU FMV EHSV fuel
coking and fuel deposits unsafe condition of this AD neither
substantiates nor refutes SAIB NE-09-25R2. Therefore, this AD does not
affect the SAIB guidance.

Support for the AD

    The Boeing Company and The Air Line Pilots Association,
International, expressed support for the AD as written.
    An anonymous commenter disagreed with Honeywell's suggestion to
remove the HMU for a complete overhaul before reaching 20,000 FHs
considering the root cause analysis is identified as high-time wear
failure of the HMU FMV EHSV. The FAA infers that this comment
represents support for the AD as written.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Service Information Incorporated by Reference Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed GE SB CF6-80C2 SB 73-0436 R02, dated August 15,
2019, and GE SB CF6-80E1 SB 73-0142 R02, dated August 15, 2019. The SBs
provide instructions, differentiated by the turbofan engine model, for
repetitive overhauls of the HMU FMV EHSVs. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 573 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal and replacement of HMU......  5 work-hours x $85 per               $0             $425         $243,525
                                       hour = $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary overhaul.
The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might
perform the overhaul of the HMU FMV EHSV or overhaul of the complete
HMU:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overhaul HMU FMV EHSV.........................  5 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $4,000          $4,425
                                                 $425.
Overhaul HMU (complete).......................  25 work-hours x $85 per hour =            92,875          95,000
                                                 $2,125.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce.

This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it
addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2020-22-02 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-21298; Docket No.
FAA-2019-0592; Project Identifier 2019-NE-19-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 3, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-
80C2A5F, -80C2B1F, -80C2B2F, -80C2B4F, -80C2B5F, -80C2B6F, -
80C2B6FA, -80C2B7F, -80C2B8F, -80C2D1F, -80C2K1F, -80C2L1F, -80E1A2,
-80E1A3, -80E1A4, and -80E1A4/B model turbofan engines with a
hydromechanical unit (HMU) with a part number (P/N) listed in
paragraph 1.A., Table 1, of GE Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-80C2 SB 73-
0436 R02, dated August 15, 2019; or paragraph 1.A., Table 1, of GE
SB CF6-80E1 SB 73-0142 R02, dated August 15, 2019; installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7300, Engine Fuel
and Control.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of fuel coking of the HMU fuel
metering valve (FMV) electro-hydraulic servo valve (EHSV) resulting
in tailpipe fire. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent fuel coking
or fuel deposits in the HMU FMV EHSV. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in failure of the HMU, engine fire, and
damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Remove the HMU and replace with a part eligible for
installation before reaching 40,000 flight hours (FHs) since new or
since the last overhaul, or within 180 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever is later. If the FHs since new or last
overhaul are unknown and unable to be determined, replace the HMU
with a part eligible for installation within 180 days after the
effective date of this AD.
    (2) Thereafter, remove the HMU before reaching 40,000 FHs since
new or since the last overhaul and replace with a part eligible for
installation.

(h) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for
installation'' is an HMU that has fewer than 40,000 FHs since new or
fewer than 40,000 FHs since an overhaul of the HMU.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, ``an overhaul of the HMU'' is
one of the following:
    (i) An overhaul of the HMU (complete) using Honeywell-approved
maintenance procedures; or
    (ii) An overhaul of the HMU FMV EHSV using the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(3), of GE SB CF6-80C2 SB 73-0436 R02,
dated August 15, 2019, or paragraph 3.C.(3), of GE SB CF6-80E1 SB
73-0142 R02, dated August 15, 2019.

(i) Credit for Previous Action

    You may take credit for the initial removal and replacement of
the HMU required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD if the HMU FMV EHSV
was overhauled before the effective date of this AD using GE SB CF6-
80C2 SB 73-0436 R01, dated May 14, 2019, or GE SB CF6-80C2 73-0142
R01, dated May 14, 2019.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. You may email your request
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Stephen Elwin,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) General Electric (GE) Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-80C2 SB 73-
0436 R02, dated August 15, 2019.
    (ii) GE SB CF6-80E1 SB 73-0142 R02, dated August 15, 2019.
    (3) For GE service information identified in this AD, contact
General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 13, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-23947 Filed 10-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P