[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22734-22737]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09203]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71959; File No. SR-FINRA-2014-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
FINRA Rule 2081 (Prohibited Conditions Relating to Expungement of
Customer Dispute Information)

April 17, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 14, 2014, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt FINRA Rule 2081 to prohibit member
firms and associated persons from conditioning or seeking to condition
settlement of a dispute with a customer on, or to otherwise compensate
the customer for, the customer's agreement to consent to, or not to
oppose, the firm's or associated person's request to expunge such
customer dispute information from the Central Registration Depository
(CRD[supreg]).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
Background
    The CRD system is the central licensing and registration system for
the U.S. securities industry and its regulators. In general, the
information in the CRD system is submitted by registered securities
firms and regulatory authorities in response to questions on the
uniform registration forms. These forms collect administrative and
disciplinary information about registered personnel, including customer
complaints, arbitration claims, and court filings made by customers,
and the arbitration awards or court judgments that may result from
those claims or filings (i.e., ``customer dispute information'').\3\
FINRA, state and other regulators use this information in connection
with their licensing and regulatory activities. Firms also use the
information when making hiring decisions. In addition, the information
that FINRA releases to the public through BrokerCheck[supreg] is
derived from the CRD system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Notice to Members (``NTM'') 04-16 (March 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Brokers who wish to have customer dispute information removed from
the CRD system (and thereby, from BrokerCheck) because, for example,
they believe that the allegations made against them are unfounded or
that they have been incorrectly identified, must seek expungement
pursuant to FINRA Rule 2080 (formerly NASD Rule 2130).\4\ FINRA Rule
2080 provides that firms and associated persons seeking expungement of
customer dispute information from the CRD system must

obtain a court order that either directs expungement or confirms an
arbitration award containing expungement relief. The Rule requires that
firms and associated persons seeking such a court order or confirmation
name FINRA as a party. Upon request, FINRA may waive the obligation to
name it as a party if FINRA determines that the expungement relief is
based on an affirmative judicial or arbitral finding that: (1) The
claim, allegation or information is factually impossible or clearly
erroneous; (2) the registered person was not involved in the alleged
investment-related sales practice violation, forgery, theft,
misappropriation or conversion of funds; or (3) the claim, allegation
or information is false.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48933 (December 16,
2003), 68 FR 74667 (December 24, 2003) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NASD-2002-168). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59987
(May 27, 2009), 74 FR 26902 (June 4, 2009) (Order Approving File No.
SR-FINRA-2009-016).
    \5\ See FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1). While expungement of customer
dispute information is an extraordinary measure, FINRA believes that
it is nevertheless appropriate where the information being expunged
meets one of the criteria specified in Rule 2080 and has no
meaningful investor protection or regulatory value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has long had concerns about the practice of firms and
associated persons conditioning settlement agreements for the purpose
of obtaining expungement relief and, thereby, potentially removing from
the CRD system information that helps protect investors. Over the
years, FINRA has taken numerous steps towards addressing these
concerns. For example, in proposing NASD Rule 2130, FINRA (then NASD)
stated that the Rule's affirmative determination requirement imposed on
arbitrators would reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of expunging
information that is critical to investor protection and regulatory
interests based on an agreement between the parties.\6\ In NTM 04-43,
FINRA cautioned firms and associated persons that negotiating
settlements with customers in return for exculpatory affidavits that
the firm or associated person knows or should know are false or
misleading is a violation of FINRA Rules.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Letter from Shirley H. Weiss, Associate General Counsel,
NASD, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated September 11, 2003.
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48933 (December 16,
2003), 68 FR 74667 (December 24, 2003) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NASD-2002-168).
    \7\ In addition, FINRA noted that ``[a]s a general matter, in
connection with settling arbitration claims and/or other complaints,
members may not engage in any conduct that impedes the ability of
[FINRA] or any other securities industry regulator to investigate
potential violations of [FINRA] rules or the securities laws. Such
conditions would include . . . procuring, as a condition to
settlement, affidavits or other statements from customers that
falsely or misleadingly repudiate or otherwise contradict prior
claims or complaints made by customers.'' See NTM 04-43 (June 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, FINRA adopted FINRA Rule 12805 to require arbitrators to
perform additional fact finding before recommending expungement of
customer dispute information from the CRD system.\8\ FINRA Rule 12805
requires arbitrators, among other things, to review settlement
documents, the amount of payments made to any party, and any other
terms and conditions of the settlement. In addition, FINRA Rule 12805
requires arbitrators to indicate in the award which of the grounds in
FINRA Rule 2080 serves as the basis for their expungement
recommendation and to provide a brief written explanation of the
reasons for recommending expungement. FINRA believed that these
requirements would address concerns about arbitrators recommending
expungement under what might appear to be questionable facts and
circumstances (e.g., cases that include payment of significant monetary
compensation to the customer).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58886 (October 30,
2008), 73 FR 66086 (November 6, 2008) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2008-010). In addition, FINRA adopted FINRA Rule 13805 to
establish procedures that arbitrators must follow when considering
requests for expungement relief in connection with intra-industry
disputes. See id.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57572 (March 27,
2008), 73 FR 18308 (April 3, 2008) (Notice of Filing File No. SR-
FINRA-2008-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2013, because of FINRA's concerns about the high percentage of
expungement recommendations made in connection with settled arbitration
claims, FINRA sent to arbitrators and published on FINRA's Web site
guidance (the ``Guidance'') stating that, in determining whether to
recommend expungement relief in settled arbitration claims, arbitrators
should inquire whether a party conditioned settlement on an agreement
not to oppose a request for expungement relief.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice to Arbitrators and Parties on Expanded
Expungement Guidance, available at http://www.finra.org/arbitrationandmediation/arbitration/specialprocedures/expungement/.
Specifically, the Guidance states: ``Arbitrators should inquire and
fully consider whether a party conditioned a settlement of the
arbitration upon agreement not to oppose the request for expungement
in cases in which the investor does not participate in the
expungement hearing or the requesting party states that an investor
has indicated that he or she will not oppose the expungement
request.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    Despite previous steps to discourage the practice of firms and
associated persons conditioning settlement agreements for the purpose
of obtaining expungement relief, FINRA continues to have concerns
regarding such conduct. These concerns extend to any settlements
involving customer disputes, not only to those related to arbitration
claims. FINRA believes such agreements should be prohibited even if the
customer offers not to oppose expungement as part of negotiating a
settlement agreement. Further, FINRA believes that firms and associated
persons should be prohibited from otherwise compensating customers in
return for the customer's agreement not to oppose expungement of
customer dispute information from the CRD system.
    Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to adopt FINRA Rule 2081 to
prohibit expressly such conduct. Specifically, FINRA Rule 2081 would
provide that no member or associated person shall condition or seek to
condition settlement of a dispute with a customer on, or to otherwise
compensate the customer for, the customer's agreement to consent to, or
not to oppose, the member's or associated person's request to expunge
such customer dispute information from the CRD system.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The proposed rule change would not affect the processes
relating to requests for expungement relief set forth in FINRA Rules
2080, 12805 and 13805. Thus, if an arbitration panel is considering
the appropriateness of expungement in accordance with FINRA Rule
12805, a customer could express support for, or opposition to, the
firm's or associated person's request for expungement as part of the
recorded hearing session required by that Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal's prohibition would apply to both written and oral
agreements. In addition, as indicated above, the proposal would apply
to agreements entered into during the course of settlement
negotiations, as well as to any agreements entered into separate from
such negotiations. For example, the proposed rule change would preclude
a firm or associated person from conditioning the settlement of a
customer's claim on the customer's agreement to consent to, or not to
oppose, the firm's or associated person's request for expungement. In
addition, the proposed rule change would preclude a firm or associated
person, following settlement of the underlying customer dispute, from
compensating the customer in return for the customer not opposing the
firm's or associated person's expungement request.
    As an alternative to proposed FINRA Rule 2081, some industry
representatives suggested that FINRA consider enhanced arbitrator
training as a means of addressing concerns regarding the conditioning
of settlement agreements for the purpose of obtaining expungement
relief. Since adopting NASD Rule 2130 in 2004, FINRA has required all
arbitrators to take a training course on expungement. Recently, FINRA
significantly revised its arbitrator expungement training. The

revised training became available on FINRA's Web site on February 28,
2014.\12\ The revised training increases the emphasis on the importance
of the information in the CRD system and BrokerCheck, and the
arbitrator's critical role in maintaining the integrity of disclosure
information contained in the system.\13\ While FINRA recognizes the
importance of arbitrator training in the expungement process, and
anticipates that the revised training will further focus arbitrators'
attention on the appropriate analysis associated with determining
whether to recommend expungement, FINRA remains concerned about parties
to a settlement agreement ``bargaining for'' expungement relief as a
condition to settlement. The proposed rule change would directly
address this concern by expressly prohibiting firms and associated
persons from conditioning settlement agreements, or otherwise
compensating customers, for the purpose of obtaining expungement
relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See FINRA Arbitrator Training Online Learning Courses,
available at http://www.finra.org/ArbitrationAndMediation/Arbitrators/Training/AdvancedTraining/P124939. All arbitrator
applicants must complete this training to become eligible to serve
on arbitration cases.
    \13\ In addition, FINRA monitors the effectiveness of its
training and guidance on an ongoing basis and makes additions or
changes as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change
in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60 days following
Commission approval. The effective date will be no later than 30 days
following publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing Commission
approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\14\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the information in the CRD system is used by
FINRA, state and other regulators in connection with their licensing
and regulatory activities. Firms also use the information to help them
make informed hiring decisions. In addition, the information that is
provided to the public through FINRA BrokerCheck is derived from the
CRD system. BrokerCheck is part of FINRA's ongoing effort to help
investors make informed choices about member firms and associated
persons with which investors may conduct business. Thus, it is critical
to investor protection that the CRD system includes accurate and
complete customer dispute information.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FINRA routinely advises investors to check BrokerCheck
before deciding to do business with a firm or associated person.
See, e.g., Working With Your Investment Professional, available at
http://www.finra.org/Investors/ProtectYourself/BeforeYouInvest/WorkingWithYourInvestmentProfessional/; ``Phishing'' and Other
Online Identity Theft Scams: Don't Take the Bait, available at
http://www.finra.org/Investors/ProtectYourself/InvestorAlerts/FraudsAndScams/P010734; and Avoiding Investment Scams, available at
http://www.finra.org/Investors/ProtectYourself/InvestorAlerts/FraudsAndScams/P118010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA has stated repeatedly that expungement is
extraordinary relief that should be granted only when the expunged
information is unfounded and has no meaningful regulatory or investor
protection value.\16\ Once information is expunged from the CRD system,
it is permanently deleted and, therefore, no longer available to the
investing public or regulators. By removing the ability of the parties
to a customer dispute to ``bargain-for'' expungement relief as part of
a settlement agreement, or otherwise, the proposed rule change would
help ensure that information is expunged from the CRD system only when
there is an independent judicial or arbitral decision that expungement
is appropriate. Accordingly, the proposed rule change would also help
maintain the integrity of the information in the CRD system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., NTM 01-65 (October 2001); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 47435 (March 4, 2003), 68 FR 11435 (March 10, 2003)
(Notice of Filing File No. SR-NASD-2002-168); letter from Margo A.
Hassan, FINRA, to Florence Harmon, Deputy Secretary, SEC, dated
September 3, 2008; and the Guidance, supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change would result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA understands that altering
the terms available as part of a settlement might impact the settlement
itself. For example, some industry representatives have questioned
whether the proposal would result in a reduction in the number of
customer disputes that will settle, thereby potentially increasing the
costs to all parties involved. Specifically, these representatives have
raised concerns that some firms may choose not to settle because a
customer claimant may subsequently oppose a request for expungement,
notwithstanding settlement of the underlying customer dispute. Industry
representatives also have questioned whether the proposal would result
in a reduction in the size of settlements offered by firms and
associated persons.
    FINRA believes such impacts are likely to be small. Specifically,
FINRA understands that some firms already prohibit the use of such
conditions as part of their settlement agreements. These firms have
indicated that such a practice has not substantially impacted their
ability to reach settlement or affected the terms of their settlement
agreements in material ways. Further, those firms that have already
adopted this practice would bear no significant additional costs as a
result of the proposed rule change.
    Notwithstanding the concerns noted above, FINRA believes that
parties to a settlement agreement should not be able to ``bargain for''
expungement relief as a condition to a settlement agreement, or
otherwise. By prohibiting such conduct, the proposed rule change would
help ensure that judicial and arbitral determinations regarding
requests for expungement relief are based solely on the facts of the
underlying customer dispute. In addition, the CRD system would more
accurately reflect customer dispute information, permitting customers,
potential customers, regulators, and firms to better assess an
associated person's record.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and

arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2014-020 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-FINRA-2014-020. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2014-020 and should be
submitted on or before May 14, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09203 Filed 4-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79752-79753]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32807]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alteration, Notice of Actual Construction or
Alteration, Project Status Report

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The FAA uses the information collected on form 7460-1 to
determine the effect a proposed construction or alteration would have
on air navigation and the National Airspace System (NAS), and the
information collected on form 7460-2 to measure the progress of actual
construction.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 21, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0001.
    Title: Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, Notice of
Actual Construction or Alteration, Project Status Report.
    Form Numbers: FAA Forms 7460-1 and 7460-2.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 49 U.S.C. Section 44718 states that the Secretary of
Transportation shall require notice of structures that may affect
navigable airspace, air commerce, or air capacity. These notice
requirements are contained in 14 CFR Part 77. The information is
collected via FAA forms 7460-1 and 7460-2.
    Respondents: Approximately 110,325 airports.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 15 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 22,425 hours.

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 15, 2011.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-32807 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 79946-79948]
[DOCID:fr30de08-143]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59121; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-126]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Extend the Duration of the Hybrid Rule Pertaining to
Orders Represented in Open Outcry

December 19, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 17, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or

``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-
day operative delay required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR
240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). See discussion infra Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the duration of Rule 6.45A(b)
relating to the allocation of orders represented in open outcry in
equity option classes designated by the Exchange to be traded on the
CBOE Hybrid Trading System (``Hybrid'') through March 31, 2009. No
other changes are being made to the Rule. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/
Legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the
Commission.

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 CBOE 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
    In March 2005 the Commission approved revisions to CBOE Rule 6.45A
related to the introduction of Remote Market-Makers.\6\ Among other
things, Rule 6.45A(b), pertaining to the allocation of orders
represented in open outcry in equity options classes traded on Hybrid,
was amended to clarify that only in-crowd market participants would be
eligible to participate in open outcry trade allocations. In addition,
Rule 6.45A(b) was amended to limit the duration of paragraph (b) of
Rule 6.45A until September 14, 2005. The duration of this paragraph was
thereafter extended through December 31, 2008.\7\ As the duration
period expires on December 31st, the Exchange proposes to extend the
effectiveness of Rule 6.45A(b) through March 31, 2009.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51366 (March 14,
2005), 70 FR 13217 (March 18, 2005)(SR-CBOE-2004-75).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52423 (September
14, 2005), 70 FR 55194 (September 20, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-76)
(extension through December 14, 2005), 52957 (December 15, 2005), 70
FR 76085 (December 22, 2005) (extension through March 14, 2006),
53524 (March 21, 2006), 71 FR 15235 (March 27, 2006)(SR-CBOE-2006-
22)(extension through July 14, 2006), 54164 (July 17, 2006), 71 FR
42143 (July 25, 2006)(SR-CBOE-2006-60)(extension through October 31,
2006), 54680 (November 1, 2006), 71 FR 65554 (November 8, 2006) (SR-
CBOE-2006-86)(extension through January 31, 2007), 55219 (February
1, 2007), 72 FR 6305 (February 9, 2007)(SR-CBOE-2007-10)(extension
through April 30, 2007), 55676 (April 27, 2007), 72 FR 25348 (May 4,
2007)(SR-CBOE-2007-40)(extension through July 31, 2007), 56177
(August 1, 2007), 72 FR 44194 (August 7, 2007)(SR-CBOE-2007-
89)(extension through December 31, 2007), 57054 (December 27, 2007),
73 FR 899 (January 4, 2008)(SR-CBOE-2007-149)(extension through June
30, 2008) and 58048 (June 27, 2008) 73 FR 39355 (July 9, 2008)(SR-
CBOE-2008-65)(extension through December 31, 2008).
    \8\ In order to effect proprietary transactions on the floor of
the Exchange, in addition to complying with the requirements of CBOE
Rule 6.45A(b), members are also required to comply with the
requirements of Section 11(a)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1), or
qualify for an exemption. Section 11(a)(1) of the Act restricts
securities transactions of a member of any national securities
exchange effected on that exchange for (i) The member's own account,
(ii) the account of a person associated with the member, or (iii) an
account over which the member or a person associated with the member
exercises discretion, unless a specific exemption is available. The
Exchange has issued regulatory circulars to members informing them
of the applicability of these Section 11(a)(1) requirements each
time the duration of the Rule was extended. See CBOE Regulatory
Circulars RG05-103 (November 2, 2005), RG06-001 (January 3, 2006),
RG06-34 (April 7, 2006), RG06-79 (July 31, 2006), RG06-115 (November
8, 2006), RG07-21 (February 8, 2007), RG07-53 (May 17, 2007), RG07-
88 (August 15, 2007), RG08-08 (January 9, 2008) and RG08-83 (July
10, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Extension of the duration of the Rule will allow the Exchange to
continue to operate under the existing allocation parameters for orders
represented in open outcry in Hybrid on an uninterrupted basis.
Accordingly, CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act \9\ and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5)\11\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for thirty days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)\13\ thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). When filing a proposed rule change
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act, an Exchange is required
to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date
of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange provided notice to the
Commission three business days prior to filing the proposed rule
change, and the Commission has determined to waive the five business
day requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Commission Rule 19b-4(f)(6)\15\
normally does not become operative prior to thirty days after the date
of filing. The CBOE requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), and designate
the proposed rule change to become operative immediately to allow the
Exchange to continue to operate under

the existing allocation parameters for orders represented in open
outcry in Hybrid on an uninterrupted basis. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
will allow the CBOE to continue to operate under Rule 6.45A(b) without
interruption. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change as operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ For the purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-126 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-CBOE-2008-126. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2008-126 and should be
submitted on or before January 20, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 [FR Doc. E8-30856 Filed 12-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3891-3893]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1126; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-10]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E airspace; Great Falls, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace,
designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, at
Great Falls International Airport. This action also proposes to modify
the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface.
Additionally, this action proposes to modify the Class E airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This action also
proposes to remove the Great Falls VORTAC from the Class E4 and Class
E5 text headers and airspace descriptions. Further, this action
proposes to remove Malmstrom AFB from the Class E5 text header and
airspace description. Lastly, this action proposes several
administrative corrections to the airspaces' legal descriptions. This
action would ensure the safety and management of instrument flight
rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 1, 2021.

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; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-1126; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-10, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use

of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority, as it would amend the Class E airspace at Great Falls
International Airport, Great Falls, MT, to support IFR operations at
the airport.

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. Persons 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-2020-1126;
Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-10''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace, designated as an
extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, at Great Falls
International Airport. This action proposes to reduce the size of the
area to properly contain IFR aircraft descending below 1,000 feet above
the surface. This area would be described as follows: That airspace
extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side of the
224[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 5.5-mile radius
to 9.6 miles southwest of Great Falls International Airport.
    This action also proposes to modify the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface. This action proposes to
significantly reduce the size of this area to properly contain IFR
departures to 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals descending
below 1,500 feet above the surface. This area would be described as
follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.4 miles each side
of the 047[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 7-mile
radius to 12 miles northeast of the airport, and within 8 miles south
and 4 miles north of the 222[deg] from the airport, extending from 2.6
miles southwest of the airport to 18.7 miles southwest of Great Falls
International Airport.
    Additionally, this action proposes to modify the Class E airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This action would
also reduce the size of this area to properly contain IFR aircraft
transitioning to/from the terminal and en route environments. This area
would be described as follows: That airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface within a 48-mile radius of Great Falls
International Airport.
    This action also proposes to remove the Great Falls VORTAC from the
Class E4 and Class E5 text headers and airspace descriptions. The
Navigational Aid (NAVAID) is not needed to describe the airspace areas.
Removal of the NAVAID allows the airspace to be described from a single
point, which simplifies the airspaces' descriptions.
    Further, this action proposes to remove Malmstrom AFB from the
Class E5 text header and airspace description. Reference to Malmstrom
AFB is not needed to describe the airspace area. Removal of Malmstrom
AFB allows the airspace to be described from a single point, which
simplifies the airspace's description.
    Lastly, this action proposes several administrative amendments to
the airspaces' legal descriptions. The first line of the Class D and
Class E4 text headers is not correct. The first line of text should not
include the airport name, ``International Airport'' should be removed
from this line of text. The airport's geographic coordinates in the
Class D, Class E4, and Class E5 text header are incorrect. To match the
FAA database, the geographic coordinates should be updated to lat.
47[deg]28'56'' N, long. 111[deg]22'13'' W.
    Class D, E4, and E5 airspace designations are published in
paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E,
dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *

ANM MT D Great Falls, MT [Amended]

Great Falls International Airport, MT
    (Lat. 47[deg]28'56'' N, long. 111[deg]22'13'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
6,200 feet MSL within a 5.5-mile radius of Great Falls International
Airport.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area

* * * * *

ANM MT E4 Great Falls, MT [Amended]

Great Falls International Airport, MT
    (Lat. 47[deg]28'56'' N, long. 111[deg]22'13'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile
each side of the 224[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from
the 5.5-mile radius to 9.6 miles southwest of Great Falls
International Airport.

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

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Great Falls, MT [Amended]

Great Falls International Airport, MT
    (Lat. 47[deg]28'56'' N, long. 111[deg]22'13'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.4 miles each
side of the 047[deg]bearing from the airport, extending from the 7-
mile radius to 12 miles northeast of the airport, and within 8 miles
south and 4 miles north of the 222[deg] from the airport, extending
from 2.6 miles southwest of the airport to 18.7 miles southwest of
the airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface within a 48-mile radius of Great Falls
International Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 31, 2020.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-29319 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


TABLE 1 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost NSPS for Asphalt Processing and Roofing Manufacture ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UU)

REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C = A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Person Hrs/ Yr ( E)

( CxD) Management Person Hrs/ Yr ( F)

E x .05 Clerical Person Hrs/ Yr ( G)

E x 0.1 Total Hours ( H) Costs/ Year ( I)

1. APPLICATIONS N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 2. SURVEY AND STUDIES N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 1 1 1 2 2.00 0.10 0.20 2.30 $ 147 b. Required Activities Initial Performance Tests 72 1 72 2 144.00 7.20 14.40 165.60 $ 10,566 Repeat of Performance Tests 72 1 72 0.2 14.40 0.72 1.44 16.56 $ 1,057 c. Create Information  Included in 3b

d. Gather Existing Information  Included in 3b

e. Write Report Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 1 2 2 4.00 0.20 0.40 4.60 $ 294 Notification and Demonstration of CMS 40 1 40 2 80.00 4.00 8.00 92.00 $ 5,870 Notification of Actual Startup 2 1 2 2 4.00 0.20 0.40 4.60 $ 294 Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 1 2 2 4.00 0.20 0.40 4.60 $ 294 Report of Performance Test  Included in 3b 0.00 Notif. of Physical or Operational Change 2 1 2 2 4.00 0.20 0.40 4.60 $ 294 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions  Included in 3a

b. Plan Activities  Included in 3b

c. Implement Activities  Included in 3b

d. Develop Record System N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A e. Time to Enter Information Records of daily production rate and hours of operation 0.13 250 32.5 169 5,492.50 274.63 549.25 6,316.38 $ 403,012 Records of operating parameters of CMS 0.25 250 62.5 169 10,562.50 528.13 1,056.25 12,146.88 $ 775,023 Records of startups, shutdowns, & malfunctions 60 1 60 169 10,140.00 507.00 1,014.00 11,661.00 $ 744,023 f. Train Personnel N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A g. Audits N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 30,419 $ 1,940,874 ( Rounded) ( Rounded) Assumptions Average number of respondents 169 Time required to read instructions ( hours) 1 Time required to complete performance test ( hours ) 72 Rate of failed performance tests 20%

Time required to record daily production ( hours) 0.13 Time required to record CMS operating parameters ( hours) 0.25 Number of days operating per year 250 Number of respondents with reconstructed sources ( per year) 2 Time required to record startups, shutdowns,

malfunctions etc. ( hours) 0.25 Number of startups, shutdowns, malfuctions, etc.

( per year) 1 Time Required for notification preparation ( hours) 2 Time required for notification of demonstration of CMS ( hours) 40 Technicial labor rate $ 64.60 Managerial labor rate $ 95.32 Clerical labor rate $ 40.09


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 2, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46212-46213]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0585; Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-9]

Proposed Modification of Class E Airspace; Blythe, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Blythe, CA.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using Area
Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedures at Blythe Airport. The FAA is proposing this action
to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
0585; Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-9, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2011-0585 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-9) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2011-0585 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-9''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

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/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Blythe Airport, Blythe, CA.
Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft
using the RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Blythe
Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of
aircraft operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (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 this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would 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 for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it creates additional controlled airspace at Blythe Airport, Blythe,
CA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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 the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Blythe, CA [Modified]

Blythe Airport, CA
    (Lat. 33[deg]37'09'' N., long. 114[deg]43'01'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of the Blythe Airport, and within 4 miles
south and 1.2 miles north of the 264[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10 miles west of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within an area bounded by lat. 33[deg]50'00'' N., long.
114[deg]21'00'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]42'00'' N., long. 114[deg]17'00''
W.; to lat. 33[deg]41'30'' N., long. 114[deg]07'30'' W.; to lat.
33[deg]27'00'' N., long. 114[deg]09'00'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]28'00''
N., long. 114[deg]13'00'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]28'30'' N., long.
114[deg]28'00'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]26'00'' N., long. 115[deg]04'00''
W.; to lat. 33[deg]53'00'' N., long. 115[deg]07'00'' W.; to lat.
34[deg]15'00'' N., long. 114[deg]50'00'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]15'00''
N., long. 114[deg]28'00'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]52'00'' N., long.
114[deg]29'00'' W., thence to the point of beginning, and that
airspace within a 15.8-mile radius of Blythe Airport extending
clockwise from the 124[deg] bearing to the 227[deg] bearing from
Blythe Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 19, 2011.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-19498 Filed 8-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 82 (Thursday, April 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20095-20096]
[FR Doc No: E9-9980]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice; Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program
and Request for Review; Westfield-Barnes Airport, Westfield, MA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its

determination that the noise exposure map for Westfield-Barnes Airport,
as submitted by the City of Westfield under the provisions of Title I
of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-193)
and 14 CFR Part 150, is in compliance with applicable requirements. The
FAA also announces that it is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility
program that was submitted for Westfield-Barnes Airport under Part 150
in conjunction with the noise exposure map, and that this program will
be approved or disapproved on or before October 19, 2009.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's determination on
the noise exposure map and of the start of its review of the associated
noise compatibility program is April 22, 2009. The public comment
period ends on June 21, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Doucette, Federal Aviation
Administration, New England Region, Airports Division, ANE-600, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington MA 01803.
    Comments on the proposed noise compatibility program should also be
submitted to the above office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure map submitted for Westfield-Barnes Airport is
in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective April
22, 2009. Further, FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility
program for that airport which will be approved or disapproved on or
before October 19, 2009. This notice also announces the availability of
this program for public review and comment.
    Under Section 103 of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act''), an
airport operator may submit to the FAA a noise exposure map which meets
applicable regulations and which depicts non-compatible land uses as of
the date of submission of such map, a description of projected aircraft
operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such map.
The Act requires such map to be developed in consultation with
interested and affected parties in the local community, government
agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has
submitted a noise exposure map that is found by FAA to be in compliance
with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150,
promulgated pursuant to Title I of the Act, may submit a noise
compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures
the operator has taken, or proposes, for the introduction of additional
non-compatible uses.
    The City of Westfield submitted to the FAA, on April 22, 2009, a
noise exposure map, descriptions, and other documentation that were
produced during the Airport Noise Compatibility Planning (Part 150)
study at Westfield-Barnes Airport from November 2006 to April 2009. It
was requested that the FAA review this material as the noise exposure
map, as described in Section 103(a)(1) of the Act, and that the noise
mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and
surrounding communities, be approved as a noise compatibility program
under Section 104(b) of the Act.
    The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and
related descriptions submitted by the City of Westfield. The specific
maps under consideration were:
    Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update, Westfield-Barnes
Airport.
    Figure 1. Exisiting (2009) Noise Exposure Map.
    Figure 2. Future (2014) Noise Exposure Map.
    The FAA has determined that the maps for Westfield-Barnes Airport
are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is
effective on April 22, 2009.
    FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is
limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such
determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data,
information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility
program or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions
arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to
noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted
under Section 103 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not
involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific
properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in
interpreting the noise exposure map to resolve questions concerning,
for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of
Section 107 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the
ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local
government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way
under Part 150 or through FAA's review of a noise exposure map.
Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise
exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface
rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted the map, or
with those public agencies and planning agencies with which
consultation is required under Section 103 of the Act. The FAA has
relied on the certification by the airport operator, under Section
150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has
been accomplished.
    The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for
Westfield-Barnes Airport, also effective on April 22, 2009. Preliminary
review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to the
requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but
that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval
of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum
of 180 days, will be completed on or before October 19, 2009. The FAA's
detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR
Part 150, Section 150.33. The primary considerations in the evaluation
process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the level of
aviation safety, create an undue burden on interstate or foreign
commerce, or be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of
reducing existing non-compatible land uses and preventing the
introduction of additional non-compatible land uses.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program
with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than
those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be
considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the noise
exposure map, the FAA's evaluation of the map, and the proposed noise
compatibility program are available for examination at the following
locations:

Westfield-Barnes Airport, 110 Airport Road, Westfield, Massachusetts
01085.
Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, Airports Division,
ANE-600, 16 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts
01803.

    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 22, 2009.
LaVerne F. Reid,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. E9-9980 Filed 4-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 34)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9201-9203]
[DOCID:fr20fe08-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0293; FRL-8529-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; VOC Emissions From Fuel Grade Ethanol Production Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a March 30, 2007, request from the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to revise the Indiana
State Implementation Plan (SIP) by adding a volatile organic compound
(VOC) rule for fuel grade ethanol production at dry mills as amendments
to 326 IAC 8-5. This rule revision creates an industry-specific Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) standard for new fuel grade ethanol
production dry mills that replaces the otherwise required case-by-case
SIP BACT determination for new facilities with the potential to emit 25
tons or more of VOC per year. Indiana believes that this rule will
increase the clarity, predictability and timeliness of its air permits
for this particular group of sources. These rules were proposed for
approval on September 13, 2007, and comments were received on October
8, 2007.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0293. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Public Comments Were Received on the Proposed Approval and
What Is EPA's Response?
II. What Action Is EPA Taking and What Is the Reason for This
Action?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Public Comments Were Received on the Proposed Approval and What
Is EPA's Response?

    EPA received three comments on its September 13, 2007, proposal
from The Natural Resource Group (NRG), as follows:
    Comment 1. NRG is concerned that the amendments do not address
technologies other than those specifically identified (i.e., thermal
oxidizers, wet scrubbers, and flares). This rule should still allow a
dry-mill ethanol plant to perform a case-by-case BACT determination if
the facility believes that it has a technology that can achieve low VOC
emissions without the additional capital costs and energy use required
to control emissions with the technologies identified in the rule.
    EPA response 1. Without this rule, new facilities not regulated by
a provision in 326 IAC Article 8 that have potential emissions of 25
tons or more of VOC per year are required to reduce VOC emissions using
BACT. Establishing BACT is a case-by-case determination based on the
maximum reduction in emissions that is technically feasible, while
taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impact.
According to Indiana, establishing industry-specific BACT standards in
place of case-by-case BACT will improve the clarity, predictability and
timeliness of permit decisions involving sources that are currently
subject to 326 IAC 8-1-6. NRG's approach would revert this rule to
case-by-case BACT determinations for the subject ethanol plants and
eliminate its primary purpose. In addition, if a new and superior
technology is established for ethanol plants, Indiana has the option of
amending this rule to allow such technology.
    Comment 2. NRG stated that the basis for the VOC destruction and
concentration is not identified in the rule, and that in order to make
a VOC concentration legitimate, there must be a specific test method to
determine the concentration. It is, therefore, very important that the
rule state a basis for the concentration limit, because the levels
identified in the rule are not attainable under some of the potential
bases that could be required by IDEM.
    EPA response 2. EPA agrees with NRG that a specific test method is
needed to implement the 10 ppm and 20 ppm alternative control
requirements for thermal oxidizers and wet scrubbers, respectively, in
rule 326 IAC 8-5-6. After discussions with EPA, Region 5, in a December
19, 2007, letter from Daniel Murray, Assistant Commissioner for the
Office of Air Quality, IDEM stated that it would be acceptable to
measure the 10 ppm and 20 ppm concentration limits using EPA Method
25(A), expressed as equivalent ethanol, with the calibration gas being
a mixture of ethanol in air.
    Comment 3. NRG also noted that the rule currently excludes wet-mill
ethanol plants that steep or soak the corn in order to separate the
kernel, presumably because the emission characteristics for such
facilities are different from dry-mill ethanol plants and require case-
by-case determinations. According to NRG, however, technologies are
currently in development that may allow dry-mill ethanol plants to
separate the kernel without using a wet process. This technology has
the potential to reduce the VOC emissions from the spent grain dryers
due to the potential reduction in spent grain throughput. The emissions
from dry-mill ethanol plants with dry kernel separation technology may
be comparable to that of wet-mill ethanol plant dryers with one key
difference; dry-mill plants will only dry the spent grain while the
other parts of the kernel that are removed prior to fermentation can be
further processed or shipped without drying. For this reason, NRG
believes that this rule should also exclude dry-mill ethanol plants
that use dry separation technologies.
    EPA response 3. The definition in 326 IAC 8-5-6(b)(1) of ``Dry
mill'' is ``an ethanol production operation that uses the whole corn
kernel to produce a meal that is then used to produce alcohol * * *.''
Because 326 IAC 8-5 does not cover dry-mill ethanol plants with dry
kernel separation technology, NRG's concerns have been addressed.

II. What Action Is EPA Taking and What Is the Reason for This Action?

    We are approving revisions to the Indiana SIP in two areas: (1) To
amend 326 IAC 8-5-1, Applicability of Rule; and (2) to add 326 IAC 8-5-
6, Fuel

Grade Ethanol Facilities. It should be noted that approval of this rule
does not in any way affect the applicability of Nonattainment New
Source Review or Prevention of Significant Deterioration to subject
sources.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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 April 21, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 5, 2008.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(182) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (182) On March 30, 2007, Indiana submitted final adopted revisions,
which amend 326 IAC 8-5-1, concerning rule applicability, and add 326
IAC 8-5-6, fuel grade ethanol production at dry mills, to its VOC rules
as a requested revision to the Indiana state implementation plan. By
letter of December 19, 2007, Indiana stated that it would be acceptable
to measure the concentration limits in 326 IAC 8-5-6 using EPA Method
25(a) expressed as equivalent ethanol with the calibration gas being a
mixture of ethanol in air. EPA is approving these revisions,
authorizing Indiana to establish an

industry-specific State BACT standard for fuel grade ethanol production
at dry mill facilities that emit 25 tons or more of VOC per year.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. The following sections of the
Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) are incorporated by reference. 326
IAC 8-5-1, ``Applicability of Rule'', and 326 IAC 8-5-6 ``Fuel Grade
Ethanol Production at Dry Mills''. Approved by the Attorney General
February 16, 2007. Approved by the Governor February 16, 2007. Filed
with the Publisher February 20, 2007. Published on the Indiana Register
Web site March 21, 2007, Document Identification Number (DIN):20070321-
IR-326050197FRA. Effective March 22, 2007.
    (ii) Additional materials. A December 19, 2007, letter from Daniel
Murray, Assistant Commissioner of the Indiana Department of
Environmental management, Office of Air Quality, which states that it
would be acceptable to measure the concentration limits in 326 IAC 8-5-
6 using EPA Method 25(a) expressed as equivalent ethanol with the
calibration gas being a mixture of ethanol in air.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-2893 Filed 2-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53567-53568]
[DOCID:fr19se07-74]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0038; FRL-8147-9]

Guident Technologies, Nortel Government Solutions; Transfer of
Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to Guident Technologies and its
subcontractor, Nortel Government Solutions in accordance with 40 CFR
2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2). Guident Technologies and its
subcontractor, Nortel Government Solutions, have been awarded a
contract to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will
enable Guident Technologies and its subcontractor, Nortel Government
Solutions, to fulfill the obligations of the contract.

DATES: Guident Technologies and its subcontractor, Nortel Government
Solutions, will be given access to this information on or before
September 24, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Croom, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0038. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under Contract No. EP07D000102, Guident Technologies and its
subcontractor, Nortel Government Solutions, will develop application
for the Office of Pesticide Programs. This development will be in
support of the following initatives: E-Submission Development and
Implementation; Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act;
Endangered Species Development and Implementation; Registration Review
Development and Implementation; and Enterprise Content Management
Systems for Information Services Branch.
    The OPP has determined that access by Guident Technologies and its
subcontractor, Nortel Government

Solutions, to information on all pesticide chemicals may be necessary
for the performance of this contract.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7
of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(2), the
contract with Guident Technologies and its subcontractor, Nortel
Government Solutions prohibits use of the information for any purpose
not specified in the contract; prohibits disclosure of the information
to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and
requires that each official and employee of the contractor sign an
agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to
handle it in accordance with the FIFRA Information Security Manual. In
addition, Guident Technologies and its subcontractor, Nortel Government
Solutions, are required to submit for EPA approval a security plan
under which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized
release or compromise. No information will be provided to Guident
Technologies and its subcontractor, Nortel Government Solutions Staff,
until the requirements in this document have been fully satisfied.
Records of information provided to Guident Technologies and its
subcontractor, Nortel Government Solutions Staff, will be maintained by
EPA Project Officers for this contract. All information supplied to
Guident Technologies and its subcontractor, Nortel Government Solutions
Staff, by EPA for use in connection with this contract will be returned
to EPA when Guident Technologies and its subcontractor, Nortel
Government Solutions Staff, have completed their work.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government
contracts, Government property, Security measures.

    Dated: September 11, 2007.
Oscar Morales,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E7-18469 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4727-4728]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2007-27556]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
provides the public notice that on January 17, 2018, SMS Rail Service
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 223. FRA assigned the petition
Docket Number FRA-2007-27556.
    Specifically, SMS Rail Service (SLRS) is seeking an extension of
its waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 223.11, Requirements for existing
locomotives, for the glazing in one of its locomotives, SLRS 412.
Locomotive SLRS 412 is a Baldwin VO-1000, built in 1945, and is owned
by the United Railroad Historical Society, a non-profit organization.
The locomotive is currently out of service; however, SLRS would like to
be able to operate it again in limited service should they be able to
facilitate repairs. Locomotive SLRS 412 would be operated in limited
use and exclusively within the Pureland Industrial Park in Bridgeport,
NJ. SLRS represents that there is no history of broken glazing on this
railroad, and no overhead bridges or tunnels on the trackage. Maximum
operating speed would be 10 miles per hour.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 19, 2018 will be considered by FRA

before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-01960 Filed 1-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P