U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

March 24-25, 2011

Mandarin Oriental

1330 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20024

AGENDA

Thursday, March 24, 2011

8:30 am		Registration

9:00-9:30		Welcome and Introductions

Diane Austin, Acting Chair

Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Acting Director, OFACMO

Mark Joyce, GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer

Board Member Introductions

9:30-10:30		Opening Remarks and General Discussion

Nancy Sutley, Chair

White House Council on Environmental Quality

10:30-10:45		Break

10:45-11:45	Air Quality and Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

Sue Stendebach, Senior Advisor on International Air Quality

U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation

Richard Rosen, Senior Advisor for Climate Research

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Diana Papoulias

Research Biologist

U.S. Geological Survey

11:45-12:00 pm	Public Comments

12:00-1:30		Lunch

1:30-2:30 	Renewable Energy Resources in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region

Edward Drusina, Commissioner

United States Section

International Boundary and Water Commission

Edward Hoyt

Principal Clean Energy Specialist

Nexant Inc.

DOE Speaker TBD

2:30-3:30        	The Economic Potential of Renewable Energy Development in the Border Region

Cecilia Aguillon, Director

Market Development and Government Relations

KYOCERA Solar, Inc.

Stephen Niemeyer

Border Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Todd Foley, Senior Vice President on Policy and Government Relations

American Council on Renewable Energy

3:45-3:45		Break

3:45-4:45	Update on Border 2012 Program and Commission for Environmental Cooperation Activities

Michelle DePass, Assistant Administrator

U.S. EPA Office of International and Tribal Affairs

4:45- 6:00			Discussion of 14th Report

6:00 	      		Adjourn for the Day

Friday, March 25, 2011

8:00 am		Registration

8:30	Discussion of Options for June, September, and December Meetings

9:00			Discussion of 14th Report continued

10:30			Break

10:45	Discussion of 14th Report continued

1:30 pm		Public Comments

2:00			Adjourn

 PAGE


[Federal Register: September 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 48993]
[DOCID:fr25se09-101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0026]

Apothecon et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 103 New Drug
Applications and 35 Abbreviated New Drug Applications; Correction

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register of February 11, 2009 (74 FR
6896). The document announced the withdrawal of approval of 103 new
drug applications (NDAs) and 35 abbreviated new drug applications
(ANDAs). The document published with an error in the identification of
the ANDA for Amiodarone Hydrochloride Injection, 50 milligrams/
milliliter, held by Hospira, Inc. This document corrects that error.

DATES:  Effective March 13, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Florine P. Purdie, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6366, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  In FR Doc. E9-2901, appearing on page 6896
in the Federal Register of Wednesday, February 11, 2009, the following
correction is made:
    On page 6900, in the first column of the table, third item from the
bottom of the page, the entry ``ANDA 75-108'' is corrected to read
``ANDA 76-108''.

    Dated: September 9, 2009.
Douglas C. Throckmorton,
Deputy Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. E9-23170 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 17 (Monday, January 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4269-4274]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01433]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0095; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-197-AD;
Amendment 39-17699; AD 2013-25-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directives (ADs) AD 2000-17-
05 and AD 2001-04-09 for all the Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. AD
2000-17-05 required a functional check of the shear rivets in all six
elevator power control actuator (PCA) bellcrank assemblies to determine
the condition of the shear rivets; and replacement or rework of the
bellcrank assemblies, if necessary. AD 2001-04-09 required repetitive
testing of the elevator control system to determine if an elevator PCA
is rigged incorrectly due to yielded or failed shear rivets in a
bellcrank assembly for the elevator PCA, and follow-on actions if
necessary. Since we issued ADs 2000-17-05 and 2001-04-09, a terminating
modification has been designed. This new AD requires an inspection to
determine the part numbers and condition of the bellcrank assemblies;
modification or replacement of the PCA bellcrank assembly, if
necessary; and a repetitive functional test and mis-rig check, and
corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent
continued operation with yielded or failed shear rivets in the elevator
PCA bellcrank assemblies, and to prevent certain failures or jams in
the elevator system from causing a hardover of the elevator surface,
resulting in a significant pitch upset and possible loss of control of
the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective March 3, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 3,
2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of
November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67236, November 28, 2007).
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of March
20, 2001 (66 FR 13227, March 5, 2001).
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
September 11, 2000 (65 FR 51754, August 25, 2000).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2000-17-05, Amendment 39-11879 (65 FR 51754,
August 25, 2000); and AD 2001-04-09, Amendment 39-12128 (66 FR 13227,
March 5, 2001). ADs 2000-17-05 and 2001-04-09 applied to the specified
products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 26,
2013 (78 FR 12991). The NPRM proposed to continue to require a
functional check of the shear rivets in all six PCA bellcrank
assemblies to determine the condition of the shear rivets; and
replacement or rework of the bellcrank assemblies, if necessary. The
NPRM also proposed to continue to require repetitive testing of the
elevator control system to determine if an elevator PCA is rigged
incorrectly due to failed shear rivets in a bellcrank assembly of the
elevator PCA, and follow-on actions if necessary. The NPRM also
proposed to require an inspection to determine the part numbers and
condition of the bellcrank assemblies; modification or replacement of
the PCA bellcrank assembly, if necessary; and a repetitive functional
test and mis-rig check, and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(78 FR 12991, February 26, 2013) and the FAA's response to each
comment.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 12991, February 26, 2013)

    United Airlines (UAL) requested that we withdraw the NPRM (78 FR
12991, February 26, 2013). UAL stated that there may be no benefit to
superseding AD 2001-04-09, Amendment 39-12128 (66 FR 13227, March 5,
2001), because current actions provide an equivalent level of safety.
UAL stated that, as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to AD
2001-04-09, it is presently accomplishing the actions described in the
following service bulletins. UAL stated that it is effectively
complying with the NPRM, and indicated other airlines may be as well.
     Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0186, dated June 25, 2007.
     Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0187, dated June 25, 2007.
     Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0200, dated June 25, 2007.
     Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0201, dated June 27, 2007.
     Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0202, Revision 1, dated
February 21, 2008.

     Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0203, Revision 1, dated
February 21, 2008.
    We disagree with the commenter's request to withdraw the NPRM (78
FR 12991, February 26, 2013). AD 2000-17-05, Amendment 39-11879 (65 FR
51754, August 25, 2000), and AD 2001-04-09, Amendment 39-12128 (66 FR
13227, March 5, 2001), were considered interim actions. This final rule
specifies a terminating modification that will further reduce the
probability of the unsafe condition identified in those ADs, which
includes installation of solid elevator PCA bellcranks or bellcranks
with solid rivets. In addition to this terminating modification, this
final rule requires new repetitive testing of the modified system,
including repetitive testing of the elevator PCA input rod assemblies
(pogo check) and repetitive checks of the elevator PCA rigging.
    As UAL indicated, we approved accomplishment of the service
information required by this final rule as AMOCs to accomplishing the
repetitive testing required by paragraph (a) of AD 2001-04-09,
Amendment 39-12128 (66 FR 13227, March 5, 2001). These were global
AMOCs; therefore, we have no way of determining the level of airline
incorporation. Airlines similar to UAL, which are presently
accomplishing the actions described in Boeing Service Bulletins 767-27-
0186, 767-27-0187, and 767-27-0200, all dated June 25, 2007; 767-27-
0201, dated June 27, 2007; and 767-27-0202 and 767-27-0203, both
Revision 1, both dated February 21, 2008; as applicable; as AMOCs to AD
2001-04-09, can take credit for work already accomplished as specified
in paragraph (f) of this final rule and are already doing the
repetitive actions required by this AD. No change has been made to this
final rule in this regard.

Request To Allow Credit for Previous Actions

    Boeing requested that we provide credit for the actions required by
paragraph (j) of the NPRM (78 FR 12991, February 26, 2013), if those
actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0186 or 767-27-0187, both dated June 25,
2007, and it is shown that the service information has been
incorporated by doing a records check.
    We find that clarification is necessary. Paragraph (f) of this AD
states to comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done. For paragraph (j) of this AD, there is no more
work required for operators who have already accomplished the actions
in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0186 or 767-27-0187, both dated June
25, 2007. No change has been made to this final rule in this regard.

Request To Insert a Phrase in Paragraph (k)(1) of the NPRM (78 FR
12991, February 26, 2013)

    ABX Air (ABX) requested that paragraph (k)(1) of the NPRM (78 FR
12991, February 26, 2013) be revised by inserting the phrase, ``Unless
the function check (pogo check) specified by paragraph (k)(2) of this
AD was previously accomplished.'' ABX stated that paragraph (k)(1) of
the NPRM proposed to require accomplishment of the pogo check in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0186, dated June 25,
2007, before further flight after doing the inspection and applicable
corrective actions proposed by paragraph (j) of the NPRM. ABX stated
that if the pogo check was accomplished previously in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0200, dated June 25, 2007, then the pogo
check proposed by paragraph (k)(1) of the NPRM is not necessary.
    ABX further stated that the pogo check specified in Boeing Service
Bulletins 767-27-0186 and 767-27-0200, both dated June 25, 2007, are
equivalent, and if each input control rod assembly passed the pogo
check inspection, or was overhauled or replaced in accordance with
paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM (78 FR 12991, February 26, 2013), then the
repetitive pogo check limit of 12,000 flight hours will provide
protection against input control rod assembly malfunction. ABX stated
that requiring accomplishment of the pogo check concurrently with the
bellcrank assembly inspection/modification will provide no safety
benefit if the inspections specified in paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM
are in place.
    We disagree with revising paragraph (k)(1) of this final rule as
requested. Boeing Service Bulletins 767-27-0186 and 767-27-0187, both
dated June 25, 2007 (referenced in paragraph (j) of this AD), are
applicable to line numbers 1 through 901. An equivalent change was made
during production for line numbers 902 and subsequent. As ABX stated,
Boeing Service Bulletins 767-27-0186 and 767-27-0187, both dated June
25, 2007, include the same testing provided in Boeing Service Bulletins
767-27-0200, dated June 25, 2007; 767-27-0201, dated June 27, 2007; and
767-27-0202 and 767-27-0203, both Revision 1, both dated February 21,
2008.
    However, for line numbers 1 through 901, the initial checks (pogo
and mis-rig) must be completed following the modification of the system
and must be repeated at the repetitive inspection intervals provided in
paragraphs (k)(2) and (l)(2) of this AD. Since paragraphs (k)(1) and
(l)(1) of this AD are the initial checks for these airplanes, and the
intent is to do all of the actions specified in Boeing Service
Bulletins 767-27-0186 and 767-27-0187, both dated June 25, 2007, at the
time of modification, we disagree with making the requested change. No
change has been made to this final rule in this regard.

Request To Add Exception to Service Information

    Boeing requested that we add an exception to allow operators to
omit Step 5 of Work Packages 1 and 2 of Boeing Service Bulletins 767-
27-0186 and 767-27-0187, both dated June 25, 2007. Boeing stated that
Step 4 of Work Packages 1 and 2 of Boeing Service Bulletins 767-27-0186
and 767-27-0187, both dated June 25, 2007, states ``Install elevator
PCA input linkage. Refer to 767 AMM 27-31-06 as an accepted
procedure.'' Boeing stated that AMM 27-31-06 of the Boeing Aircraft
Maintenance Manual requires adjustment of the PCA input rods per Task
27-31-00, which adjusts the input rods for each elevator PCA to make
sure that the elevator aligns to the index plate. Boeing stated that
Step 5 of Work Packages 1 and 2 of Boeing Service Bulletins 767-27-0186
and 767-27-0187, both dated June 25, 2007, states, ``Do the elevator
PCA Mis-Rig test. Refer to 767 AMM 27-31-00 as an accepted procedure.''
Boeing stated that the PCA input rod adjustment per AMM 27-31-00 is a
precise rigging of the elevator PCA input rods. Boeing stated that a
subsequent mis-rig test, which tests for a gross mis-rig of the system,
is redundant and has no effect on correcting the unsafe condition.
    We agree with adding an exception in this final rule as requested.
We re-designated paragraph (n) of the NPRM (78 FR 12991, February 26,
2013) as paragraph (n)(1) of this final rule. We also added new
paragraph (n)(2) to this final rule to specify that for airplanes on
which an adjustment of the PCA input rods has been done as specified in
AMM 27-31-00 of the Boeing 767 Aircraft Maintenance Manual during the
accomplishment of Step 3.B.4 of Work Packages 1 and 2 of Boeing Service
Bulletins 767-27-0186 and 767-27-0187, both dated June 25, 2007, Step
3.B.5 of Work Packages 1 and 2 of Boeing Service Bulletins 767-27-0186
and 767-27-0187, both dated June 25, 2007, is not required. We have
also

added a reference to paragraph (n)(2) in paragraph (l)(1) of this final
rule.

Clarification of NPRM (78 FR 12991, February 26, 2013)

    The preamble of the NPRM (78 FR 12991, February 26, 2013) included
a table identifying revised paragraph identifiers. The second line of
the table stated that paragraph (b) of AD 2000-17-05, Amendment 39-
11879 (65 FR 51754, August 25, 2000), corresponds to paragraph (g)(4)
of the NPRM. We did not retain paragraph (b) of AD 2000-17-05;
therefore, there is no corresponding paragraph (g)(4) in the NPRM.
Since this table is not included in the final rule, no change has been
made to this final rule in this regard.

Additional Change Made to This AD

    Certain text in paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR 12991, February
26, 2013) has been redesignated as Note 1 to paragraph (h) in this
final rule, since that text is explanatory only.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 12991, February 26, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 12991, February 26, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 415 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Parts        U.S.                           Cost on U.S.
             Action                  Labor cost        cost     Airplanes    Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional check of the shear    4 work-hours x            $0          330  $340.............  $112,200.
 rivets (actions retained from    $85 per hour =
 AD 2000-17-05, Amendment 39-     $340.
 11879 (65 FR 51754, August 25,
 2000)).
Repetitive inspection of         2 work-hours x             0          335  $170 per           $56,950 per
 bellcrank assemblies (actions    $85 per hour =                             inspection cycle.  inspection
 retained from AD 2001-04-09,     $170 per                                                      cycle.
 Amendment 39-12128 (66 FR        inspection cycle.
 13227, March 5, 2001)).
Inspection of elevator PCA       23 work-hours x            0          390  $1,955...........  $762,450.
 bellcrank assemblies,            $85 per hour =
 functional test (pogo check),    $1,955.
 and elevator mis-rig check
 (new actions for Model 767
 airplanes having line numbers
 1-901).
Repetitive functional test       32 work-hours x            0          415  $2,720 per         $1,128,800 per
 (pogo check) (new action for     $85 per hour =                             inspection cycle.  inspection
 all Model 767 airplanes).        $2,720 per                                                    cycle.
                                  inspection cycle.
Repetitive elevator mis-rig      2 work-hours x             0          415  $170 per           $70,550 per
 check (new action for all        $85 per hour =                             inspection cycle.  inspection
 Model 767 airplanes).            $170 per                                                      cycle.
                                  inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs or
replacements that will be required based on the results of the
inspection, tests, and checks. We have no way of determining the number
of aircraft that might need these repairs or replacements.
    We estimate that reworking the bellcrank assembly will take about 6
work-hours, for a labor cost of $510 per airplane; however, we have no
definitive data to determine the cost of parts required. We have
received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost
estimate for replacing or overhauling the elevator PCA input rod
assembly, adjusting the elevator PCA input rod assemblies, and doing
structural inspections specified in this AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD might
be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directives
(ADs) 2000-17-05, Amendment 39-11879 (65 FR 51754, August 25, 2000);
and 2001-04-09, Amendment 39-12128 (66 FR 13227, March 5, 2001); and
adding the following new AD:

2013-25-03 the Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17699; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0095; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-197-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 3, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2000-17-05, Amendment 39-11879 (65 FR
51754, August 25, 2000); and AD 2001-04-09, Amendment 39-12128 (66
FR 13227, March 5, 2001). This AD affects AD 2007-24-08, Amendment
39-15274 (72 FR 67236, November 28, 2007).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all the Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of failed shear rivets in the
bellcrank assemblies of the elevator power control actuator (PCA).
We are issuing this AD to prevent continued operation with yielded
or failed shear rivets in the elevator PCA bellcrank assemblies, and
to prevent certain failures or jams in the elevator system from
causing a hardover of the elevator surface, resulting in a
significant pitch upset and possible loss of control of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Functional Check

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD
2000-17-05, Amendment 39-11879 (65 FR 51754, August 25, 2000). For
Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes, line numbers 1
through 800 inclusive: Within 30 days after September 11, 2000 (the
effective date AD 2000-17-05), perform a functional check of one
shear rivet in all six elevator PCA bellcrank assemblies to
determine the condition of the shear rivets, in accordance with
Paragraph 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-27A0166, dated August 17, 2000. Doing the
actions required by paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) of this AD
terminates the requirements of this paragraph, paragraph (g)(2), and
paragraph (g)(3) of this AD.
    (1) If all penetration depths, when measured per Figure 2 of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0166, dated August 17, 2000,
are 0.50 inch or more, no further action is required by paragraph
(g), including all subparagraphs, of this AD.
    (2) If any penetration depth, when measured per Figure 2 of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0166, dated August 17, 2000, is
0.35 inch or more, but less than 0.50 inch, rework or replace the
bellcrank assembly with a new or serviceable bellcrank assembly
within 400 flight hours after accomplishing the functional check.
After installation of a new or serviceable bellcrank assembly, and
prior to further flight, repeat the functional check of all the
bellcrank assemblies to make sure the rivets are still in good
condition (as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
27A0166, dated August 17, 2000) after installation, in accordance
with Figure 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0166, dated
August 17, 2000.
    (3) If any penetration depth, when measured per Figure 2 of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0166, dated August 17, 2000, is
less than 0.35 inch, prior to further flight, rework or replace the
bellcrank assembly with a new or serviceable bellcrank assembly.
After installation of a new or serviceable bellcrank assembly, and
prior to further flight, repeat the functional check of all the
bellcrank assemblies to make sure the rivets are still in good
condition (as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
27A0166, dated August 17, 2000) after installation, in accordance
with Figure 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0166, dated
August 17, 2000.

(h) Retained Repetitive Tests

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD
2001-04-09, Amendment 39-12128 (66 FR 13227, March 5, 2001), with
revised provisions for repetitive tests. For all airplanes: Within
90 days after March 20, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-04-09),
perform a test of the elevator PCA bellcranks to determine if an
elevator PCA is rigged incorrectly due to yielded or failed shear
rivets in a bellcrank assembly, in accordance with Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-27A0168 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F
series airplanes); or 767-27A0169 (for Model 767-400ER series
airplanes); both dated November 21, 2000. Repeat the test thereafter
at least every 400 flight hours. Doing the actions required by
paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) of this AD terminates the requirements
of this paragraph.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD:  As of March 20, 2001(the
effective date of AD 2001-04-09), and until the accomplishment of
the actions required by paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) of this AD, as
applicable, accomplishment of the repetitive tests required by
paragraph (h) of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the
functional check of the elevator system required by a certification
maintenance requirement (CMR) that is documented as Item Number 27-
31-00-5B in the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD),
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD. After
accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (j), (k), and
(l) of this AD, accomplishment of the repetitive tests required by
paragraph (h) of this AD are not acceptable for compliance with the
functional check of the elevator system required by a CMR that is
documented as Item Number 27-31-00-5B in the Boeing 767 MPD.

(i) Retained Follow-On Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD
2001-04-09, Amendment 39-12128 (66 FR 13227, March 5, 2001). For all
airplanes: If an elevator PCA is determined to be rigged incorrectly
during any test required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further
flight, do a one-time inspection to measure penetration depth of the
shear rivets of all three elevator bellcrank assemblies of the
affected elevator surface, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767-27A0168 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series
airplanes); or 767-27A0169 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes);
both dated November 21, 2000. Doing the actions required by
paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) of this AD terminates the requirements
of this paragraph, paragraph (i)(1), and paragraph (i)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) If the measured penetration depth of the shear rivets on all
bellcrank assemblies is 0.50 inch or more: Before further flight,
re-rig the elevator PCA correctly, in accordance with Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-27A0168 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F
series airplanes; or 767-27A0169 (for Model 767-400ER series
airplanes); both dated November 21, 2000.
    (2) If the measured shear rivet penetration depth on any single
bellcrank assembly is less than 0.50 inch: Before further flight,
repair the bellcrank assembly by replacing the shear rivets or
replace the bellcrank assembly, and reassemble and re-rig the
elevator control system, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767-27A0168 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series
airplanes); or 767-27A0169 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes);
both dated November 21, 2000.

(j) New Inspection and Modification

    For airplanes having line numbers 1 through 901 inclusive:
Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do a general
visual inspection of the three PCA bellcrank assemblies on each
elevator to determine the part numbers (P/Ns) of the bellcrank
assemblies and to determine whether the bellcrank assembly has shear
rivets, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-27-0186, dated June 25, 2007 (for Model 767-
200, -300, and -300F series airplanes); or 767-27-0187, dated June
25, 2007 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes).
    (1) If the bellcrank assembly has P/N 252T2118-4 or 252T2118-5,
and has solid rivets, no further action is required by this
paragraph.
    (2) If the bellcrank is a solid one-piece bellcrank with no
rivets, no further action is required by this paragraph.
    (3) If the bellcrank assembly has P/N 252T2118-1, 252T2118-2, or
252T2118-3, and has shear rivets, before further flight, do the
action specified in either paragraph (j)(3)(i) or (j)(3)(ii) of this
AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-27-0186, dated June 25, 2007 (for Model 767-
200, -300, and -300F series airplanes); or 767-27-0187, dated June
25, 2007 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes); except as provided
by paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (i) Rework the existing bellcrank to replace the shear rivets
with solid rivets.
    (ii) Install a new, solid one-piece (no rivets) bellcrank
assembly having P/N 252T2118-6.

(k) New Repetitive Functional Test (Pogo Check)

    (1) For airplanes having line numbers 1 through 901 inclusive:
Before further flight after doing the inspection and applicable
corrective actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, do a
functional test (pogo check) on each of the six elevator PCA input
rod assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0186, dated June 25, 2007 (for
Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes); or 767-27-0187,
dated June 25, 2007 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes).
    (2) For all airplanes: At the latest of the times specified in
paragraphs (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), and (k)(2)(iii) of this AD, do a
functional test (pogo check) on each of the six elevator PCA input
rod assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0200, dated June 25, 2007 (for
Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes); or 767-27-0201,
dated June 27, 2007 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes). Repeat
the pogo check thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight
hours.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 12,000 total flight hours.
    (ii) Within 12,000 flight hours after completion of the most
recent pogo check.
    (iii) Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD.
    (3) If any elevator PCA input rod assembly fails to meet any
functional test requirement of this AD, before further flight,
replace the elevator PCA input rod assembly with a new or
serviceable assembly, or overhaul the elevator PCA input rod
assembly, in accordance with the applicable service information
identified in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and (k)(3)(ii) of this AD, except
as provided by paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (i) For replacing or overhauling the assembly on Model 767-200,
-300, and -300F airplanes: Use Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0186,
dated June 25, 2007; or 767-27-0200, dated June 25, 2007; as
applicable.
    (ii) For replacing or overhauling the assembly on Model 767-
400ER airplanes: Use Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0187, dated June
25, 2007; or 767-27-0201, dated June 27, 2007; as applicable.

(l) New Elevator PCA Check (Mis-rig Check)

    (1) Except as provided by paragraph (n)(2) of this AD, for
airplanes having line numbers 1 through 901 inclusive: Before
further flight after doing the actions required by paragraphs (j)
and (k) of this AD, do a check of the elevator PCA rigging, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 767-27-0186, dated June 25, 2007 (for Model 767-200, -300,
and -300F series airplanes); or 767-27-0187, dated June 25, 2007
(for Model 767-400ER series airplanes).
    (2) For all airplanes: At the latest of the times specified in
paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), and (l)(2)(iii) of this AD, do a
check of the elevator PCA rigging, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0202,
Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -
300F series airplanes); or 767-27-0203, Revision 1, dated February
21, 2008 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes). Repeat the mis-rig
check thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours.
    (i) Before the accumulation 6,000 total flight hours.
    (ii) Within 6,000 flight hours after the completion of the most
recent mis-rig check, or after completion of the most recent
bellcrank repetitive check, as specified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767-27A0168, dated November 20, 2000.
    (iii) Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD.
    (3) If a mis-rig condition is found, before further flight,
adjust the PCA input rod assemblies and do a structural inspection
for damage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0202, Revision 1, dated February 21,
2008 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F airplanes); or 767-27-0203,
Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008 (for Model 767-400ER airplanes).
If any damage is found during any structural inspection, before
further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a
repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification
basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to
this AD.

(m) Terminating Action

    Accomplishment of the requirements of paragraphs (j), (k), and
(l) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h),
and (i) of this AD.

(n) Service Bulletin Exceptions

    (1) Where Boeing Service Bulletins 767-27-0186 and 767-27-0187,
both dated June 25, 2007, specify the use of grease BMS 3-24, this
AD allows the alternate use of grease BMS 3-33.
    (2) For airplanes on which an adjustment of the PCA input rods
has been done as specified in Boeing 767 AMM 27-31-00 during the
accomplishment of Step 3.B.4 of Work Packages 1 and 2 of Boeing
Service Bulletins 767-27-0186 and 767-27-0187, both dated June 25,
2007: Accomplishment of the actions specified in Step 3.B.5 of Work
Package 1 and 2 of Boeing Service Bulletins 767-27-0186 and 767-27-
0187, both dated June 25, 2007, is not required by this AD.

(o) Method of Compliance for Paragraph (k) of AD 2007-24-08, Amendment
39-15274 (72 FR 67236, November 28, 2007)

    For airplanes identified in paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this
AD: Doing the actions required by paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) of
this AD is acceptable for compliance with the actions required by
paragraph (k) of AD 2007-24-08, Amendment 39-15274 (72 FR 67236,
November 28, 2007).
    (1) Group 1, Configuration 2, airplanes identified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0197, Revision 1, dated
July 19, 2007.
    (2) Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes identified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0198, Revision 1, dated
July 19, 2007.

(p) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
bellcrank assembly, P/N 252T2118-1, 252T2118-2, or 252T2118-3, on
any airplane.

(q) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0202
(for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F airplanes); or 767-27-0203 (for
Model 767-400ER airplanes); both dated June 25, 2007, which are not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(r) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2001-04-09, Amendment 39-
12128 (66 FR 13227, March 5, 2001), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding requirements of this AD.

(s) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Marie Hogestad,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference in this AD may be obtained at the
addresses specified in paragraphs (t)(7) and (t)(8) of this AD.

(t) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 3, 2014.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0186, dated June 25, 2007.
    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0187, dated June 25, 2007.
    (iii) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0200, dated June 25, 2007.
    (iv) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0201, dated June 27, 2007.
    (v) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0202, Revision 1, dated
February 21, 2008.
    (vi) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0203, Revision 1, dated
February 21, 2008.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67236, November 28, 2007).
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0197,
Revision 1, dated July 19, 2007.
    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0198,
Revision 1, dated July 19, 2007.
    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 20, 2001 (66 FR 13227, March 5, 2001).
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0168, dated November
21, 2000.
    (ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0169, dated November
21, 2000.
    (6) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 11, 2000 (65 FR 51754, August 25, 2000).
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0166, dated August 17,
2000.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (7) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (8) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (9) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 4, 2013.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-01433 Filed 1-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17249-17251]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06402]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69135; File No. SR-BOX-2013-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the BOX Price Improvement Period (``PIP'') Rule 7150

March 14, 2013.
    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 March 7, 2013, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the BOX Price Improvement Period
(``PIP'') Rule 7150, to provide that in instances where a Primary
Improvement Order is matched by only one competing order, the
Initiating Participant may retain priority for up to fifty percent
(50%) of the size of the PIP Order.\3\ The text of the proposed rule
change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet
Web site at http://boxexchange.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``PIP Order'' is defined within Rule 7150 to mean a Customer
Order designated for the PIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the BOX Price Improvement Period
(``PIP'') Rule 7150, to provide that in instances where a Primary
Improvement Order is matched by only one competing order, the
Initiating Participant may retain priority for up to fifty percent
(50%) of the size of the PIP Order.\4\ This is a competitive filing
that is based on price improvement auction rules of the Chicago Board
Option Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') \5\ and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC
(``Phlx'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``PIP Order'' is defined within Rule 7150 to mean a Customer
Order designated for the PIP.
    \5\ See CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F).
    \6\ See PHLX Rule 1080(n)(ii)(E)(2)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon conclusion of the PIP, BOX Rule 7150(g) allows the Initiating
Participant to retain certain priority and trade allocation privileges
for both Single-Priced Primary Improvement Orders and Max Improvement
Primary Improvement Orders (``Improvement Orders''). Currently, Rule
7150(g)(1) provides that when a Single-Priced Primary Improvement Order
is matched by or matches any competing Improvement Order(s) \7\ and/or
non-Public Customers' Unrelated Order(s) at any price level, the
Initiating Participant retains priority for only forty percent (40%) of
the original size of the PIP Order, notwithstanding the time priority
of the Primary Improvement Order, competing Improvement Order(s) or
non-Public Customer Unrelated

Order(s). The Initiating Participant receives additional allocation
only after all other orders have been filled at the final price level.
Additionally, Rule 7150(g)(2) provides that when a Max Improvement
Primary Improvement Order is submitted by the Initiating Participant,
the Initiating Participant retains priority for 40% of the remaining
size of the PIP Order at the price level where the balance of the PIP
Order is fully executed. The result of both these current rules is that
even when an Improvement Order is matched by only one competing order,
the Initiating Participant's allocation priority remains at forty
percent (40%) and the Participant who responded receives the remaining
sixty percent (60%) of the PIP Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An Improvement Order is an order submitted on the opposite
side of the PIP Order, competing with the Primary Improvement Order
for execution against the PIP Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend both Rule 7150(g)(1) and 7150(g)(2)
to increase the Initiating Participant's allocation priority to fifty
percent (50%) when there is only one competing order for a Single
Priced Primary Improvement Order or Max Improvement Primary Improvement
Order.
    The Exchange believes that increasing the Initiating Participant's
allocation priority in these instances fairly distributes the PIP Order
when there are only two counterparties to the PIP Order involved, and
that doing so is reasonable because of the value that Initiating
Participants provide to the market. Initiating Participants guarantee
the PIP Order an execution at the NBBO or at a better price, and are
subject to market risk while the PIP Order is exposed to other BOX
Participants. While other PIP Participants are also subject to market
risk, those providing responses in the PIP through Improvement Orders
are not permitted to cancel their orders, and may only modify their
Improvement Order, including reducing their order quantity, by
providing a better price. The Exchange believes that the Initiating
Participant acts in a critical role in the PIP as their willingness to
guarantee the customer PIP Order an execution at a price equal to or
better than NBBO is the keystone to the customer order gaining the
opportunity for price improvement.
    BOX's PIP allows for broad participation in its competitive auction
by all types of market Participants (e.g. Public Customers, Broker
Dealers and Market Makers). All Options Participants are able to
receive the PIP Broadcasts and may respond by submitting competing
Improvement Orders. The Exchange believes that this proposal will not
discourage Participants from entering into or responding to a PIP
Order, and is meant only to fairly distribute the allocation priority
in instances where there is only one competing order within the
auction.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7150(g)(6)(i)
regarding the PIP Surrender Quantity to delete specific references to
the trade allocation percentages and clarify how the trading system
handles the Surrender Quantity functionality. These references provide
that an Initiating Participant may designate a Surrender Quantity (a
lower amount of the PIP Order for which it retains priority and trade
allocation privileges), and changing the allocation when only one
competing order matches an Improvement Order eliminates the necessity
to define the surrender quantity that the Initiating Participant is
entitled to within the first sentence of Rule 7150(g)(6)(i). The
Exchange also proposes to amend this provision to clarify that under no
circumstances can the Initiating Participant receive more than its
maximum allowable allocation percentage upon conclusion of the PIP; 40%
with multiple competing orders and 50% with only one competing order.
    For example, at the commencement of the PIP the Initiating
Participant submits a PIP Order and Primary Improvement Order for 100
contracts and a PIP Surrender Quantity of 55 contracts, designating
that it is willing to surrender fifty-five (55%) of the PIP Order to
other PIP Participants. Therefore, the Initiating Participant is only
retaining priority of 45% of the PIP Order. If there is only competing
order this will be accepted because the Initiating Participant could
have received 50% of the PIP Order. However, when there is more than
one competing order then the Initiating Participant's allocation will
drop to its maximum allowable allocation percentage, or 40%.
    In the same scenario as above, but with the Initiating Participant
designating a Surrender Quantity of seventy-five (75%), the Initiating
Participant is only seeking to retain priority of 25% of the PIP Order.
This would be allowed regardless of the number of competing orders.
However, if the Initiating Participant designates a Surrender Quantity
of forty (40%), seeking to retain priority of 60% of the PIP Order,
this is not valid for either maximum allowable allocation percentage.
Therefore the Initiating Participant's priority would be dropped to 50%
(one competing order) or 40% (multiple competing orders.)
    After the notice of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, and
at least one week prior to the operative date, the Exchange will issue
an information circular to inform BOX Participants of the
implementation date for the trade allocation percentage changes on the
PIP.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
protects investors and is in the public interest because it fairly
distributes the allocation of the PIP Order between the Initiating
Participant and the Options Participant who responded when those
Participants are the only two counterparties to the PIP Order. The
Exchange believes that this proposed rule change may increase the
frequency with which Options Participants initiate a PIP Order which
may result in greater opportunity for price improvement for customers.

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

    The Exchange 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. This change is meant to more
fairly distribute the allocation priority when there are only two
counterparties to a PIP Order involved and BOX does not believe that
this change will discourage any Participants from entering into the
PIP.
    Furthermore, as indicated above the Exchange notes that the rule
change is being proposed as a competitive response to similar
provisions in the price improvement auction rules of the CBOE and PHLX
that have been approved by the Commission.\10\ The Exchange believes
this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among
the options exchanges and to establish more

uniform price improvement auctions rules on the various exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 4[sic] and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with 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 has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-BOX-2013-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-11 and should be
submitted on or before April 10, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06402 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69348-69349]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27175]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 147

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0402]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Big Foot Tension Leg Platform, Outer Continental
Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a permanent safety
zone around the Big Foot Tension Leg Platform (TLP), located in Walker
Ridge 29 on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to protect the facility from any
dangers associated with vessels operating outside the normal shipping
channels and fairways that are not providing service to or working with
the facility. Placing a permanent safety zone around the facility will
significantly reduce the threat of allisions, collisions, security
breaches, oil spills, releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the
safety of life, property, and the environment. We invite your comments
on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before February 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0402 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Michael Dougherty, District
Eight OCS, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    Under the authority provided in 43 U.S.C. 1333, 46 U.S.C. 70034,
and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(90), Title
33, CFR 147.1, 147.5, and 147.10 permit the establishment of safety
zones for facilities located on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for
the purpose of protecting life and property on the facilities, their
appurtenances and attending vessels, and on the adjacent waters within
the safety zones.
    On July 17, 2015, the Coast Guard published an interim rule and
request for comments titled Safety Zone; Big Foot TLP, Walker Ridge 29,
Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico (80 FR 42385). In
response to the rule, we received no comments. The rule established a
temporary safety zone for the Big Foot TLP. On May 1, 2019, the Coast
Guard received a request from the owner to make the safety zone
permanent. This proposed 500-meter safety zone is necessary to protect
the platform from inherent hazards associated with maritime traffic and
to protect vessel traffic, the facility, and the marine environment.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish an permanent OCS safety zone
extending 500 meters (1,640.4 feet) from the coordinates: Latitude N
26-55 longitude W 90-31-14.952.
    Transit into and through this area would be prohibited for any
vessels not providing service to or working with the Big Foot Tension
Leg Platform at Walker Ridge 29 (TLP) on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS). Entry into this OCS safety zone would be prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District
(District Commander) or a designated representative. Requests for entry
would be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This proposed regulatory action determination is based on safety
zone's location and its distance from both land and safety fairways.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the
location of the TLP on the Outer Continental Shelf, and its distance
from both land and safety fairways. Vessels traversing waters near the
proposed safety zone would be able to safely travel around the zone
using alternate routes. An exception to this proposed rule would
include attending vessels, as defined by 33 CFR 147.20. The District
Commander, or a designated representative, would consider requests to
transit through the proposed safety zone on a case-by-case basis.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
permanent safety zone might be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section IV.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the
establishment of a safety zone around an OCS facility to protect life,
property and the marine environment. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in
Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing
Procedures 5090.1. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147

    Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:

PART 147--SAFETY ZONES

0
1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend 33 CFR 147.861 to read as follows:

Sec.  147.861   Safety Zone; Big Foot Tension Leg Platform, Outer
Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico.

    (a) Description. The Big Foot Tension Leg Platform (TLP) is in the
deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico at Walker Ridge 29. The Big Foot
TLP is located at latitude N 26-55.308 and longitude W 90-31-14.952,
and the area within 500 meters of the Big Foot TLP, is a permanent
safety zone.
    (b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone
except for the following:
    (1) An attending vessel, as defined by 33 CFR 147.20, or
    (2) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District or a designated representative.

    Dated: December 10, 2019.
John P. Nadeau,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019-27175 Filed 12-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 147 (Friday, July 31, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45636-45638]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18754]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0816; FRL-9931-63-Region 4]

Air Plan Disapproval; Georgia: Disapproval of Automatic
Rescission Clause

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove a portion of a revision to the Georgia State Implementation
Plan (SIP), submitted through the Georgia's Department of Natural
Resources Environmental Protection Division (EPD), on January 13, 2011,
that would allow for the automatic rescission of federal permitting-
related requirements in certain circumstances. EPA is proposing to
disapprove Georgia's automatic rescission provision because the Agency
has preliminarily determined that this provision is not consistent with
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) or federal regulations related to SIPs.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0816, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0816,'' Air Regulatory Management
Section (formerly Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0816. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Lakeman can be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

    On September 8, 2011, EPA took final action to approve portions of
a requested revision to the Georgia SIP, submitted by EPD on January
13, 2011. See 76 FR 55572. Specifically, the portions of Georgia's
January 13, 2011, SIP submittal that EPA approved incorporated two
updates to the State's air quality regulations under Georgia's New
Source Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program. First, the SIP revision established appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to Georgia's PSD permitting
requirements for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Second, the SIP
revision incorporated provisions for implementing the PSD program for
the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). EPA noted in its September 8, 2011, final
rule approving portions of Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP submittal
that the Agency was still evaluating the portion of the SIP submittal
related to a provision (at 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv)) that would
automatically rescind portions of Georgia's SIP in the wake of certain
court decisions or other triggering

events (the automatic rescission clause), and consequently was not
taking action on that provision in that final action. See 76 FR at
55573. Today, EPA is proposing to disapprove the automatic rescission
clause at 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv) in Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP
submittal.\1\ More detail on EPA's analysis of Georgia's automatic
rescission clause is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On November 12, 2014, EPD submitted a SIP package that
included, among other things, an additional change to Georgia's PSD
rules at 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv), which is the provision at issue
in this notice. The revised version of Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv) continues to include the automatic rescission
clause at issue in today's notice. However, in its cover letter and
subsequent explanations of revisions, EPD did not address the change
made to 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv), nor did EPD ask the EPA to approve
any revision to this provision. Therefore, EPA does not consider the
change to 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv) included in the November 12,
2014, submittal to be part of an official SIP revision package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Analysis of Georgia's Submission Related to the Automatic
Rescission Clause

    As mentioned above, Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision
included a provision that allowed for the automatic rescission of
federal permitting-related requirements under certain circumstances.
Specifically, at 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv), Georgia's rules read as
follows: ``The definition and use of the term `subject to regulation'
in 40 CFR, Part 52.21, as amended June 3, 2010, is hereby incorporated
by reference; provided, however, that in the event all or any portion
of 40 CFR, Part 52.21 containing that term is: (I) Declared or adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional or stayed by the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit or for the District of Columbia
Circuit; or (II) withdrawn, repealed, revoked or otherwise rendered of
no force and effect by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Congress, or Presidential Executive Order. Such action shall
render the regulation as incorporated herein, or that portion thereof
that may be affected by such action, as invalid, void, stayed, or
otherwise without force and effect for purposes of this rule upon the
date such action becomes final and effective; provided, further, that
such declaration, adjudication, stay, or other action described herein
shall not affect the remaining portions, if any, of the regulation as
incorporated herein, which shall remain of full force and effect as if
such portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional or
stayed or otherwise invalidated or effected were not originally a part
of this rule. The Board declares that it would [not] have incorporated
the remaining parts of the federal regulation if it had known that such
portion thereof would be declared or adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional or stayed or otherwise rendered of no force and
effect.''
    EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of Georgia's January 13,
2011, SIP submittal that would add the automatic rescission clause at
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv) to the SIP. In assessing the
approvability of this clause, EPA considered two key factors: (1)
Whether the public will be given reasonable notice of any change to the
SIP that occurs as a result of the automatic rescission clause; and (2)
whether any future change to the SIP that occurs as a result of the
automatic rescission clause would be consistent with EPA's
interpretation of the effect of the triggering action (e.g., the extent
of an administrative or judicial stay) on federal permitting
requirements at 40 CFR 52.21. These criteria are derived from the SIP
revision procedures set forth in the CAA and federal regulations.
    Regarding public notice, CAA section 110(l) provides that any
revision to a SIP submitted by a State to EPA for approval ``shall be
adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing.'' See
42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Under Georgia's proposed automatic rescission
clause, the SIP would automatically be revised as a result of a
triggering action without public notice. To the extent that there is
any ambiguity regarding how a court order or other triggering action
impacts the federal permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21, that
ambiguity will lead to ambiguity regarding the extent to which the
triggering action results in a SIP revision (and indeed, whether a
particular court ruling or other action in fact triggers an automatic
SIP revision under Georgia's automatic rescission clause). EPA
preliminarily concludes that Georgia's proposed automatic rescission
clause would not provide reasonable public notice of a SIP revision as
required by CAA 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
    EPA's consideration of whether any SIP change resulting from the
proposed automatic rescission clause would be consistent with EPA's
interpretation of the effect of the triggering action on federal
permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 is based on 40 CFR 51.105.
Under 40 CFR 51.105, ``[r]evisions of a plan, or any portion thereof,
will not be considered part of an applicable plan until such revisions
have been approved by the Administrator in accordance with this part.''
However, the Georgia rescission clause takes effect immediately upon
certain triggering actions without any EPA intervention. The effect of
this is that EPA is not given the opportunity to determine the effect
and extent of the triggering court order or federal law change on the
federal permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21; instead, the SIP is
modified without EPA's approval. EPA preliminarily concludes that
Georgia's proposed automatic rescission clause is inconsistent with 40
CFR 51.105.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to disapprove the provision in Georgia's January
13, 2011, SIP submittal (at Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv)) that
would automatically rescind permitting-related federal requirements in
certain circumstances. Previously, EPA approved the remainder of
Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision, which related to PSD
requirements for GHG-emitting sources and for the PM2.5
NAAQS. See 76 FR 55572 (September, 8, 2011). Today's action does not
change what EPA previously approved. EPA notes that the State has the
option to withdraw the portion of the January 13, 2011, SIP submittal
that is the subject of this disapproval action prior to EPA taking
final action. Also, EPA notes that this disapproval action does not
trigger a requirement for a Federal Implementation Plan because this
provision is not a necessary or required element for the SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely disapproves a state law as not meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse gases,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: July 22, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-18754 Filed 7-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 203 (Monday, October 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58962-58963]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23266]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the
Securities and Exchange Commission Asset Management Advisory Committee
(``AMAC'') will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at
10:00 a.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be conducted by remote means. Members of the
public

may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's website at
www.sec.gov.

STATUS: The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. and will be open to the
public by webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:  On October 20, 2021, the Commission issued
notice of the meeting (Release No. 34-93391), indicating that the
meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written
comments to AMAC. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a
majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
    The meeting will include a discussion of matters in the asset
management industry relating to the Evolution of Advice and the Small
Advisers and Small Funds Subcommittees, including potential
recommendations.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: October 20, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23266 Filed 10-21-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P