[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17511-17514]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0012; Notice 1]

BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: BMW of North America, LLC (BMW), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2017 BMW 330i and 330i xDrive motor vehicles do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation vehicle Trailer
Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. BMW filed a noncompliance
report dated January 26, 2017. BMW also petitioned NHTSA on February
17, 2017, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is May 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If

comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies
are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you
have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: BMW of North America, LLC (BMW), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2017 BMW 330i and 330i xDrive motor vehicles do
not fully comply with paragraphs S4.3(c) and S4.3(d) of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and
Motor Home/Recreation vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity
Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or less. BMW filed a noncompliance information report dated
January 26, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. BMW also petitioned NHTSA on February 17,
2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of BMW's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 3,300 MY 2017 BMW 330i and
330i xDrive motor vehicles, manufactured between August 1, 2016, and
December 1, 2016, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: BMW explains that the noncompliance is that the
tire information placard on the subject vehicles states that the
vehicles were equipped with 18-inch tires when in fact the subject
vehicles were actually equipped with 17-inch tires. The tire
information placard also states that the cold tire inflation pressure
for the rear tires is 240kPa/35psi when it should read 220kPa/32psi.
Thus, the subject vehicles do not fully comply with paragraphs S4.3(c)
and (d) of FMVSS No. 110.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraphs S4.3(c) and (d) of FMVSS No. 110 States
in pertinent:

    S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete
vehicle, shall show the information specified in S4.3 (a) through
(g), and may show, at the manufacturer's option, the information
specified in S4.3 (h) and (i), on a placard permanently affixed to
the driver's side B-pillar. In each vehicle without a driver's side
B-pillar and with two doors on the driver's side of the vehicle
opening in opposite directions, the placard shall be affixed on the
forward edge of the rear side door . . .
    (c) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation
pressure for front, rear and spare tires subject to the limitations
of S4.3.4. For full size spare tires, the statement ``see above''
may, at the manufacturer's option replace manufacturer's recommended
cold tire inflation pressure. If no spare tire is provided, the word
``none'' must replace the manufacturer's recommended cold tire
inflation pressure . . .
    (d) Tire size designation, indicated by the headings ``size'' or
``original tire size,'' and ``spare tire'' or ``spare,'' for the
tires installed at the time of first purchase for purposes other
than resale. For full size spare tires, the statement ``see above''
may, at the manufacturer's option replace the tire size designation.
If no spare tire is provided, the word ``none'' must replace the
tire size designation; . . .

    V. Summary of BMW's Petition: BMW described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, BMW submitted the following reasoning:
    (a) Overview of Tire Information Placards for 17-inch Tires and 18-
inch Tires: Although affected vehicles were properly equipped with 17-
inch tires, the FMVSS No. 110 tire information placard states that the
vehicles were equipped with 18-inch tires. The placard includes the
manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure and tire size
designation for the 18-inch tires.
    Additionally, affected vehicles were equipped with a tire
information placard intended for the BMW 320i model, although affected
vehicles are the BMW 330i and 330i xDrive models.
    Notably, the tire information placard for the 18-inch rear tires
denotes a cold tire inflation pressure value of 35psi, whereas the
placard for the 17-inch rear tire denotes a cold tire inflation
pressure value of 32psi. This will not result in a vehicle overload
condition as explained in further detail below.
    (b) Using Tire Information Placard to Set Tire Pressure: If a
vehicle operator uses the tire information placard to set the tire
pressures, the tire pressures will be set at 32psi and 35psi for the
front and for the rear tires, respectively. This will not lead to a
vehicle overload condition as explained below:
    For the front tires, the tire information placard displays the
manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure value which is
identical to that which is required for the tires equipped on the
vehicles.
    For the rear tires, the tire information placard displays the
manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure value, which is
larger than that which is required for the tires equipped on the
vehicle.
    Therefore, a vehicle operator would not inflate the front and rear
tires to a tire pressure which is lower than that which is required. In
other petitions in which there exists the possibility to inflate tires
to a tire pressure value which is lower than the required value,
calculations can be performed to show that even in those cases, the
equipped tires at the lower tire pressure value still have sufficient
load carrying capacity, and therefore will not lead to a vehicle
overload condition. Such calculations can be performed using either
axle load limits, or using individual tire load limits.
    However, for the vehicles that are the subject of this petition,
that possibility does not exist. The vehicle operator would not
underinflate the front tires or the rear tires; therefore, such
calculations are not necessary in this petition.
    (c) Using Other Information Sources to Set Tire Pressure: If a
vehicle operator notices that the tires depicted on the tire
information placard do not correspond to the tires equipped on the
vehicle, there are a number of information sources and services
available, which can be used to identify the correct tire pressure and,
therefore, achieve the

proper inflation level for the tires equipped on the vehicle.
     Sources That Point to the Vehicle Owner's Manual
    --FMVSS No. 110 Section 4.3(f) requires that the tire information
placard contain the following statement: ``See Owner's Manual for
Additional Information''. Therefore, the tire information placard will
help point the vehicle operator to the Owner's Manual in order to
identify the correct tire inflation pressures for use on the vehicle.
    --FMVSS No. 138 Section 4.5(a) requires that the Owner's Manual
contain the following text:
    ``Each tire, including the spare (if provided), should be checked
monthly when cold and inflated to the inflation pressure recommended by
the vehicle manufacturer on the vehicle placard or tire inflation
pressure label. (If your vehicle has tires of a different size than the
size indicated on the vehicle placard or tire inflation pressure label,
you should determine the proper tire inflation pressure for those
tires.)'' (Emphasis added.)
    Vehicle Operators who attempt to check the vehicle's tire pressure
on a routine schedule (e.g., monthly, as noted above), or when
necessary, would be pointed to the Owner's Manual for additional
clarifying information. Therefore, after reviewing this information, it
is likely that they would inflate the tires to the recommended cold
tire inflation pressure. This is explained in further detail below.
    A vehicle operator could check the specific tires installed on the
vehicle which, in this case, are 17-inch tires. The information that is
stamped onto the sidewall of the tires identifies the tire size.
Subsequent to checking and identifying the installed tires, the vehicle
operator could consult the vehicle Owner's Manual, or contact BMW
Roadside AssistanceTM, BMW AssistTM, or BMW
Customer Relations, for further information in order to set the correct
tire pressure. This is explained in further detail below.
     Owner's Manual
    The vehicle Owner's Manual contains information pertaining to the
various tire sizes and tire pressures available for use on the affected
vehicles.
    Affected vehicles contain a tire information placard denoting 18-
inch tires having a front, and rear, tire pressure of 32psi and 35psi.
However, affected vehicles (BMW 330i, 330i xDrive) were equipped with
17-inch tires in which a front, and a rear, tire pressure should be
32psi. Therefore, a vehicle operator would be able to check the Owner's
manual, identify the correct tires equipped on the vehicle, and then
set the tire inflation pressures to the correct levels.
    Additionally, affected vehicles are also equipped with and in-
vehicle electronic Owner's Manual accessed through the
iDriveTM controller containing the same information as in
the hardcopy Owner's Manual.
    Furthermore, the electronic Owner's Manual also contains contact
information for BMW Roadside AssistanceTM, and if equipped
also BMW AssistTM, and BMW Customer Relations. Vehicle
operators can use these additional information sources and services to
identify the correct tires equipped on the vehicle, and then set the
tire inflation pressures to the correct levels.
     BMW Roadside AssistanceTM
    BMW Roadside AssistanceTM (available 24 hours/day)
representatives have information available indicating by vehicle model
and model year, all of the available tire sizes and specifications for
the affected vehicles. All affected vehicles contain a reference to,
and instructions for contacting, BMW Roadside AssistanceTM
in the vehicle Owner's Manual. Therefore, if contacted, BMW Roadside
AssistanceTM would be able to help the vehicle operator
determine the correct tire pressure for use on the vehicle.
    Vehicle operators are able to contact BMW Roadside
AssistanceTM using the toll-free telephone number located:

--on the BMW Roadside AssistanceTM Card located in the
vehicle's portfolio
--on one, or more, BMW Roadside AssistanceTM specific Labels
in the vehicle
--within the vehicle's Quick Reference Guide
--within the vehicle's Service and Warranty Book.

    Vehicle Operators are also able to contact BMW Roadside
AssistanceTM using the:

-- in-vehicle iDriveTM controller and menu option for BMW
Roadside AssistanceTM
--in-vehicle emergency call button on the overhead console

     BMW AssistTM
    BMW AssistTM (available 24 hours/day) representatives
have information available indicating by vehicle model and model year,
all of the available tire sizes and specifications for the affected
vehicles. All affected vehicles contain a reference to, and
instructions for contacting, BMW AssistTM in the vehicle
Owner's Manual. Therefore, if contacted, BMW AssistTM would
be able to help the vehicle operator determine the correct tire
pressures for use on the vehicle.
    Vehicle Operators are able to contact BMW AssistTM by
using the:

--in-vehicle iDriveTM controller and menu option for BMW
AssistTM
--in-vehicle emergency call button on the overhead console

    Vehicles with BMW AssistTM contain a BMW
AssistTM Book located in the vehicle's portfolio with
contact information for BMW AssistTM, BMW Roadside
AssistanceTM, and BMW Customer Relations.
     BMW Customer Relations
    If a vehicle operator contacts BMW Customer Relations, and provides
the Vehicle Identification Number, a Customer Relations Representative
will be able to inform the vehicle operator of the specific vehicle
configuration. Therefore, if contacted, BMW Customer Relations would be
able to help the vehicle operator determine the correct tire pressures
for use on the vehicle.
    Vehicle Operators are able to contact BMW Customer Relations by:

--Using the toll free telephone number located in the vehicle Owner's
Manual and the Service and Warranty Book
--using the in-vehicle iDriveTM controller and menu option
for BMW Customer Relations
--contacting BMW AssistTM who can, if necessary, transfer
the vehicle operator to BMW Customer Relations
    (d) Field Experience:

Owner Contacts to BMW Customer Relations

    BMW Customer Relations has not received any contacts from vehicle
owners regarding this issue. Therefore, BMW is unaware that any vehicle
owner has encountered this issue.

Accidents/Injuries

    BMW is unaware of any accidents or injuries that have occurred as a
result of this issue.
    (e) Prior NHTSA Grants to Manufacturer Petitions: NHTSA has
previously granted petitions for inconsequential noncompliance
regarding FMVSS No. 110 involving vehicles whereby the tire information
placard contained tire size and tire pressure information which did not
match the tires equipped on the vehicle. In particular, it was shown
that although the tire information placard displayed the manufacturer's
recommended cold tire inflation pressure which was a smaller value than
that which was required for the tires equipped on the vehicle, the load
carrying capacity of the equipped tires, at this smaller tire pressure,
was still sufficient and would not lead to a vehicle overload
condition.

    For the affected vehicles that are the subject of this petition,
the FMVSS No. 110 tire information placard displays the manufacturer's
recommended cold tire inflation pressure value for the front tires
which is identical to that which is required for the tires equipped on
the vehicle and, displays the manufacturer's recommended cold tire
inflation pressure value for the rear tires which is larger than the
value which is required for the tires equipped on the vehicle.
Consequently, there is no risk of an underinflated tire, the load
carrying capacity of the equipped tires is still sufficient and,
therefore, there is no risk of a vehicle overload condition.
    Nevertheless, as a reference, and for comparison to this petition,
NHTSA has granted petitions from manufacturers in cases where the tire
information placard displayed a tire inflation pressure value which was
smaller than that which was required for the tires equipped on the
vehicle. (See BMW, 81 FR 62970, September 13, 2016; BMW, 78 FR 76408,
December 17, 2013; and Volkswagen, 78 FR 28287, May 14, 2013)
    (f) Vehicle Production: Vehicle production has been corrected to
conform to FMVSS No. 110 Section 4.3(c) and S4.3(d).
    BMW concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that BMW no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after BMW
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-07164 Filed 4-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 42725-42727]
[DOCID:fr24au09-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60518; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 10.12 (Minor Rule Plan)

August 18, 2009.
    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 July 29, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 Rule 10.12-Minor Rule Plan. The text
of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 to the 19b-4 form.
A copy of this filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at http:/
/www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The NYSE Arca Minor Rule Plan (``MRP'') fosters compliance with
applicable rules and also helps to reduce the number and extent of rule
violations committed by Options Trading Permit (``OTP'') Holders, OTP
Firms and associated persons. The prompt imposition of a financial
penalty helps to quickly educate and improve the conduct of OTP
Holders, OTP Firms and associated persons that have engaged in
inadvertent or otherwise minor violations of the Exchange's rules. By
promptly imposing a meaningful financial penalty for such violations,
the MRP focuses on correcting conduct before it gives rise to more
serious enforcement action.
    The Exchange is now proposing to incorporate additional violations
into the MRP, these violations include (i) trading in restricted
classes; and (ii) failure to report position and account information.
The Exchange is also proposing to increase fine levels for certain
violations presently included in the MRP. The increases [sic] fine
levels will be applicable for violations of due diligence, priority
rules and order exposure rules. A brief description of each proposed
changes [sic] is shown below.
Proposed Rules 10.12(h)(22) and 10.12(k)(i)(22)
    NYSE Arca Rule 5.4(a) provides, with limited exceptions, that the
Exchange may prohibit any opening purchase transactions in a series of
options to the extent it deems such action necessary or appropriate.
Accordingly, OTP Holders effecting opening transactions in restricted
series, that are inconsistent with the terms of any such restriction,
will be considered to be in violation of Rule 5.4(a). The Exchange is
proposing to incorporate violations related to trading in restricted
series into the MRP under Exchange Rule 10.12(h)(22).
    The Exchange is proposing to implement a fine of $1,000 for the
first violation in a rolling twenty-four month period. A second
violation within the same period would be allocated a $2,500 fine and a
third violation would be allocated a $5,000 fine. The schedule of fines
will be included under Rule 10.12(k)(i)(22). Any subsequent violations
within a rolling twenty-four month period would be subject to formal
disciplinary proceedings by the Exchange. NYSE Arca believes that
establishing a rolling twenty-four month period for cumulative
violations will serve as an effective deterrent to future violative
conduct.
    NYSE Arca believes that in most cases these violations may be
handled efficiently through the MRP, however, as with other violations,
any egregious activity or activity that is believed to be manipulative
will continue to be subject to formal disciplinary proceedings.
Proposed Rules 10.12(h)(23) and 10.12(k)(i)(23)
    Among other things, Rule 6.6(a) requires each OTP Holder and OTP
Firm to report to the Exchange the account and position information of
any customer who, acting alone, or in concert with others, on the
previous business day maintained aggregate long or short positions on
the same side of the market of 200 or more contracts of any single
class of option contracts dealt in on the Exchange. OTP Holders and OTP
Firms report this information on the Large Option Position Report
(``LOPR'').
    NYSE Arca is proposing to incorporate violations for failing to
accurately report position and account information in accordance with
Rule 6.6(a) into the MRP. The Exchange believes most of these
violations are inadvertent and technical in nature. Not having LOPR
reporting violation necessarily subject to formal

disciplinary proceedings will allow the Exchange to more expeditiously
process routine violations under the MRP Plan.
    In addition, NYSE Arca, as a member of the Intermarket Surveillance
Group (``ISG''), as well as certain other self-regulatory
organizations, have entered into an agreement pursuant to Section 17(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended) (``17d-2
Agreement''), which incorporates the surveillance and sanctions of LOPR
reporting violations. As such, the SROs have agreed that their
respective rules concerning the reporting of large option positions are
common rules. As a result, adding LOPR reporting violations to the MRP
will further result in the consistency of rules among SROs who are
parties to the 17d-2 Agreement with respect to LOPR reporting
surveillance.
    The Exchange is proposing to implement a fine of $1,000 for the
first violation in a rolling twenty-four month period. A second
violation within the same period would be allocated a $2,500 fine and a
third violation would be allocated a $5,000 fine. The schedule of fines
will be included under Rule 10.12(k)(i)(23). Any subsequent violations
within a rolling twenty-four month period would be subject to formal
disciplinary proceedings by the Exchange. NYSE Arca believes that
establishing a rolling twenty-four month period for cumulative
violations will serve as an effective deterrent to future violative
conduct.
    NYSE Arca believes that in most cases these LOPR reporting
violations may be handled efficiently through the MRP, however, as with
other violations, any egregious activity or activity that is believed
to be manipulative will continue to be subject to formal disciplinary
proceedings.
Changes to Rule 10.12(k)(i)(1), Rule 10.12(k)(i)(34), and Rule
10.12(k)(i)(40)
    NYSE Arca Rule 6.46(a) requires that a Floor Broker handling an
order is to use due diligence to execute the order at the best price or
prices available to him, in accordance with the Rules of the Exchange.
Violators of Rule 6.46(a) are subject to a sanction pursuant to the
MRP, specifically, Rule 10.12(k)(i)(1). Suggested fines for violations
of Rule 6.46(a) are presently $1,000 for the first violation in a
rolling twenty-four month period, $2,500 for a second violation within
the same period fine and a third violation is subject to a $3,500 fine.
    NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A is designed to ensure that orders are properly
exposed on the NYSE Arca electronic trading system prior to interaction
by the initiating firm. The rule states that users may not execute as
principal orders they represent as agent unless (i) agency orders are
first exposed on the Exchange for at least one (1) second or (ii) the
User has been bidding or offering on the Exchange for at least one (1)
second prior to receiving an agency order that is executable against
such bid or offer. This rule prevents a user from executing agency
orders to increase its economic gain from trading against the order
without first giving other trading interest on the Exchange an
opportunity to either trade with the agency order or to trade at the
execution price when the User was already bidding or offering on the
book. Violators of Rule 6.47A are subject to a sanction pursuant to the
MRP, specifically, Rule 10.12(k)(i)(34). Suggested fines for violations
of Rule 6.47A are presently $500 for the first violation in a rolling
twenty-four month period, $1,000 for a second violation within the same
period fine and a third violation is subject to a $2,500 fine.
    NYSE Arca Rule 6.75 governs the priority of bids and offers in open
outcry trading. In general, Rule 6.75 states that the highest bid/
lowest offer shall have priority over all other orders. In the event
there are two or more bids/offers for the same option contract
representing the best price and one such bid/offer is displayed in the
Consolidated Book, such bid shall have priority over any other bid at
the post. In addition, if two or more bids/offers represent the best
price and a bid/offer displayed in the Consolidated Book is not
involved, priority shall be afforded to such bids in the sequence in
which they are made. Rule 6.75 also contains certain provisions for
[sic] related to split-price priority and priority of complex orders.
Violators of any part of Rule 6.75 are subject to a sanction pursuant
to the MRP, specifically Rule 10.12(k)(i)(40). Suggested fines for
violations of Rule 6.75 are presently $500 for the first violation in a
rolling twenty-four month period, $1,000 for a second violation within
the same period fine and a third violation is subject to a $2,000 fine.
    At this time the Exchange believes the current monetary fine levels
contained in the MRP, for the above mentioned violations, are
inadequate, given the serious nature of these rules. In order to act as
an effective deterrent against future violations, while also serving as
a just penalty for those who commit these violations, the Exchange
feels an increase in the fine levels for these three violations is
warranted. NYSE Arca now proposes fine levels of $1,000 for the first
violation in a rolling twenty-four month period, $2,500 for a second
violation within the same period fine and $5,000 for a third violation
within the same period fine. These fine levels will apply to all three
types of violations.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \3\ of the
Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \4\ 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, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal is also consistent with Section 6(b)(6) \5\ and
6(b)(7),\6\ which requires that members and persons associated with
members are appropriately disciplined for violations of Exchange rules
and are provided a fair procedure for disciplinary procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is 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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date 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 the 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-70 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-NYSEArca-2009-70. 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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-70 and should
be submitted on or before September 14, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-20241 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 206 (Thursday, October 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 59836]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23433]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land Use Assurance;
Astoria Regional Airport, Astoria, Oregon

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a proposal
from the Port of Astoria Airport Director to change a certain portion
of the airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use at Astoria
Regional Airport, Astoria, Oregon. The proposal consists of a portion
of a parcel on the south side of the airfield.

DATES: Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register. Emailed comments can be
provided to Ms. Mandi M. Lesauis, Program Specialist, Seattle Airports
District Office at [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matt McGrath, Airport Director,
Port of Astoria, 10 Pier 1, Ste. 103, Astoria, OR 97103; or Mandi M.
Lesauis, Program Specialist, Seattle Airports District Office at (206)
231-4140 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C.
47153(c), and 47107(h)(2), the FAA is considering a proposal from the
Airport Director, Port of Astoria, to change a portion of the Astoria
Regional Airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use. The
proposal consists of a 24.5-acre portion of a parcel on the south side
of the airport.
    The parcel is vacant, landlocked and does not have airfield access.
The proposed property will be developed as an industrial park. The FAA
concurs that the parcel is no longer needed for aeronautical purposes.
The proposed use of this property is compatible with other airport
operations in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning
the Use of Airport Revenue, published in Federal Register on February
16, 1999.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington on October 22, 2021.
Warren D. Ferrell,
Acting Manager, Seattle Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-23433 Filed 10-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44801-44803]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15992]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0654; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-17]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of V-53, V-115, V-140, V-339, T-215, and T-
323, and Revocation of V-339 in the Vicinity of Hazard, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend three VHF Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) Federal airways, V-53, V-115, and V-140; amend two Area
Navigation (RNAV) T-routes, T-215 and T-323; and remove one VOR Federal
airway, V-339, in the vicinity of Hazard, KY. The Air Traffic Service
(ATS) route modifications are necessary due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Hazard, KY, VOR/Distance
Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid (NAVAID) which provides
navigation guidance for portions of the affected ATS routes. The Hazard
VOR is being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum
Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2020.

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:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0654; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-17 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, 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
Rules and Regulations 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 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https:/www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

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
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 would modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National
Airspace System (NAS).

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-2020-0654; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-17) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://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-2020-0654; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-17.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date 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 comment
closing date. 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 ADDRESSES section for 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 office of the Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Blvd.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Background

    The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the VOR portion
of the Hazard, KY, VOR/DME in February, 2021. The Hazard VOR is a
candidate VOR identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON
program and listed in the final policy statement notice, ``Provision of
Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for
Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),'' published in the
Federal Register of July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-
1082.

Although the VOR portion of the Hazard, KY, VOR/DME is planned for
decommissioning, the co-located DME portion of the NAVAID is being
retained to support Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)
PBN flight procedure requirements.
    The ATS route dependencies to the Hazard VOR/DME are VOR Federal
airways V-53, V-115, V-140, and V-339. With the planned decommissioning
of the VOR portion of the Hazard VOR/DME, the remaining ground-based
NAVAID coverage in the areas is insufficient to enable the continuity
of the affected VOR Federal airways. As such, proposed modifications to
the affected VOR Federal airways would result in gaps in those airways.
To overcome the airway gaps, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic
could use adjacent ATS routes, including V-35, V-97, V-178, V-310, and
V-493, or receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors to fly
through or circumnavigate the affected area. IFR pilots equipped with
RNAV PBN capabilities could also navigate point to point using the
existing fixes that will remain in place to support continued
operations though the affected area. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots
who elect to navigate via the airways through the affected area could
also take advantage of the air traffic services previously listed.
    Additionally, the FAA proposes to extend RNAV routes T-215 and T-
323 through the affected area to continue supporting enroute airspace
users, as well as ongoing FAA NextGen efforts to transition the NAS to
performance-based navigation. Minor editorial amendments to the
existing T-215 and T-323 descriptions would also be made, but would not
change the existing routes' structure, operational use, or charted
depiction.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-53, V-
115, and V-140; modifying RNAV routes T-215 and T-323; and removing VOR
Federal airway V-339. The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of
the Hazard, KY, VOR/DME NAVAID has made this action necessary. The
proposed VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.
    V-53: V-53 currently extends between the Charleston, SC, VOR/
Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Brickyard, IN, VOR/DME. The
airspace within R-3401B is excluded. The FAA proposes to remove the
airway segment overlying the Hazard, KY, VOR/DME between the Holston
Mountain, TN, VORTAC and the Lexington, KY, VOR/DME. The unaffected
portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-115: V-115 currently extends between the Crestview, FL, VORTAC
and the Parkersburg, WV, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway
segment overlying the Hazard, KY, VOR/DME between the Volunteer, TN,
VORTAC and the Charleston, WV, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the
existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-140: V-140 currently extends between the Panhandle, TX, VORTAC
and the Casanova, VA, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway
segment overlying the Hazard, KY, VOR/DME between the London, KY, VOR/
DME and the Bluefield, WV, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the
existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-339: V-339 currently extends between the Hazard, KY, VOR/DME and
the Falmouth, KY, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its
entirety.
    The proposed RNAV T-route changes are outlined below.
    T-215: T-215 currently extends between the Lexington, KY, VOR/DME
and the GAMKE, IN, waypoint (WP). The FAA proposes to extend the route
southeastward from the Lexington, KY, VOR/DME to the Holston Mountain,
TN, VORTAC. Additionally, the type of facility for Lexington, KY, is
corrected from ``VORTAC'' to ``VOR/DME'' and the geographic coordinates
of each route point are updated to be expressed in degrees, minutes,
seconds, and hundredths of a second.
    T-323: T-323 currently extends between the CROCS, GA, WP and the
HIGGI, NC, WP. The FAA proposes to extend the route northward from the
HIGGI, NC, WP to the Hazard, KY, DME. Additionally, the geographic
coordinates of each route point are updated to be expressed in degrees,
minutes, seconds, and hundredths of a second.
    All NAVAID radials in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are
unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and RNAV T-
routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated
August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this document
would be subsequently published 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 proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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

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

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

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(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 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019 and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-53 [Amended]

    From Charleston, SC; Columbia, SC; Spartanburg, SC; Sugarloaf
Mountain, NC; to Holston Mountain, TN. From Lexington, KY;
Louisville, KY; INT Louisville 333[deg] and Brickyard, IN, 170[deg]
radials; Brickyard. The airspace within R-3401B is excluded.
* * * * *

V-115 [Amended]

    From Crestview, FL; INT Crestview 001[deg] and Montgomery, AL,
204[deg] radials; Montgomery; INT Montgomery 323[deg] and Vulcan,
AL, 177[deg] radials; Vulcan; Choo Choo, TN; to Volunteer, TN. From
Charleston, WV; to Parkersburg, WV.
* * * * *

V-140 [Amended]

    From Panhandle, TX; Burns Flat, OK; Kingfisher, OK; INT
Kingfisher 072[deg] and Tulsa, OK, 261[deg] radials; Tulsa;
Razorback, AR; Harrison, AR; Walnut Ridge, AR; Dyersburg, TN;
Nashville, TN; Livingston, TN; to London, KY. From Bluefield, WV;
INT Bluefield 071[deg] and Montebello, VA, 250[deg] radials;
Montebello; to Casanova, VA.
* * * * *

V-339 [Removed]

* * * * *

6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

                                                 T-215 Holston Mountain, TN (HMV) to Gamke, IN [Amended]

Holston Mountain, TN (HMV)                        VORTAC                        (Lat. 36[deg]26'13.40'' N, long. 082[deg]07'46.56'' W)
HILTO, VA                                         WP                            (Lat. 36[deg]41'48.46'' N, long. 082[deg]26'07.44'' W)
FLENR, VA                                         WP                            (Lat. 36[deg]56'44.27'' N, long. 082[deg]43'42.75'' W)
RISTE, KY                                         WP                            (Lat. 37[deg]09'02.92'' N, long. 082[deg]58'24.38'' W)
Hazard, KY (AZQ)                                  DME                           (Lat. 37[deg]23'28.52'' N, long. 083[deg]15'46.83'' W)
HUGEN, KY                                         FIX                           (Lat. 37[deg]31'46.14'' N, long. 083[deg]32'58.54'' W)
Lexington, KY (HYK)                               VOR/DME                       (Lat. 37[deg]57'58.86'' N, long. 084[deg]28'21.06'' W)
GAMKE, IN                                         WP                            (Lat. 38[deg]46'12.99'' N, long. 085[deg]14'35.37'' W)

                                                                      * * * * * * *
                                                      T-323 CROCS, GA to Hazard, KY (AZQ) [Amended]

CROCS, GA                                         WP                            (Lat. 32[deg]27'17.69'' N, long. 082[deg]46'29.06'' W)
BOBBR, GA                                         WP                            (Lat. 33[deg]19'57.07'' N, long. 083[deg]08'19.47'' W)
BIGNN, GA                                         WP                            (Lat. 34[deg]20'34.38'' N, long. 083[deg]33'06.80'' W)
ZPPLN, NC                                         WP                            (Lat. 34[deg]59'47.42'' N, long. 083[deg]49'37.73'' W)
HIGGI, NC                                         WP                            (Lat. 35[deg]26'46.57'' N, long. 083[deg]46'41.05'' W)
KIDBE, TN                                         WP                            (Lat. 35[deg]51'16.23'' N, long. 083[deg]40'19.66'' W)
ZADOT, TN                                         WP                            (Lat. 36[deg]35'32.17'' N, long. 083[deg]28'40.09'' W)
WELLA, KY                                         WP                            (Lat. 37[deg]02'15.68'' N, long. 083[deg]21'31.07'' W)
Hazard, KY (AZQ)                                  DME                           (Lat. 37[deg]23'28.52'' N, long. 083[deg]15'46.83'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-15992 Filed 7-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11083-11086]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4368]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0168; FRL-9271-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted April 10, 2009. The
revision includes two new rules which implement restrictions on the
idling of heavy duty diesel vehicles in the Kansas City Metropolitan
Area and in the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area. EPA is approving
this revision because the standards and requirements set by the rules
will strengthen the Missouri SIP. EPA's approval of this SIP revision
is being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 2, 2011, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 31, 2011.
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2010-0168, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2010-0168. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30
excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bhesania at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What revisions is EPA approving?
II. Why is EPA approving Missouri's SIP revision?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What revisions Is EPA approving?

    On April 10, 2009, Missouri submitted to EPA for approval into the
SIP two new rules, 10 CSR 10-2.385 Control of Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle
Idling Emissions for the Kansas City Ozone Maintenance Area and 10 CSR
10-5.385 Control of Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Emissions for the
St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area. These new rules limit the amount of
time a heavy duty diesel vehicle will be permitted to idle while parked
or while waiting to load or unload.
    These rules apply to owners or operators of commercial, public and
institutional heavy duty diesel vehicles (those having a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of greater than 10,000 pounds) that are designed
to operate on public streets and highways, whether or not the vehicles
are operated on public roadways. These regulations set a time limit of
five consecutive minutes idling time (i.e., when a vehicle's engine is
on, but it is not in gear) in any sixty minute period. On November 29,
2010, Missouri requested to withdraw subsection (3)(A) of both rules
from the April 2009 request. Subsection (3)(A) states that owners or
operators of passenger load/unload locations shall not cause or allow
vehicles covered by this rule to idle for more than five minutes in any
sixty minute period. Missouri found that there was a discrepancy
between subsection (3)(A) and section (1). Section (1), Applicability,
does not mention that the rules apply to owners or operators of
passenger load/unload locations. Missouri did not intend for passenger
load/unload locations to be subject to this rule and thus requested to
withdraw subsection (3)(A) to clarify. As a result, EPA is not taking
action to approve subsection (3)(A).
    The regulations do specify exemptions to the idling limit for
certain vehicle types and situations. These exemptions include: road
traffic conditions; safety or emergency uses; police, fire, ambulance,
public safety and other law enforcement vehicles; service and repair
needs; state or Federal inspections; mechanical work; armored vehicles;
bus idling for passenger comfort (no greater than fifteen minutes in
any sixty minute period); vehicles idling for purposes of using sleeper
berth compartments; mechanical difficulties; agricultural operations
incidentally operated or moved upon public roads; vehicles using
auxiliary equipment powered by the engine; and freight load/unload
locations (no greater than thirty minutes in any sixty minute period).
    Persons violating this rule may be assessed penalties under state
law in accordance with the penalty provisions under sections 643.010-
643, RSMo. Enforcement of this regulation will follow Missouri's
Guidance for Enforcing the Idle Rules supplied to EPA as clarification
on June 4, 2010. Therefore, EPA has determined that the rule meets
applicable criteria for enforceability of SIP requirements.

II. Why is EPA approving Missouri's SIP revision?

    The rule 10 CSR 10-2.385 Control of Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle
Idling Emissions for the Kansas City Ozone Maintenance Area was
included as a contingency measure in the Kansas City Maintenance Area
8-hour Maintenance Plan for the Control of Ozone. The contingency
measure provision in the plan required the state to implement the idle
reduction regulations upon violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
This plan was approved by EPA and effective on October 9, 2007. A
violation of the standard occurred during the 2007 ozone season thus
triggering the adoption of the rule. The 10 CSR 10-5.385 Control of
Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Emissions for the St. Louis Ozone
Nonattainment Area was adopted by the state to be consistent with the
Kansas City Maintenance Area provisions and was

not required to be adopted as part of an existing SIP measure or
contingency requirement.
    These rules will result in reduced emissions of pollutants that
contribute to ozone and fine particulate matter. Specifically, these
rules lead to elimination of such pollutants resulting from unnecessary
extended idling of heavy-duty diesel vehicles. The pollutants reduced
by these regulations are volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter. The approval of this rule
will strengthen the Missouri SIP and assist the state in meeting and
maintaining compliance with air quality standards, including the
standard for ground level ozone.
    Missouri's rule is generally consistent with EPA's ``Model State
Idling Law'' (EPA420-S-06-001, April 2006). This model rule was
developed with input from the states and industry to address idling
issues in a consistent and understandable manner from state to state,
to aid in compliance.

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

IV. What action Is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve the request to amend the
Missouri SIP to include Missouri rules 10 CSR 10-2.385 Control of Heavy
Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Emissions for the Kansas City Ozone
Maintenance Area and 10 CSR 10-5.385 Control of Heavy Duty Diesel
Vehicle Idling Emissions for the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area.
The State regulations became effective February 28, 2009.
    We are processing this action as a direct final action because the
revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are
noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comments on part of this rule
and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may
adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

V. 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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 2, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Motor
carriers, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 16, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding new
entries in

numerical order for 10-2.385 under Chapter 2 and 10-5.385 under Chapter
5 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                            EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        State
           Missouri citation                      Title            effective date      EPA approval date                      Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Missouri Department of Natural Resources Chapter 2--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Kansas City Metropolitan Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
10-2.385..............................  Control of Heavy Duty            02/28/09  03/01/11 [insert FR page   Subsection (3)(A) is not SIP approved.
                                         Diesel Vehicle Idling                      number where the
                                         Emissions.                                 document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
10-5.385..............................  Control of Heavy Duty            02/28/09  03/01/11 [insert FR page   Subsection (3)(A) is not SIP approved.
                                         Diesel Vehicle Idling                      number where the
                                         Emissions.                                 document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-4368 Filed 2-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Note to File - November 22, 2004 Telephone Conversations with Dennis J.
Karl, Manager, Regulatory Policy, Environmental Quality Office, Ford
Motor Corporation and W. Charles Moeser, Senior Manager, DaimlerChrysler
Corporation

On November 22, 2004, I participated in two separate telephone
conversation with Dennis Karl, Ford Motor Corporation and Charles
Moeser, DaimlerChrysler Corporation.  These telephone calls were
initiated as a follow up to the November 9, 2004 meeting between the
Office of Solid Waste and the AutoAlliance.  The purpose of these calls
was to confirm the status of the respective company’s facilities with
respect to those using aluminum in the automobile assembly process and
the current status of delisting petitions.

Below is a summary of these calls:

Ford Motor Corporation: Mr Karl indicated to me that Dearborn Assembly,
Dearborn, MI recently change model production from Mustang’s to F-150
trucks.  This model change resulted in the use of aluminum in the
automobile assembly process and the facility now generates a F019
wastewater treatment sludge.  A petition was submitted to Region 5 to
delist the wastewater treatment sludges.

DaimlerChrysler Corporation: Mr. Moeser indicated to me that there is no
change in the current status of DaimlerChrysler facilities in that there
are no new generators of F019 wastewater treatment sludges.  However, he
did indicate that two facilities Belvidere Assembly Plant, Belvidere, IL
and Toledo Assembly-Parkway, Toledo, OH may submit delisting petitions
in 2006 if they decide to add aluminum to the vehicles assembled at
these two plants.

James Michael

Generator and Characteristics Branch

Hazardous Waste Identification Division (MC-5304W)

Office of Solid Waste, USEPA

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

11/23/2004


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 22514]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07822]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0930]

Notice of Intent To Designate as Abandoned Blue Aviation, LLC,
Supplemental Type Certificate No. SA02238AT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to designate Blue Aviation, LLC, Supplemental
Type Certificate as abandoned; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the FAA's intent to designate Blue
Aviation, LLC, Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No. SA02238AT as
abandoned and make the related engineering data available upon request.
The FAA has received a request to provide engineering data concerning
this STC. The FAA has been unsuccessful in contacting Blue Aviation,
LLC, concerning the STC. This action is intended to enhance-aviation
safety.

DATES: The FAA must receive all comments by October 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments on this notice by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Gary Wechsler, AIR-755, FAA, Atlanta ACO Branch,
1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.
     Email: [email protected]. Include ``Docket No. FAA-
2023-0930'' in the subject line of the message.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Wechsler, Aerospace Engineer,
AIR-755, FAA, Atlanta ACO Branch, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested parties to provide comments, written
data, views, or arguments relating to this notice. Send your comments
to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No.
FAA-2023-0930'' at the beginning of your comments. The FAA will
consider all comments received on or before the closing date. All
comments received will be available in the docket for examination by
interested persons.

Background

    The FAA is posting this notice to inform the public of the intent
to designate Blue Aviation, LLC, STC No. SA02238AT, for the
installation of Pratt & Whitney PT6A-34 and -35 engines in Textron
Aviation (Beech, Raytheon) Model 65-A90, 65-C90, C90, C90A, and E90
airplanes, as abandoned, and subsequently release the related
engineering data.
    The FAA has received a third-party request for the release of the
aforementioned engineering data under the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. The FAA cannot release commercial
or financial information under FOIA without the permission of the data
owner. However, in accordance with title 49 of the United States Code
Sec.  44704(a)(5), the FAA can provide STC ``engineering data'' it
possesses for STC maintenance or improvement, upon request, if the
following conditions are met:
    1. The FAA determines the STC has been inactive for three or more
years;
    2. Using due diligence, the FAA is unable to locate the owner of
record or the owner of record's heir; and
    3. The availability of such data will enhance aviation safety.
    There has been no activity on this STC for more than three years.
    On November 7, 2022, the FAA sent a registered letter to Blue
Aviation, LLC, at its last known address, 2282 Airport Road, Selmer, TN
38375. The letter informed Blue Aviation, LLC, that the FAA had
received a request for engineering data related to STC No. SA02238AT
and was conducting a due diligence search to determine whether the STC
was inactive and may be considered abandoned. The letter further
requested Blue Aviation, LLC, to respond in writing within 60 days and
state whether it is the holder of the STC. The FAA also attempted to
make contact with Blue Aviation, LLC, by other means, including
telephone communication and emails, without success.

Information Requested

    If you are the owner or heir or a transferee of STC No. SA02238AT
or have any knowledge regarding who may now hold STC No. SA02238AT,
please contact Gary Wechsler using a method described in this notice
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If you are the heir of the
owner, or the owner by transfer, of STC No. SA02238AT, you must provide
a notarized copy of your government-issued identification with a letter
and background establishing your ownership of the STC and, if
applicable, your relationship as the heir to the deceased holder of the
STC.

Conclusion

    If the FAA does not receive any response by October 10, 2023, the
FAA will consider STC No. SA02238AT abandoned, and the FAA will proceed
with the release of the requested data. This action is for the purpose
of maintaining the airworthiness of an aircraft and enhancing aviation
safety.

    Issued on April 8, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-07822 Filed 4-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59687-59688]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 12f-1, OMB Control No. 3235-0128, SEC File No. 270-139.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
     Rule 12f-1 (17 CFR 240.12f-1)--Applications for permission
to reinstate unlisted trading privileges.
    Rule 12f-1 (the ``Rule''), originally adopted in 1934 pursuant to
Sections 12(f) and 23(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Act''), as modified in 1995 and 2005, sets forth
the information which an exchange must include in an application to
reinstate its ability to extend unlisted trading privileges to any
security for which such unlisted trading privileges have been suspended
by the Commission, pursuant to Section 12(f)(2)(A) of the Act. An
application must provide the name of the issuer, the title of the
security, the name of each national securities exchange, if any, on
which the security is listed or admitted to unlisted trading
privileges, whether transaction information concerning the security is
reported pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan
contemplated by Rule 601 of Regulation NMS, the date of the
Commission's suspension of unlisted trading privileges in the security
on the exchange, and any other pertinent information. Rule 12f-1
further requires a national securities exchange seeking to reinstate
its ability to extend unlisted trading privileges to a security to
indicate that it has provided a copy of such application to the issuer
of the security, as well as to any other national securities exchange
on which the security is listed or admitted to unlisted trading
privileges.
    The information required by Rule 12f-1 enables the Commission to
make the necessary findings under the Act prior to granting
applications to reinstate unlisted trading privileges. This information
is also made available to members of the public who may wish to comment
upon the applications. Without the Rule, the Commission would be unable
to fulfill these statutory responsibilities.
    There are currently 11 national securities exchanges subject to
Rule 12f-1. The burden of complying with Rule 12f-1 arises when a
potential respondent seeks to reinstate its ability to extend unlisted
trading privileges to any security for which unlisted trading
privileges have been suspended by the Commission, pursuant to Section
12(f)(2)(A) of the Act. The staff estimates that each application would
require approximately one hour to complete. Thus each potential
respondent would incur on average one burden hour in complying with the
Rule.
    The Commission staff estimates that there could be as many as 11
responses annually and that each respondent's related cost of
compliance with Rule 12f-1 would be $168.00, or, the cost of one hour
of professional work needed to complete the application. The total
annual related reporting cost for all potential respondents, therefore,
is $1,848.00 (11 responses x $168.00 /response).
    Compliance with Rule 12f-1 is mandatory. Rule 12f-1 does not have a
record retention requirement per se. However, responses made pursuant
to Rule 12f-1 are subject to the recordkeeping requirements of Rules
17a-3 and 17a-4 of the Act. Information received in response to Rule
12f-1 shall not be kept confidential; the information collected is
public information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to Lewis W. Walker, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: October 1, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23930 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 114 (Thursday, June 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27496-27497]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12359]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-E-0118]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; NATPARA

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for NATPARA and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the
extension of a patent which claims that human biological product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either
electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by August
14, 2017. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a
determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with
due diligence during the regulatory review period by December 12, 2017.
See ``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before August 14, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 14, 2017. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-E-0118 for ``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for
Purposes of Patent Extension; NATPARA.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the biological product becomes effective and runs
until the approval phase

begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an
application to market the human biological product and continues until
FDA grants permission to market the biological product. Although only a
portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual
amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example,
half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may
have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the
length of a regulatory review period for a human biological product
will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified
in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human biologic product NATPARA
(parathyroid hormone (recombinant human)). NATPARA is indicated as an
adjunct to calcium and vitamin D to control hypocalcemia in patients
with hypoparathyroidism. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO
received a patent term restoration application for NATPARA (U.S. Patent
No. 5,496,801) from NPS Pharmaceuticals Inc., and the USPTO requested
FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent
term restoration. In a letter dated March 10, 2016, FDA advised the
USPTO that this human biological product had undergone a regulatory
review period and that the approval of NATPARA represented the first
permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the
USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review
period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
NATPARA is 7,268 days. Of this time, 6,811 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 457 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: March 3,
1995. The applicant claims January 31, 1995, as the date the
investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However,
FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was March 3, 1995,
which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human biological product under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262): October 24, 2013. FDA has verified the
applicant's claim that the biologics license application (BLA) for
NATPARA (BLA 125511) was initially submitted on October 24, 2013.
    3. The date the application was approved: January 23, 2015. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that BLA 125511 was approved on January
23, 2015.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 5 years of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for
a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must be timely (see ADDRESSES) and
contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept.
857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should
be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: June 9, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-12359 Filed 6-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 889]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00087]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-721-000]

Willow Creek Wind Power LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Willow Creek Wind Power LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 22, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 2, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00087 Filed 1-7-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P