[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26056-26059]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10538]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66861; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and
Trading of MSCI EAFE Index Options

April 26, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On March 1, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Exchange'' or ``Phlx'')
filed

with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend
certain of its rules to provide for the listing and trading of options
on the MSCI EAFE Index. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on March 15, 2012.\3\ The Commission
received no comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66569 (March 9,
2012), 77 FR 15409 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The proposed rule change would amend Phlx Rules 1079 (FLEX Index,
Equity and Currency Options), 1009A (Designation of the Index) and
1101A (Terms of Option Contracts) to permit the Exchange to list and
trade P.M. cash-settled, European-style options, including FLEX \4\
options and LEAPS,\5\ on the MSCI EAFE (Europe, Australasia, and the
Far East) Index, which is described below. The proposal would also
create new Phlx Rule 1109A, entitled ``MSCI EAFE Index,'' which would
provide additional detailed information pertaining to the index as
required by the licensor including, but not limited to, liability and
other representations on the part of MSCI Inc. (``MSCI''), which
maintains the index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FLEX options are flexible exchange-traded index, equity, or
currency option contracts that provide investors the ability to
customize basic option features including size, expiration date,
exercise style, and certain exercise prices. FLEX index options may
have expiration dates within five years. See Exchange Rules 1079 and
1101A.
    \5\ LEAPS or Long Term Equity Anticipation Securities are long
term options that generally expire from twelve to thirty-nine months
from the time they are listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described by the Exchange, the MSCI EAFE Index is a free float-
adjusted market capitalization index consisting of large and midcap
components from countries classified by MSCI as developed (excluding
the U.S. and Canada), and is designed to measure the equity market
performance of developed markets (excluding the U.S. and Canada). The
index consists of component securities from markets in the following 22
areas: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and
the United Kingdom.
    As further described by the Exchange, the MSCI EAFE Index is
calculated in U.S. Dollars on a real time basis from the open of the
first market on which the components are traded to the close of the
last market on which the components are traded. The level of the index
reflects the free float-adjusted market value of the component stocks
relative to a particular base date, and the methodology used to
calculate the value of the index is similar to the methodology used to
calculate the value of other well-known market-capitalization weighted
indexes.\6\ As of December 31, 1969, when the MSCI EAFE Index was
launched, its base index value was 100. On June 1, 2011, the index
value was 1727.187.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Details regarding the methodology for calculating the MSCI
EAFE Index can be found in the Notice, supra note 3, and at http://www.msci.com/eqb/methodology/meth_docs/MSCI_May11_GIMIMethod.pdf.
    \7\ According to the Exchange, static data regarding the MSCI
EAFE Index is distributed daily to clients through MSCI as well as
through major quotation vendors, including Bloomberg L.P.
(``Bloomberg''), FactSet Research Systems, Inc. (``FactSet'') and
Thomson Reuters (``Reuters''). Real time data is distributed at
least every 15 seconds, using MSCI's real-time calculation engine,
to Reuters, Bloomberg, SIX Telekurs and FactSet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSCI EAFE Index is monitored and maintained by MSCI. According
to the Exchange, adjustments to the MSCI EAFE Index are made on a daily
basis with respect to corporate events and dividends. The index is
generally updated on a quarterly basis to reflect amendments to shares
outstanding and free float. Full index reviews are conducted on a semi-
annual basis for purposes of rebalancing the index.
    Options on the MSCI EAFE Index, as introduced by the proposed rule
change, would be European-style and P.M. cash-settled. The settlement
value for expiring options would be based on the closing prices of the
component stocks on the last trading day prior to expiration. The
expiration date would be the Saturday following the third Friday of the
expiration month. The Options Clearing Corporation would be the issuer
and guarantor.
    Phlx Rule 1009A(d) provides that the Exchange may trade options on
a broad-based index \8\ pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act, when
certain conditions are satisfied.\9\ The MSCI EAFE Index is a broad-
based index. However, it does not meet all the conditions of Rule
1009A(d). The proposed rule change would establish listing standards
that are specific to MSCI EAFE Index options, to be set forth in new
Rule 1009A(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A broad-based index is defined in Exchange Rule 1000A(b)(11)
as an index designed to be representative of a stock market as a
whole or of a range of companies in unrelated industries.
    \9\ This provision is an exception to Exchange Rule 1009A(a),
which provides generally that the listing of a class of index
options on a new underlying index will be treated by the Exchange as
a proposed rule change subject to filing with and approved by the
Commission under Section 19(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, proposed Rule 1009A(h)(i) would provide that the
Exchange may trade options on the MSCI EAFE Index if each of the
following conditions is satisfied:
    (1) The index is broad-based;
    (2) Options on the index are designated as P.M.-settled index
options;
    (3) The index is capitalization-weighted, price-weighted, modified
capitalization-weighted or equal dollar-weighted;
    (4) The index consists of 500 or more component securities;
    (5) All the component securities of the index have a market
capitalization of greater than $100 million;
    (6) No single component security accounts for more than 15% of the
weight of the index, and the five highest weighted component securities
in the index do not, in the aggregate, account for more than 50% of the
weight of the index;
    (7) Non-U.S. component securities (stocks or ADRs) that are not
subject to comprehensive surveillance agreements do not, in the
aggregate, represent more than 20% of the weight of the index;
    (8) The current index value is widely disseminated at least once
every 15 seconds by one or more major market data vendors during the
time options on the index are traded on the Exchange;
    (9) The Exchange reasonably believes it has adequate system
capacity to support the trading of options on the index, based on a
calculation of the Exchange's current Independent System Capacity
Advisor (ISCA) allocation and the number of new messages per second
expected to be generated by options on such index; and
    (10) The Exchange has written procedures in place for the
surveillance of trading of options on the index.
    After the initial listing of options on the MSCI EAFE Index under
the above conditions, the following maintenance standards, as set forth
in proposed Rule 1009A(h)(ii), would apply: The requirements set forth
in proposed Rule 1009A(h)(i)(1), (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), (9), and (10)
must continue to be satisfied. The requirements set forth in proposed
Rule 1009A(h)(i)(5) and (6) must be satisfied only as of the first day
of January and July in each year. In addition, the total number of
component securities in the index could not increase or decrease by
more than 35% from the number of component securities in the index at
the time of its initial listing.

    The Exchange proposed to apply position limits of 25,000 contracts
on the same side of the market to options on the MSCI EAFE Index.\10\
All position limit hedge exemptions would apply. In addition, the
Exchange proposed to amend Rule 1079(d)(1) to note that, with respect
to FLEX options on the MSCI EAFE Index, the same number of contracts,
25,000, would apply with respect to the position limit. The Exchange
also proposed to apply existing index option margin requirements for
the purchase and sale of options on the MSCI EAFE Index.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The exercise limit would also be 25,000 contracts as per
Exchange Rule 1002A.
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 721. For additional proposed requirements
for options on the MSCI EAFE Index, including strike price
intervals, minimum tick size, and series openings, see Notice, supra
note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, as proposed, Exchange rules that apply to the trading of
options on broad-based indexes also would apply to options on the MSCI
EAFE Index.\12\ The trading of these options would also be subject to,
among other provisions, Exchange rules governing margin requirements
and trading halt procedures for index options.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See generally Exchange Rules 1000A through 1108A (Rules
Applicable to Trading of Options on Indices) and Exchange Rules 1000
through 1094 (Rules Applicable to Trading of Options on Stocks,
Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and Foreign Currencies).
    \13\ See Exchange Rules 721 (Proper and Adequate Margin) and
1047A (Trading Rotations, Halts or Reopenings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposed to add Rule 1109A, entitled ``MSCI
EAFE Index,'' to provide additional detailed information pertaining to
the index as required by the licensor, including, but not limited to,
liability and other representations on the part of MSCI.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\14\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the listing and trading of options on
the MSCI EAFE Index will broaden trading and hedging opportunities for
investors by creating a new options instrument based on an index
designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets
(excluding the U.S. and Canada). Because the MSCI EAFE Index is a
broad-based index comprised of actively-traded, well-capitalized
stocks, the trading of options on the MSCI EAFE Index does not raise
unique regulatory concerns. The Commission believes that the listing
standards, which are created specifically and exclusively for the MSCI
EAFE Index, are consistent with the Act, for the reasons discussed
below.
    The Commission notes that proposed Rule 1009A(h) would require that
the MSCI EAFE Index consist of 500 or more component securities. The
component securities of the MSCI EAFE Index are listed and traded on 22
different markets. Further, for options on the MSCI EAFE Index to
trade, each of the minimum of 500 component securities would need to
have a market capitalization of greater than $100 million. Moreover,
the Commission notes that, according to the Exchange, the MSCI EAFE
Index is comprised of more than 900 components, all of which must meet
the market capitalization requirement to permit an option on the index
to begin trading.
    The Commission notes that the proposed listing standards for
options on the MSCI EAFE Index would not permit any single security to
comprise more than 15% of the weight of the index, and would not permit
a group of five securities to comprise more than 50% of the weight of
the index. The Commission believes that, in view of the number of
countries represented in the index and the requirement on the number of
securities in the index and the market capitalization, this
concentration standard is consistent with the Act. Further, the
Exchange stated that, of the more than 900 components that comprise the
MSCI EAFE Index, no single component comprises more than 5% of the
index.
    The Exchange has represented that it has an adequate surveillance
program in place for options on the MSCI EAFE Index, and intends to
apply the same procedures for surveillance that it applies to its other
index options. The Exchange also is a member of the Intermarket
Surveillance Group and an affiliate member of the International
Organization of Securities Commissions, and has entered into various
Information Sharing Agreements and/or Memoranda of Understandings with
various stock exchanges. The Commission notes that, consistent with the
Exchange's generic listing standards for broad-based index options,
non-U.S. component securities of the MSCI EAFE Index that are not
subject to comprehensive surveillance agreements will not, in the
aggregate, represent more than 20% of the weight of the index.
    In addition, the Commission notes that the proposed listing
standards require the current value of the MSCI EAFE Index to be widely
disseminated at least once every 15 seconds by one or more major market
data vendors during the time options on the index are traded on the
Exchange. Further, the standards require that the Exchange reasonably
believe it has adequate system capacity to support the trading of
options on the MSCI EAFE Index. The Exchange stated that these
requirements will be met.
    As a national securities exchange, the Exchange is required, under
Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\16\ to enforce compliance by its members,
and persons associated with its members, with the provisions of the
Act, Commission rules and regulations thereunder, and its own rules. In
this regard, the Commission notes that Exchange rules that apply to the
trading of options on broad-based indexes would apply to options on the
MSCI EAFE Index.\17\ In addition, the Exchange has stated that options
on the MSCI EAFE Index would be subject to the same rules that govern
all Exchange index options, including rules that are designed to
protect public customer trading.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \17\ See generally Exchange Rules 1000A through 1108A (Rules
Applicable to Trading of Options on Indices) and Exchange Rules 1000
through 1094 (Rules Applicable to Trading of Options on Stocks,
Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and Foreign Currencies).
    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3 and Exchange Rules 1024-1029. See
also supra notes 12 and 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further believes that the Exchange's proposed
position and exercise limits, strike price intervals, minimum tick
size, series openings, and other aspects of the proposed rule change
are appropriate and consistent with the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the

proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2012-28) be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10538 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 150)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45176-45178]
[DOCID:fr04au08-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0830; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-285-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Investigations after a CAS (crew alerting system) message ``ENG
1 FIRE DETECT FAIL'' that occurred on an in-service aircraft
revealed that the detector threshold tolerances could not permit to
identify the failure of one single engine fire detector loop out of
the two present on each engine. The fire detection system integrity
is therefore not correctly monitored.
* * * * *
The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 3,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0830;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-285-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On January 5, 2007, we issued AD 2007-02-01, Amendment 39-14888 (72
FR 2177, January 18, 2007). That AD required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2007-02-01, we have determined that fire
detector threshold tolerances for the affected airplanes do not
identify the failure of one engine fire detector loop out of the two
present on each engine. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),
which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European
Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0119, dated May
2, 2007 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
    Investigations after a CAS (crew alerting system) message ``ENG
1 FIRE DETECT FAIL'' that occurred on an in-service aircraft
revealed that the detector threshold tolerances could not permit to
identify the failure of one single engine fire detector loop out of
the two present on each engine. The fire detection system integrity
is therefore not correctly monitored.
    Airworthiness Directive (AD) No 2006-0356-E [which corresponds
to FAA AD 2007-02-01] was initially issued to mandate the
verification of the fire detection system integrity by a one time
inspection.
    The current AD mandates installation of two new fire monitoring
units of an improved design, each one of them is capable of
monitoring the integrity of both detectors on the associated engine.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F2000EX-138, dated March 5,
2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 42 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $10,080, or $240 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14888 (72 FR
2177, January 18, 2007) and adding the following new AD:

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2008-0830; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-285-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by September 3, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-02-01, Amendment 39-14888.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes,
certificated in any category, serial number (S/N) 06 and from S/N 28
to 107 inclusive, without modification M2958 implemented.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26: Fire
Protection.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Investigations after a CAS (crew alerting system) message ``ENG
1 FIRE DETECT FAIL'' that occurred on an in-service aircraft
revealed that the detector threshold tolerances could not permit to
identify the failure of one single engine fire detector loop out of
the two present on each engine. The fire detection system integrity
is therefore not correctly monitored.
    Airworthiness Directive (AD) No 2006-0356-E [which corresponds
to FAA AD 2007-02-01] was initially issued to mandate the
verification of the fire detection system integrity by a one time
inspection.
    The current AD mandates installation of two new fire monitoring
units of an improved design, each one of them is capable of
monitoring the integrity of both detectors on the associated engine.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2007-02-01

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions. Within 35
days after February 2, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-02-01),
perform an engine fire detection integrity check as required by
paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD in accordance with
Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-137, Revision 1, dated December 7,
2006. Doing the replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD
terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) First, in the baggage compartment, on each mobile connector
of the monitoring units (L320WG) and (R320WG), the equivalent
resistance of the two engine detectors at the LH (left-hand) and the
RH (right-hand) sides must be verified. According to findings, the
corresponding system is either considered correct or incorrect.
    (2) As a second step, if either one or both the LH and the RH
system is (are) found to be incorrect, it is required to check the
actual resistance of both detectors of the incorrect system(s) on
the affected engine(s).
    (3) Any faulty detector must be replaced prior to further
flight.
    (4) Actions done before February 2, 2007, in accordance with
Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-137, dated November 23, 2006, are
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of
this AD.

New Requirements of This AD: Actions and Compliance

    (g) Unless already done, within the next 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, remove the two fire monitoring units
having part number (P/N) 6342-01 and replace them with new ones
having P/N 6342-02 in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-138, dated March
5, 2007. Doing the replacement terminates the requirements of
paragraph (f) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2007-0119, dated May 2, 2007, and Dassault Service
Bulletin F2000EX-138, dated March 5, 2007, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 23, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-17792 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43376-43378]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15491]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0028; Notice 2]

Mobility Ventures, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Mobility Ventures, LLC (Mobility), a wholly owned subsidiary
of AM General, LLC, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2015-
2016 Mobility Ventures MV-1 motor vehicles do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, Electronic
Stability Control Systems for Light Vehicles. Mobility filed a
noncompliance Part 573 Safety Recall Report on February 14, 2018.
Mobility subsequently petitioned NHTSA on February 20, 2018, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the denial of
Mobility's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vince Williams, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Mobility has determined that certain MY 2015-2016 Mobility MV-1
motor vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph
S5.3.3 \1\ of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems for
Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.126). Mobility filed a noncompliance Part
573 Safety Recall Report on February 14, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Mobility
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on February 20, 2018, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA believes that Mobility inadvertently cited paragraph
S4.3.3 of FMVSS No. 126 in its petition. NHTSA believes, based on
Mobility's Part 573 Safety Recall Report, that Mobility meant to
cite paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 126 in its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice of receipt of Mobility's petition was published with a 30-
day public comment period, on September 17, 2019, in the Federal
Register (84 FR 48990). No comments were received. To view the petition
and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2018-0028.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 977 MY 2015-2016 Mobility Ventures MV-1 vehicles,
manufactured between December 22, 2014, and August 24, 2015, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Mobility reports that the previous model year vehicles (2011-2014)
were equipped with a 4.6L V8 powertrain with 6 ignition states and the
engine was changed in model years (2015-2016) to a 3.7L V6 powertrain
with 11 ignition states. Following the change, the supplier of the
Electronic Brake Control Module (EBCM) incorrectly programmed the EBCM
memory chip to recognize the possible power mode states. This issue led
to the telltale warning lamp not illuminating to indicate an Electronic
Stability Control (ESC) fault under certain starting conditions, thus,
not complying with paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 126.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 126, includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. As of September 1, 2011, except as provided
in paragraphs S5.3.4, S5.3.5, S5.3.8, and S5.3.10, the ESC malfunction
telltale must illuminate when a malfunction of the ESC system exists
and must remain continuously illuminated under the conditions specified
in paragraph S5.3 for as long as the malfunction exists (unless the
``ESC malfunction'' and ``ESC Off'' telltale are combined in a two-part

telltale and the ``ESC Off'' telltale is illuminated), whenever the
ignition locking system is in the ``On'' (``Run'') position.

V. Summary of Mobility's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Mobility's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided
by Mobility. Mobility describes the subject noncompliance and contends
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
    Mobility states its belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential ``because the Traction Control Off warning lamp will
illuminate when a fault is detected, either immediately if the operator
pauses with the key in the `ignition on' state before starting the
vehicle, or upon driving if the vehicle is started without pausing in
the `ignition on' state.'' Despite the noncompliance, Mobility claims
that the driver would still be ``alerted to the possibility of a
malfunction with the ESC system by the illumination of the Traction
Control Off warning lamp.'' Although Mobility believes the subject
noncompliance to be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, it and its
EBCM supplier, BWI Group, are ``developing a plug-and play re-flashing
tool that will permit uploading of revised software into the current
EBCM installed in the vehicle.'' Mobility explains that the software
``tracks the ignition sequences required by FMVSS No. 126, and fully
corrects the observed noncompliance.'' However, Mobility says its only
available solution at present would be ``to remove and replace the
entire electrical and hydraulic unit with one that has had its software
updated.''
    Mobility states that it ``has notified its dealers to stop sale of
any affected MV-1 vehicles that may be in their dealer inventory (new,
used or demonstrator) until the EBCM software is updated.'' In
addition, Mobility says that its ``authorized dealers will perform EBCM
unit replacement or re-flashing (when available) free-of-charge when
vehicle owners present to Dealers for service.''
    Mobility says ``is not aware of any issues'' related to the subject
noncompliance, nor has it ``received any warranty claims, field
reports, or information about injuries or crashes related to the
performance of the ESC.''
    Mobility concludes by expressing its 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.
    Mobility's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at: https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online
search instructions to locate the docket number listed in the heading
of this notice.

VI. Supplemental Information:

    Mobility's petition contained sparse details about the condition(s)
of when the ``Traction Control Off'' lamp would set in lieu of the ESC
malfunction lamp or whether the required ESC lamp would eventually set
at some point during the drive cycle. The petition also did not mention
if the issue affected ``ALL'' ESC related faults or if it was specific
to the faults attributed to steering angle sensor failures.
    NHTSA requested more detailed information from Mobility about the
subject noncompliance. In Mobility's supplemental response, it
confirmed that under the subject noncompliance, the appropriate ESC
diagnostic trouble code is triggered internally in the system; however,
due to the failure in the software programming, the system incorrectly
illuminates the ``Traction Control Off'' malfunction lamp instead of
the required ``ESC'' malfunction lamp. Mobility added that the
``Traction Control Off'' lamp also illuminates when an operator
manually ``turns off'' the Traction Control System (TCS) via the push-
button toggle switch and that the TCS will remain ``Off'' and the lamp
illuminated until either the TCS is re-enabled via an ignition-cycle
or, the operator pushes the toggle switch a second time. Mobility also
confirmed that the TCS remains fully functional and effective in this
scenario.
    NHTSA also requested clarification from Mobility with respect to
how much time lapses after the vehicle starts moving until the system
sets the ESC fault code and at what speed this occurs. Mobility
responded to NHTSA that it should take approximately 8 minutes of
driving a vehicle before the ESC fault code sets. However, Mobility
failed to provide any insight with respect to what speed it believes a
vehicle would need to be traveling for the system to set the ESC fault
code.

VII. NHTSA's Analysis

    The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in an FMVSS--as opposed to a
labeling requirement with no performance implications--is more
substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\3\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \4\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected also do not justify granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\5\ Similarly, mere assertions that only a
small percentage of vehicles or items of equipment are likely to
actually exhibit a noncompliance are unpersuasive. The percentage of
potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a noncompliance
is not relevant to whether the noncompliance poses an inconsequential
risk to safety. Rather,

NHTSA focuses on the consequence to an occupant who is exposed to the
consequence of that noncompliance.\6\ The Safety Act is preventive, and
manufacturers cannot and should not wait for deaths or injuries to
occur in their vehicles before they carry out a recall.\7\ Indeed, the
very purpose of a recall is to protect individuals from risk. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \6\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
    \7\ See, e.g., United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754,
759 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA evaluated the merits of the petition submitted by Mobility
and has determined that its petition has not met the burden of
persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 126 noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Specifically, S5.3.3 of FMVSS
No. 126 requires that the ESC malfunction telltale must illuminate when
a malfunction of the ESC system exists and must remain continuously
illuminated under the conditions specified in paragraph S5.3 for as
long as the malfunction exists (unless the ``ESC malfunction'' and
``ESC Off'' telltale are combined in a two-part telltale and the ``ESC
Off'' telltale is illuminated), or whenever the ignition locking system
is in the ``On'' (``Run'') position.
    In making this determination, NHTSA considered Mobility's argument
that the condition which causes this noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety because when it occurs, it would alert the
vehicle operator of the possibility of an ESC malfunction due to it
immediately illuminating the ``Traction Control Off'' warning lamp when
the fault occurs as opposed to the ESC malfunction lamp and then later
illuminating the ESC malfunction lamp after the vehicle is driven for
some period of time. While reviewing this petition, NHTSA requested
clarification from Mobility about some of the details in the petition
and attempted to learn how the issue would manifest itself to the
operator in a real-life scenario. Mobility responded to NHTSA's request
and provided supplemental information about how the fault code would
set and the conditions in which it would illuminate the malfunctions
lamps. Despite the additional information provided, Mobility has not
met its burden of proof that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
vehicle safety. The ESC system, with its corresponding ESC malfunction
lamp, is a required safety system with the purpose of reducing the
number of deaths and injuries that result from crashes in which the
driver loses directional control of the vehicle, including those
resulting in vehicle rollovers. It would not be in the best interest of
the public to allow a vehicle to operate with an ESC malfunction at any
point without illuminating the required ESC malfunction lamp. An
illuminated Traction Control Off lamp does not carry the same sense of
urgency as the ESC malfunction lamp. Whenever an ESC failure is
detected, it is imperative that the ESC malfunction lamp illuminates as
to alert the driver that the ESC system is not active and that the
system should be serviced immediately.

VIII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Mobility has
not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 126
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Mobility's petition is hereby denied. Mobility is consequently
obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

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

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-15491 Filed 7-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 96165]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31505]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2016-0127]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Alaska
Aerial Media LLC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before January 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0173
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Ngo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 21, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-0173.
    Petitioner: Alaska Aerial Media LLC.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 61.23(a) and (c),
61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a) and (b), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c),
91.121, 91.151(a)(1) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and
(2), 91.417(a) and (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is requesting an
amendment to Exemption No. 11426 in order to operate the Shotover U1
UAV, at a max takeoff weight of 66 pounds, for the purposes of aerial
data collection and closed-set motion picture applications.

[FR Doc. 2016-31505 Filed 12-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70428-70429]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27159]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0810; FRL-10003-25-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; AK: Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015
Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Whenever a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality
Standard is promulgated, the Clean Air Act requires states to submit
plans for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such
standard, commonly referred to as infrastructure requirements. On
October 25, 2018, the State of Alaska submitted such a plan for the
ozone standard revised on October 1, 2015. In this action, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the Alaska plan as
meeting applicable infrastructure requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0810. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure
of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall (15-H13), Air and
Radiation Division, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (Suite 155),
Seattle, WA 98101,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it refers to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. Background

    On October 25, 2018, the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) made a submission addressing the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\1\ On October 15, 2019, we proposed to approve Alaska's
infrastructure SIP submission (84 FR 55094). The reasons for our
proposed approval are included in the proposal and will not be restated
here. The public comment period for the proposal closed on November 14,
2019, and we received one supportive comment. The full text of the
comment may be found in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Alaska's October 25, 2018 submission addresses CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS and includes regulatory updates and permitting rule revisions
for approval into the SIP. We approved the regulatory updates and
permitting rule revisions in a separate rulemaking on August 29,
2019 (84 FR 45419). We are also addressing the interstate transport
portion of the infrastructure requirements related to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in a separate action proposed on June 5, 2019 (84
FR 26041).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Action

    We are approving the Alaska SIP as meeting the following CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS:
(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L),
and (M). This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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. The 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 February 21, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 2, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. In Sec.  52.70, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry for ``III.II.D. CAA Section 110 Infrastructure
Certification Documentation and Supporting Documents''; and
0
b. Adding an entry for ``Infrastructure Requirements--2015 Ozone
NAAQS'' at the end of the table.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  52.70  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Alaska Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
     Name of SIP provision          geographic or         State       EPA approval date        Explanations
                                 nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        State of Alaska Air Quality Control Plan: Volume III. Appendices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Section II. State Air Quality
        Control Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
III.II.D. CAA Section 110        Statewide.........      10/25/2018  12/23/2019,
 Infrastructure Certification                                         [Insert Federal
 Documentation and Supporting                                         Register
 Documents.                                                           citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Infrastructure Requirements--    Statewide.........      10/25/2018  12/23/2019,         Approves SIP for
 2015 Ozone NAAQS.                                                    [Insert Federal     purposes of CAA
                                                                      Register            section 110(a)(2)(A),
                                                                      citation].          (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M) for the
                                                                                2015 Ozone NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-27159 Filed 12-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26128]
[DOCID:fr08my08-101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0307]

Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee
will meet in New Orleans to discuss various issues relating to
navigational safety on the Lower Mississippi River and related
waterways. This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The Committee will meet on Thursday, June 26, 2008 from 9 a.m.
to 12 p.m. This meeting may close early if all business is finished.
Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach
the Coast Guard on or before June 12, 2008. Requests to have a copy of
your material distributed to each member of the committee should reach
the Coast Guard on or before June 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at the New Orleans Yacht Club, 403
North Roadway, West End, New Orleans, LA 70124. Send written material
and requests to make oral presentations to Sector Commander, Designated
Federal Officer (DFO) of Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety
Advisory Committee, USCG Sector New Orleans, ATTN: Waterways
Management, 1615 Poydras St., New Orleans, LA 70112.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tonya Lim, Assistant to DFO of
Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee, telephone
504-565-5108.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

Agenda of Meeting

    The agenda for the June 26, 2008 Committee meeting is as follows:
    (1) Introduction of committee members.
    (2) Opening Remarks.
    (3) Approval of the March 20, 2008 minutes.
    (4) Old Business.
    (a) Captain of the Port status report.
    (b) VTS update report.
    (c) Subcommittee/Working Groups update reports.
    (5) New Business
    (6) Adjournment

Procedural

    This meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting
may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion,
members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting.
If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please
notify the DFO no later than June 12, 2008. Written material for
distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than
June 12, 2008. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to
each member of the committee in advance of a meeting, please submit 25
copies to the DFO no later than June 12, 2008.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the DFO as soon as possible.

    Dated: April 17, 2008.
J.H. Korn,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 8th Coast Guard District, Acting.
 [FR Doc. E8-10260 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32412-32413]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4116-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

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

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois (FEMA-4116-DR), dated May 10, 2013, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 22, 2013.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of May 10, 2013.

    Bureau, Crawford, Henderson, Knox, Livingston, Marshall, Mason,
McDonough, Peoria, Rock Island, Schuyler, Stark, Tazewell, and
Woodford Counties for Individual Assistance.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora

Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal
Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046,
Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing
Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared
Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-12842 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 57959]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18235]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-D-2436]

Manufacturing Changes and Comparability for Human Cellular and
Gene Therapy Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Extension of the
Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the
comment period for the notice announcing the availability of a draft
guidance entitled ``Manufacturing Changes and Comparability for Human
Cellular and Gene Therapy Products; Draft Guidance for Industry,'' that
appeared in the Federal Register of July 14, 2023. We are taking this
action in response to requests for an extension to allow interested
persons additional time to submit comments.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the draft guidance
published July 14, 2023 (88 FR 45222). Submit either electronic or
written comments on the draft guidance by November 13, 2023, to ensure
that we consider your comment on the draft guidance before we begin
work on the final version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2023-D-2436 for ``Manufacturing Changes and Comparability for Human
Cellular and Gene Therapy Products; Draft Guidance for Industry.''
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 Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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.'' We will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information 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.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Fikes, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of July 14, 2023 (88
FR 45222), we published a notice of availability for a draft guidance
entitled ``Manufacturing Changes and Comparability for Human Cellular
and Gene Therapy Products; Draft Guidance for Industry.'' This action
opened a docket with a 60-day comment period.
    We have received requests for a 30-day extension of the comment
period for the draft guidance. We have considered the requests and are
extending the comment period for the draft guidance for 60 days, until
November 13, 2023. (A 60-day extension would fall on November 11, 2023,
which is a Saturday, so we have extended the comment period until the
next business day, which is November 13, 2023.) We believe that a 60-
day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit
comments.

    Dated: August 21, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-18235 Filed 8-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 139 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43852-43853]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0832]

Phibro Animal Health Corp.; Carbadox in Medicated Swine Feed;
Withdrawal of Notice of Opportunity for Hearing

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for hearing; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Veterinary
Medicine (CVM), is announcing the withdrawal of a notice of opportunity
for a hearing (NOOH), which proposed to withdraw the approved uses of
carbadox, a carcinogenic animal drug intended for use in feeds for
swine. FDA is publishing a proposed order that, if finalized, will
revoke the current approved method for carbadox because it does not
satisfy the statutory requirement that there be a method to ensure that
no residue of carcinogenic concern remains in the edible tissues of
treated swine. If that order is finalized, we intend to publish in the
Federal Register an NOOH proposing to withdraw approval of all new
animal drug applications for use of carbadox.

DATES: The NOOH is withdrawn as of July 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Dockets
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,
240-402-7500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Heinz, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In an NOOH published in the Federal Register
of April 12, 2016 (81 FR 21559; correction 81 FR 23499), we proposed to

withdraw approval of the new animal drug applications (NADAs) for
carbadox. That proposed action was based on two grounds. First, new
evidence demonstrates that the Delaney Clause in section 512(d)(1)(I)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C.
360b(d)(1)(I)), which requires that no residue of a carcinogenic drug
can be found in any edible portion of the animal after slaughter,
applies because the Diethylstilbestrol (DES) Proviso exception is no
longer met. The DES Proviso exception allows such an animal drug to be
approved if, among other things, no residue of such drug will be found
by methods of examination prescribed or approved by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services by regulations, in any edible portion of such
animal after slaughter or in any food yielded by or derived from the
living animals. Second, new evidence demonstrates that carbadox is not
shown to be safe under the General Safety Clause (section 512(e)(1)(B)
of the FD&C Act). FDA has reviewed information submitted by the drug
sponsor, including some studies submitted in response to the April 2016
NOOH, and determined that the current approved method for detecting
residues of carcinogenic concern does not meet the requirements of part
500, subpart E (21 CFR part 500, subpart E), to demonstrate that there
is ``no residue'' of carbadox in any food derived by treated animals as
required by section 512(d)(1)(I) of the FD&C Act.
    FDA is withdrawing the April 2016 NOOH, which proposed to withdraw
the approved uses of carbadox. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, FDA is publishing a proposed order that, if finalized, will
revoke the current approved method for carbadox that measures
quinoxaline-2-carboxylic acid as the marker residue for carbadox. The
proposed order is based on the inadequacy of the current approved
method to monitor residue of carcinogenic concern in compliance with
FDA's operational definition of ``no residue'' in part 500, subpart E,
and the requirements in section 512(d)(1)(I) of the FD&C Act. If the
proposed order to revoke the current approved method is finalized and
the approved analytical method is revoked, we intend to publish in the
Federal Register an NOOH proposing to withdraw all new animal drug
applications for use of carbadox based on the lack of an approved
method to demonstrate compliance with part 500, subpart E, and section
512(d)(1)(I) of the FD&C Act.

    Dated: July 9, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-15245 Filed 7-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P