[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29744-29745]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-227-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application and
Establishing Intervention Deadline

    Take notice that on April 26, 2022, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-
2700, filed in the above referenced docket, an application pursuant to
sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the
Commission's regulations, for authorization to construct its Coco B
Wells Replacement Project that consists of the abandonment of four
injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells and associated pipelines and
appurtenances and replace with the construction and operation of two
new I/W storage wells and related pipeline and appurtenances, located
in its Coco B Storage Field in Kanawha County, West Virginia. Columbia
estimates the cost of the project to be $17,751,900, all as more fully
set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection with the Commission and open for public
inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to David
A. Alonzo, Manager of Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas
Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas
77002-2700, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
[email protected].
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water Quality Certification

    Applicant stated that a water quality certificate under section 401
of the Clean Water Act is required for the Coco B Wells Replacement
Project from West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. The
request for certification must be submitted to the certifying agency
and to the Commission concurrently. Proof of the certifying agency's
receipt date must be filed no later than five (5) days after the
request is submitted to the certifying agency.

Public Participation

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project: You can file comments on the project, and you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for
filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to
intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 31, 2022.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments
may include statements of support or objections to the project as a
whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your
comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments
are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or
before May 31, 2022.
    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket
number CP22-227-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; first select ``General'' and then select ``Comment on a
Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address below.\2\ Your written comments must reference
the Project docket number (CP22-227-000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1
and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project
will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will
receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are
issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated
with the Commission's environmental review process.
    The Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of
a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
For instructions on how to intervene, see below.

Interventions

    Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities,\3\ has the option to file a motion
to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to
request rehearing of

Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is May 31, 2022. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both
instances, please reference the Project docket number CP22-227-000 in
your submission.
    (1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's
eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website
(www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You
will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; first select
``General'' and then select ``Intervention.'' The eFiling feature
includes a document-less intervention option; for more information,
visit https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/document-less-intervention.pdf; or
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along
with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below.\6\
Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP22-
227-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene
(option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email at David A. Alonzo, Manager of Project
Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street,
Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, or at [email protected].
Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the
applicant and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information
for parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService
link on FERC Online. Service can be via email with a link to the
document.
    All timely, unopposed \7\ motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1).\8\ Motions to intervene that
are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely, and may be
denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for
being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived
and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule
214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\9\ A person obtaining
party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the
Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or
electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The applicant has 15 days from the submittal of a motion to
intervene to file a written objection to the intervention.
    \8\ 18 CFR 385.214(c)(1).
    \9\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the
projects will be available from the Commission's Office of External
Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also
provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Intervention Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 31, 2022.

    Dated: May 10, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10471 Filed 5-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40484-40485]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-P-0303]

Determination That METADATE ER (Methylphenidate Hydrochloride)
Extended-Release Tablet, 10 Milligrams, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for
Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that
METADATE ER (methylphenidate hydrochloride (HCl)) extended-release
tablet, 10 milligrams (mg), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve
abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for methylphenidate HCl
extended-release tablet, 10 mg, if all other legal and regulatory
requirements are met.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reena Raman, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6238, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-7577.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants
must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are
seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same
strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a version of
the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed
drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that
does not refer to a listed drug.
    METADATE ER (methylphenidate HCl) extended-release tablet, 10 mg,
is the subject of ANDA 40-306, held by UCB, Inc., and initially
approved on October 20, 1999. METADATE ER is indicated as an integral
part of a total treatment program which typically includes other
remedial measures (psychological, educational, social) for a
stabilizing effect in children with a behavioral syndrome characterized
by the following group of developmentally inappropriate symptoms:
Moderate-to-severe distractibility, short attention span,
hyperactivity, emotional lability, and impulsivity.
    In a letter dated November 4, 2011, UCB, Inc., notified FDA that
METADATE ER (methylphenidate HCl) extended-release tablet, 10 mg, had
been discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product to the ``Discontinued
Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book.
    Tedor Pharma Inc. submitted a citizen petition dated March 6, 2013
(Docket No. FDA-2013-P-0303), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the
Agency determine whether METADATE ER (methylphenidate HCl) extended-
release tablet, 10 mg, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that METADATE ER (methylphenidate HCl) extended-
release tablet, 10 mg, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other
information suggesting that METADATE ER (methylphenidate HCl) extended-
release tablet, 10 mg, was withdrawn for

reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our
files for records concerning the withdrawal of this product from sale.
We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for
possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information
that would indicate that this product was withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list METADATE ER
(methylphenidate HCl) extended-release tablet, 10 mg, in the
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book. The
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' delineates, among other items, drug
products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other
than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to METADATE ER
(methylphenidate HCl) extended-release tablet, 10 mg, may be approved
by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory
requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling
for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the
Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: June 28, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-16101 Filed 7-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: September 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53553]
[DOCID:fr19se07-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 12495-000, 12619-000, 12621-000]

Cascade Creek LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application,
Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the
Alternative Licensing Procedures

September 13, 2007.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Alternative Licensing Procedures.
    b. Project Nos.: 12495, 12619, and 12621.
    c. Dated Filed: August 3, 2007.
    d. Submitted By: Cascade Creek LLC.
    e. Name of Projects: Cascade Creek, Ruth Lake, and Scenery Lake
Hydroelectric Projects.
    f. Location: The Cascade Creek Project would be located on Swan
Lake and Cascade Creek; the Ruth Lake Project would be located on Ruth
Lake and Delta Creek; and Scenery Lake would be located on Scenery Lake
and Scenery Creek. All three projects would be located in Petersburg-
Wrangle Borough, Alaska, within the Tongass National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3(b)(2) of the Commission's
regulations
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Steven C. Marmon, Cascade Creek, LLC,
3633 Alderwood Avenue, Bellingham, WA 98225; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: David Turner at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Cascade Creek LLC filed its request to use the Alternative
Licensing Procedures on August 3, 2007. Cascade Creek LLC provided
public notice of its request on August 9, 2007. In a letter dated
September 13, 2007, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects
approved Cascade Creek LLC's request to use the Alternative Licensing
Procedures.
    k. Cascade Creek LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    l. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    m. Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be

notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-18423 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67627-67629]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21635]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1220; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00478-T;
Amendment 39-22553; AD 2023-19-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter
series airplanes; Model A330-300 series airplanes; Model A330-800
series airplanes; Model A330-900 series airplanes; Model A340-200
series airplanes; and Model A340-300 series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report of cracks found in the fuel control unit housing
assembly of a Honeywell GTCP331-350 auxiliary power unit (APU), which
caused fuel leakage in the APU compartment. This AD requires replacing
any affected APU fuel control unit or affected APU, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated
by reference. This AD also prohibits the installation of affected parts
under certain conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 6, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 6,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1220; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material incorporated by reference in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     For Honeywell International Inc. service information
incorporated by reference in this AD, contact Honeywell International,
Inc., 111 South 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; website: myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1220.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Model A330-200
series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Model
A330-300 series airplanes; Model A330-800 series airplanes; Model A330-
900 series airplanes; Model A340-200 series airplanes; and Model A340-
300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
June 27, 2023 (88 FR 41516). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0057,
dated March 16, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for
the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2023-0057) (also
referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states cracks were found in the fuel
control unit housing assembly of a Honeywell GTCP331-350 APU, which
caused fuel leakage in the APU compartment. This condition, if not
addressed, could lead to an uncommanded in-flight shutdown of the APU,
or a fire in the APU compartment, possibly resulting in damage to the
airplane.

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing any affected APU
fuel control unit or affected APU, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0057.
The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected parts
under certain conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1220.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined
that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product.
Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any
operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2023-0057 specifies procedures for replacing affected APU
fuel control units or APUs. EASA AD 2023-0057 also prohibits the
installation of affected parts under certain conditions.
    Honeywell Service Bulletin GTCP331-49-7954, dated December 19,
2007, specifies serial numbers for affected APU fuel control units.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 128 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                   Parts cost         Cost per product         Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $425             * $  Up to $425................  Up to $54,400.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the parts cost estimate.

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the APU manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact
on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2023-19-03 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22553; Docket No. FAA-2023-1220;
Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00478-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 6, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (2) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes.
    (4) Model A330-841 airplanes.
    (5) Model A330-941 airplanes.
    (6) Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
    (7) Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 49, Airborne
Auxiliary Power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the fuel control
unit housing assembly of a Honeywell GTCP331-350

auxiliary power unit (APU), which caused fuel leakage in the APU
compartment. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the cracked fuel
control unit housing assemblies. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in an uncommanded APU in-flight shutdown, or
fire in the APU compartment, which could result in damage to the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2023-0057, dated March 16, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0057).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0057

    (1) Where EASA AD 2023-0057 refers to its effective date; this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0057.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2023-0057 defines ``the SB,'' for this AD,
operators must use Honeywell Service Bulletin GTCP331-49-7954, dated
December 19, 2007.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Timothy Dowling,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0057,
dated March 16, 2023.
    (ii) Honeywell Service Bulletin GTCP331-49-7954, dated December
19, 2007.
    (3) For EASA AD 2023-0057, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) For Honeywell service information identified in this AD,
contact Honeywell International, Inc., 111 South 34th Street,
Phoenix, AZ 85034; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
website: myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal.
    (5) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 15, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-21635 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 32477]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12798]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Collection of Information; Comment Request

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

    Extension: Rule 17a-7,
    SEC File No. 270-147, OMB Control No. 3235-0131.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-7 (17 CFR 240.17a-7)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 17a-7 requires a non-resident broker-dealer (generally, a
broker-dealer with its principal place of business in a place not
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) registered or
applying for registration pursuant to Section 15 of the Exchange Act to
maintain--in the United States--complete and current copies of books
and records required to be maintained under any rule adopted under the
Exchange Act and furnish to the Commission a written notice specifying
the address where the copies are located. Alternatively, Rule 17a-7
provides that non-resident broker-dealers may file with the Commission
a written undertaking to furnish the requisite books and records to the
Commission upon demand within 14 days of the demand.
    There are approximately 51 non-resident brokers and dealers. Based
on the Commission's experience, the Commission estimates that the
average amount of time necessary to comply with Rule 17a-7 is one hour
per year. Accordingly, the total burden is approximately 51 hours per
year. Assuming an average cost per hour of approximately $269 for a
compliance manager, the total internal cost of compliance for the
respondents is approximately $13,719 per year.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the 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 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.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312, or
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 23, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12798 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 51)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13825-13826]
[DOCID:fr14mr08-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0015]
RIN 2127-AG51

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Roof Crush Resistance

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: In January 2008, NHTSA published a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking in connection with its ongoing rulemaking to
upgrade the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on roof crush
resistance. That rulemaking is part of a comprehensive plan for
reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and
serious injury in those crashes.
    We received a petition from Public Citizen and Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety requesting an extension of the comment period.
After considering the petition, we are extending the comment period by
10 days, from March 17, 2008, to March 27, 2008.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 am and 5 pm Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical issues: Mr. Christopher Wiacek, Office of Rulemaking,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For legal issues: Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 23, 2005, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register (70 FR 49223) a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)\1\ to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
216, Roof Crush Resistance. As discussed in the NPRM, this rulemaking
is part of a comprehensive plan for reducing the serious risk of
rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious injury in those
crashes. In addition to roof crush, other strategies in the
comprehensive approach include crash-avoidance initiatives such as
electronic stability control, which will significantly reduce the
number of rollovers, as well as crashworthiness efforts such as
ejection mitigation and improved door lock strength, which will lower
the probability of ejection when rollovers do occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 30, 2008, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (73 FR
5484) a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) \2\ for its
ongoing rulemaking on roof crush resistance. We asked for public
comment on a number of issues that may affect the content of the final
rule, including possible variations in the proposed requirements. We
also announced the release of the results of various vehicle tests
conducted since the proposal and invited comments on how the agency
should factor this new information into its decisions regarding the
final rule. We noted that, in developing a final rule, the agency would
consider the comments submitted on both the August 2005 NPRM and the
SNPRM. Thus, there is no need for persons to re-submit the comments
they provided for the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We provided a 45-day comment period for the SNPRM. We stated we
believed this was appropriate given that the SNPRM has a more limited
focus than the NPRM, and given the need to comply with a statutory
deadline. The statutory deadline for issuing a final rule is July 1,
2008.
    In a petition dated February 25, 2008, Public Citizen and Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) requested a 30-day extension of
the comment period. The petitioners stated that a 45-day period ``is a
relatively short time period that does not provide safety organizations
adequate opportunity to review the newly proposed regulatory
alternative, evaluate the additional test data * * * or consider the
policy implications of the changes and prepare comments * * *.'' They
did not provide detailed information concerning why a longer comment
period is needed or what additional information would result from the
extension.
    After considering the petition from Public Citizen and Advocates,
we have decided to extend the comment period by 10 days. In considering
the extension request, we weighed the statutory deadline, the
complexity of this rulemaking, and the basis for the request. We
recognize that there are a number of complex issues involved with this
rulemaking, and wish to facilitate the efforts of the petitioners and
other interested persons to provide complete comments. However, we also
note, as indicated above, that the SNPRM has a more limited focus than
the NPRM, and the July 1, 2008 statutory deadline. After weighing these
considerations and the specific information provided by the
petitioners, we believe it is appropriate to provide a 10-day
extension, but not a 30-day extension.
    Finally, we note that given the 10-day extension and the July 1,
2008 statutory deadline, our ability to consider late comments is
likely to be limited. Therefore, while we will consider late comments
to the extent possible, we encourage interested persons to submit their
comments by the new comment closing date.

    Issued: March 10, 2008.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 08-1025 Filed 3-10-08; 4:34 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story.

I am 26 years old and  have smoked for over 10+ years and was desperate to stop. I have tried everything from patches to gum, medication to cold turkey. Nothing was successful, I was unable to abstain from tobacco cigarettes. My habit was out of control and I was smoking 2 packs a day everyday. My smoking was in control of my life, I was constantly lighting up one cigarette after another. Coughing and hacking, I was breathing horribly and everyone around me could notice the stench of smoke lingering around me. My yellow smoke stained fingers were a dead give away when shaking someones hand I had just met for the first time. Its embarrassing to have these problems that are so ridiculous, I wanted to stop! But I couldn't. I would smoke a cigarette as soon as my eyes cracked open in the morning. I would smoke a cigarette every time I got in my car, in fact I would light my cigarette before I would put my seat belt on. I would smoke after every meal or snack. I would smoke after doing any activity and most of the time, I was smoking while doing the activity  I would wake up at night to smoke a cigarette even though I just wanted to sleep, but my body needed that cigarette. It was in control of my life. Enough was enough, I was tired of going to the shop everyday to buy smokes. Tired of smoking the nasty cigarettes every few minutes of the long and hazy day. Finally I decided to try Ecigs out. At first I couldn't completely dedicate myself to them, sneaking a cigarette every few hours. But I noticed something, sneaking a cigarette every few hours is very different from how I smoked before Ecigs. I could not go 30 minutes without a cigarette before Ecigs! Now I was grabbing a cigarette every few hours? I was amazed! "Wow, that is so unlike me" I would say to myself and to my family and friends. They encouraged me and congratulated me in my success. As I continued using Ecigs I noticed another change, I can breath clearer then before and I can smell better then before. This made me go without a cigarette even longer. Soon I was down to a few cigarettes a day. Unbelievable! This is working for me! I was very happy at the reduction of my habit and at the end of December 2013, I quit altogether. I have remained smoke free for the entire year of 2014 so far. This is the first time for at least 12 years that I have been smoke free. Vaping Ecigs has dramatically improved my way of life, I can breath, I don't reek of smoke and I can smell and taste things once again. I have saved my hard earned money instead of going to the shop everyday for a pack of smokes as well. I have very strong feelings for Ecigs, they are wonderful and I would be absolutely crushed if something happens so that I can't use them anymore. Many people are turning to Ecigs for a reason, they help. It's simple as that....They help. I have faith in my country to do what is right and not take away our right to use Ecigs. I can most certainly agree that some safety is necessary, I completely agree. But I do not want this fantastic industry to be completely overhauled and changed. Please, as an American citizen we have the right and the freedom to choose to use Ecigs or tobacco cigarettes. My choice and millions of others have chosen Ecigs for a healthier alternative to smoking, don't cast our freedom away.... Please.

I appreciate your consideration for my request and I hope we can come to an understanding that is mutually accepted.  Thank you.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67498-67501]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26809]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73545; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Add a New
Complex Order Process Called Legging Orders

November 6, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On September 10, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend its rules governing the trading of
complex orders on the Exchange to adopt ``legging orders.'' The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on September 25, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no

comment letters regarding the proposed rule change. On November 5,
2014, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment
No. 1 from interested persons and is approving the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73152 (September 19,
2014), 79 FR 57632.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 revises the proposal to: (i) modify proposed
Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(4)(vi) to provide that, in the event
the Exchange receives a PIXL Order for the account of a public
customer that is paired with another order for the account of a
public customer pursuant to Phlx Rule 1080(n)(vi), the Exchange will
remove any resting legging orders in those options series; (ii) add
a proposed Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(4)(xii) to provide that a
legging order will be removed when the legging order is on the
Exchange's book at a price that is not at the minimum increment for
that series and that is more aggressive than the same side Phlx Best
Bid or Offer (``PBBO'') and an away market moves to lock the PBBO
(which is also the NBBO); (iii) provide that the proposal will be
implemented within 30 days of Commission approval and that the
Exchange will notify members of implementation by issuing an Options
Trader Alert; and (iv) the Exchange expects to implement the new
functionality on a symbol by symbol bases over the course of a week
to mitigate risks associated with the rollout of new technology; and
(v) make certain non-substantive clarifications to the rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

A. Legging Orders

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)
relating to the generation and execution of ``legging orders.'' Under
the proposal, a legging order is a limit order on the regular order
book in an individual series that represents one leg of a two-legged
complex order (which improves the cPBBO) \5\ to buy or sell an equal
quantity of two option series resting on the Exchange's Complex Order
Book (``CBOOK'').\6\ Phlx proposes that legging orders are firm orders
that are included in the Exchange's displayed best bid or offer.\7\
According to the Exchange, legging orders are designed to increase the
opportunity for complex orders to execute by ``legging'' into the
market, whereby all of the legs of the complex order execute against
the best bids or offers on the Exchange for the individual options
series.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ According to the Exchange, the term ``cPBBO'' means the best
net debit or credit price for a Complex Order Strategy based on the
PBBO for the individual options components of such Complex Order
Strategy, and, where the underlying security is a component of the
Complex Order, the National Best Bid and/or Offer for the underlying
security. See Notice supra, note 3, at n.3 (citing Phlx Rule
1080.08(a)(iv)).
    \6\ See proposed Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C).
    \7\ See id. Under the proposal, legging orders are also not
routable and are limit orders with a time-in-force of DAY. See id.
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 57632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Generation of Leg Orders

    The Exchange proposes that legging orders may be automatically
generated on behalf of Complex Orders resting on the top of the CBOOK
so that they are represented at the best bid and/or offer on the
Exchange for the individual legs.\9\ Phlx proposes that a legging order
may be automatically generated for one leg of a Complex Order at a
price: (i) that matches or improves upon the best Phlx displayed bid or
offer; and (ii) at which the net price can be achieved when the other
leg is executed against the best displayed bid or offer (other than
against a legging order).\10\ The Exchange proposes not to generate
legging orders when the Exchange or a particular option has not opened,
is halted or is otherwise not available for trading.\11\ The Exchange
also proposes to not generate a legging order for complex order
strategies that are not available for trading.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(1). The Exchange
represents that there can be only one legging order on the same side
of the market in a series. See Notice, supra note 3, at 57633.
    \10\ See proposed Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(1). See Notice,
supra note 3, at 57633 for an example of how legging orders would be
generated.
    \11\ See proposed Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(1).
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether a Legging Order may be generated, the Exchange
proposes to evaluate the CBOOK when a Complex Order enters the CBOOK
and at a regular time interval to be determined by the Exchange (which
interval shall not exceed 1 second) following a change in the National
Best Bid/Offer (``NBBO'') or PBBO in any component of a complex order
eligible to generate legging orders to determine whether legging orders
may be generated.\13\ Under the proposal, a legging order may be
generated and executed in an increment other than the minimum increment
for that series and will be ranked on the order book at its generated
price and displayed at a price that is rounded, down for legging orders
to buy and up for legging orders to sell, to the nearest minimum
increment allowable for that series.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(1). See also
Notice, supra note 3, at 57633. Under the proposal, two legging
orders relating to the same complex order can be generated, but only
one of those can execute as part of the execution of a particular
complex order. See id.
    \14\ See proposed Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(2) to
provide that legging orders will not be generated if: (i) The price of
the legging order would lock or cross the best bid or offer of another
exchange; (ii) there is an auction on either side of the market in the
series or a ``Posting Period'' under Phlx Rule 1080(p) regarding
``Acceptable Trade Range'' on the same side in progress in the series;
(iii) the price of the complex order is outside of the Acceptable
Complex Execution (``ACE'') Parameter under Phlx Rule 1080.08(i); (iv)
there is already a legging order in that series on the same side of the
market at the same price (unless it has priority based on the
participant type, under existing Exchange rules); (v) the complex order
is an all-or-none order; or (vi) the generated legging order for a
complex order would immediately cause resting legging orders to be
removed pursuant to section proposed Phlx Rule
1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(4)(ix).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that it may limit the number of legging
orders generated on an objective basis and may remove existing legging
orders to maintain a fair and orderly market in time of extreme
volatility or uncertainty.\16\ The Exchange represents that it will
determine the options for which, if any, legging orders will be
available and will communicate this to its participants.\17\ Phlx
represents that it would not limit the generation of legging orders on
the basis of the entering participant or the participant category of
the order (e.g., professional or public customer).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 57632-33.
    \17\ See id. at 57633.
    \18\ See id. at n.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Execution of Legging Orders

    The Exchange proposes that legging orders would be executed only
after all other executable orders (including any non-displayed size)
and quotes at the same price are executed in full pursuant to the Phlx
priority rules applicable to Phlx XL non-Complex Orders, rather than
based on the time of receipt of the Complex Order.\19\ As a result, the
Exchange states the generation of legging orders will not affect the
existing priority, or execution opportunities, currently provided to
participants in the regular market in any way.\20\ Under the proposal,
when a legging order is executed, the other leg of the complex order
will be automatically executed against the displayed best bid or offer
on the Exchange and any other legging order based on that complex order
will be removed.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(3) and Notice,
supra note 3, at 57634.
    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 57634.
    \21\ See proposed Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx believes that legging orders will provide additional execution
opportunities for complex orders without negatively impacting investors

in the regular market.\22\ Phlx also believes that legging orders may
facilitate additional executions and enhance execution quality for
investors in the regular market by improving the price and/or size of
the PBBO and by providing additional execution opportunities for
resting orders on the regular book.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 57634.
    \23\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 57637.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Removal of Legging Orders

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(4) to
provide that a legging order will be removed from the Exchange's
regular limit order book automatically if: (i) The price of the legging
order is no longer at the Exchange's displayed best bid or offer on the
regular limit order book; (ii) execution of the legging order would no
longer achieve the net price of the complex order when the other leg is
executed against the Exchange's best displayed bid or offer on the
regular limit order book (other than another legging order); (iii) the
complex order is executed in full or in part; (iv) the complex order is
cancelled or modified; (v) the price of the complex order is outside of
the ACE Parameter of Phlx Rule 1080.08(i); (vi) the Exchange receives a
Qualified Contingent Cross Order \24\ which includes a component in
which a legging order exists, an order that will trigger an auction
under Phlx rules in a component in which there is a legging order
(whether a buy order or a sell order), or a PIXL Order for the account
of a public customer paired with an order for the account of a public
customer pursuant to Phlx Rule 1080(n)(vi); (vii) a legging order is
generated by a different complex order in the same leg at a better
price or the same price for a participant with a higher priority;
(viii) a complex order is marketable against the cPBBO where a legging
order is present and has more than one leg in common with the existing
complex order that generated the legging order; (ix) a complex order
becomes marketable against multiple legging orders; (x) a complex order
consisting of an unequal quantity of components is marketable against
the cPBBO where a legging order is present but cannot be executed due
to insufficient size in at least one of the components of the cPBBO;
(xi) an incoming all-or-none order is entered onto the order book at a
price which is equal to or crosses the price of a legging order; or
(xii) when the legging order is on the book at a price which is not at
the minimum price variation and which is more aggressive than the same
side PBBO, and an away market moves to lock the PBBO (which is also the
NBBO).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Phlx Rule 1080(o).
    \25\ See proposed Phlx Rule 1080.08(f)(iii)(C)(4). See also
Notice, supra note 3, at 57634-57636 for examples illustrating the
removal of legging orders and supra note 4 describing Amendment No.
1 to the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to implement the proposed rule
change within 30 days of approval by the Commission, and represents
that it will notify Exchange members of implementation by issuing an
Options Trader Alert.\26\ The Exchange expects to implement the new
functionality on a symbol by symbol basis over the course of a week in
order to mitigate risks associated with the rollout of new
technology.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 4 describing Amendment No. 1 to the
proposal.
    \27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\28\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\29\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that legging orders could facilitate the
execution of complex orders resting on the Exchange's CBOOK by
increasing the opportunities for eligible complex orders to execute
against interest in the regular market on the Exchange's regular order
book, thereby benefitting investors seeking to execute complex orders.
In addition, the Commission believes that legging orders could benefit
participants in the regular market by providing additional liquidity,
and potentially more favorable executions, for regular market interest.
The Commission notes that it previously approved proposals by other
options exchanges to implement legging orders.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 66234 (January 25,
2012), 77 FR 4852 (January 31, 2012) (order approving File No. SR-
ISE-2011-82); 69419 (April 19, 2013), 78 FR 24449 (April 25, 2013)
(order approving File No. SR-BOX-2013-01); and 69987 (July 15,
2013), 78 FR 43254 (July 19, 2013) (order approving File No. SR-
CBOE-2013-026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, legging orders will be firm orders that
represent one leg of a two-legged complex order involving a one-to-one
ratio resting on the top of the CBOOK.\31\ The Commission notes that,
on Phlx, legging orders may be generated and executed in an increment
other than the minimum increment for that options series and will be
ranked on the order book at its generated price and displayed at a
price that is rounded, down for legging orders to buy and up for
legging orders to sell, to the nearest minimum increment allowable for
that series.\32\ The Commission also notes that a legging order will be
executed only after all other executable orders (including any non-
displayed size) and quotes at the same price are executed in full
pursuant to the Exchange's priority rules applicable to non-complex
orders.\33\ Accordingly, the Exchange represents that the generation of
a legging order will not affect the existing priority, or execution
opportunities, currently provided to market participants in the regular
market in any way.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See infra note 6 and accompanying text.
    \32\ See infra note 14 and accompanying text.
    \33\ See infra note 19 and accompanying text.
    \34\ See infra note 20 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Exchange represents that it will carefully
manage and curtail the number of legging orders being generated so that
they do not negatively impact system capacity and performance.\35\ Phlx
represents, further, that it may curtail the number of leg orders on an
objective basis, such as by limiting the number of leg orders generated
in a particular option, and that it will not limit the generation of
leg orders on the basis of the entering participant or the participant
category of the order (i.e., professional or public customer).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See infra note 16 and accompanying text.
    \36\ See infra note 18 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-54. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-
Phlx-2014-54, and should be submitted on or before December 4, 2014.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the
date of publication of notice in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 1
revises the proposal to, among other things, provide for two instances
whereby the Exchange will remove legging orders to ensure that legging
orders are removed when public customer orders are crossed through the
Exchange's PIXL auction pursuant to Phlx Rule 1080(n)(vi) and to ensure
that legging orders are removed consistent with Phlx Rule 1084
governing order protection.\37\ The Commission notes that the revisions
are designed to provide market participants with more specificity
regarding the operation and implementation of the Exchange's legging
order functionality. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause for
approving the proposed rule change, as amended, on an accelerated
basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See supra note 4 for a description of Amendment No. 1.
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\39\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2014-54), as amended,
be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26809 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EPA's Response to Comments on the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting for Facilities Located in Indian Country and Clarification of Additional Opportunities Available to Tribal Governments Under the TRI Program Rule

Comment 1:
	The Heritage Foundation, the National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials (NASTTPO), the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), and the Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Commission (OHMERC), all commented that section 313(a) of EPCRA requires a facility owner or operator to submit the form to two, and only two, governmental authorities: the EPA Administrator and the appropriate State official or officials, as designated by the Governor.  These commenters argue that EPA can neither relieve the facility of the statutory obligation to submit the form to State officials nor require the facility to submit the form to any authority other than the EPA or the State.

	The commenters further argue that section 329(9) of EPCRA, the definition of "State," does not include Indian Tribes.  The commenters argue that when Congress intends to include Tribes within the definition of "State," it does so clearly, and the commenter points to the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act as examples of such clear intentions.  The Heritage Foundation also notes that Congress expressly included a provision that Tribes should be afforded substantially the same treatment as States for purposes of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980.  The Heritage Foundation argues that the use of this language in CERCLA and its corresponding absence in EPCRA indicates an intent to preclude Tribes from being treated similar to States for purposes of EPCRA.  The commenters argue that EPA does not have the authority to construe "an official or officials of the State designated by the Governor" to mean "an official or officials of the Indian Tribe designated by the Tribal Chairperson or equivalent elected official of the relevant Indian Tribe."

Response 1:
	EPCRA does not explicitly address the role of Tribes in implementing Title III programs.  EPA notes, however, that relevant authorities in Indian country generally lie with Tribes and the federal government, and not with States.  See, e.g., Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520, 527 n.1 (1998).  EPA does not interpret the statute's silence regarding Tribes and Indian country as demonstrating the requisite clear Congressional intent to extend State roles into such areas.  Further, EPA does not agree with the commenters' premise that when a statute is silent as to the role of Tribes, EPA is precluded from exercising its discretion to fill gaps by designating Indian Tribes as the appropriate implementing entities in Indian country.  Rather, EPA views the statute's silence as reserving to EPA's discretion the appropriate means to fill implementation gaps in Indian country.  In view of the critical importance of local leadership in Title III implementation, EPA has exercised its discretion to treat Tribes as the appropriate entities to receive TRI reports for facilities in their Indian country.  EPA notes that this approach is consistent with existing tribal roles under EPA's Emergency Planning and Notification regulations at 40 CFR Part 355.

Comment 2:
	NASTTPO and OHMERC comment that Tribes do not have the legal ability to implement EPCRA.  The commenters argue that because this rule involves the regulation of non-members, i.e., non-Indians, that own land in fee within Indian reservations and the regulation of facilities adjacent to, but not within, Indian country, express authorization by Congress is required for Tribes to exercise this legal authority.  NASTTPO cites Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), for the proposition that tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers is limited.

Response 2:
      EPA disagrees with the commenters' premise that Tribes are unable to implement the EPCRA roles included in this rulemaking in Indian country and notes that this rulemaking does not change the reporting requirements for facilities adjacent to, but not within, Indian country.  EPA notes that in the prior rulemaking establishing tribal roles in implementing Title III, the Agency concluded that Tribes are generally able to exercise sufficient authority to carry out Title III emergency planning and response activities in Indian country. 55 FR 30632, 306041 (July 26, 1990).  See also "Summary and Response to Comments Received on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Under Sections 311 and 312 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986  -  March 29, 1989" (June 20, 1990).  EPA continues to believe that Tribes are the appropriate entities for such functions in Indian country.  This is especially true with regard to the functions at issue in this rulemaking, which do not include any separate regulatory program approval or other exercise of regulatory authority by Tribes.  Tribes will simply need to accept the reports filed by covered facilities pursuant to statutory requirements.  EPA is not approving any separate regulatory or enforcement functions for Tribes, as such functions by EPA are not necessary elements of this program.  With regard to the opportunities for Tribes to petition EPA to add chemicals or facilities to the TRI program, we note that it is EPA, not Tribes or States, who ultimately decides which chemicals and facilities will be covered.  The exercise of this federal function by EPA does not entail any exercise of regulatory authority by Tribes (or States).

Comment 3:
      NASTTPO, OHMERC, and Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA) comment that EPA has not demonstrated a need to take the current action because States, Tribes, and Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) currently work well together to improve community preparedness.  The commenters note that Tribes currently are able to access TRI data, and EPA could implement the approach of providing TRI information to Tribes without this rulemaking while still requiring submission of information to the State.  NASTTPO and OHMERC additionally noted that they could support an obligation to report to both States and Tribes. Additionally, OIPA requested clarification on why EPA has waited for over 20 years to resolve the oversight of inadvertently omitting the provisions from the 1990 rulemaking.

Response 3:
      EPA acknowledges and commends the efforts and accomplishments of States, Tribes, and LEPCs that have worked to create programs that identify risks and emphasize emergency preparedness.  EPA believes that Tribes are the appropriate governments for implementing Title III in Indian country.  EPA considers this rulemaking to be consistent with the past work of States and Tribes in that it will further localize chemical awareness and emergency response planning as intended by EPCRA.

      EPA believes that the nature of emergency planning requires that a single relevant local entity be responsible for implementing Title III in a given area.  While EPA encourages Tribes and States to share reporting information from facilities in which both entities may have an interest, only one entity may be responsible for implementing the program, and EPA interprets EPCRA to require reporting to two entities only: the relevant local entity and EPA. In addition, when EPA makes TRI data available to the public three weeks to a month following the reporting deadline, States have access to TRI data outside of the State's jurisdiction.

      Regarding EPA's delay in rectifying the overwritten provisions from 1990, EPA first internally identified this oversight during late 2010 within the office, and since that time, formed a team to address the issue. Over the past 20-plus years since the 1990 rulemaking, EPA never received external feedback on the oversight. In addition, since the 1990 revision was broader in scope and established tribal roles in other aspects of EPCRA, the omission of only this specific section of the rule made the issue harder to identify.

Comment 4:
      The Fond du Lac Band and one individual commenter sought an extension of the rule to include lands ceded by treaties that may be used by Tribes for hunting, fishing, and gathering.  These commenters also asked that EPA extend this action to lands ten miles away from any Indian reservation due to the migration of air emissions.

Response 4:
      EPA recognizes that the problem presented by releases from facilities in cross-border areas is present in any emergency response scheme that relies on reporting to local officials.  EPCRA recognizes this issue and encourages cross-boundary cooperation; section 304(b)(1) requires that emergency notification be given to "the State emergency planning commission of any State likely to be affected by the release."  With regard to Indian country, EPA understands Indian Tribes to be within the scope of "State" for the purposes of section 304(b)(1) notification.  EPA encourages Tribes, State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), and LEPCs to participate in joint planning and cooperative efforts to prepare for potential emergencies.

      EPA declines to extend the rule as sought because of the local nature of emergency planning.  It is important that one entity be responsible for emergency planning in an area to enable effective emergency response.  EPA encourages joint planning and cooperative efforts between LEPCs, SERCs, and Tribes to address these entities' interests in emergency response planning in lands outside their borders.

Comment 5:
      ODEQ, OIPA, and OHMERC comment that this action will make TRI data more difficult to obtain, particularly in Oklahoma, where the status of lands is often uncertain. The commenters argue that the public and first responders will need to take steps to evaluate the status of the land before knowing where to seek relevant reporting information. ODEQ adds that this rule could endanger first responders, LEPCs, and local residents because they will not be able to easily determine which hazardous materials are within their communities, or how to respond to a chemical release because these facilities would only be required to report to a tribal government, not the DEQ. Additionally, these commenters note that they find EPA's database unreliable, because the information is behind current data by the time it becomes public.

Response 5:
      EPA recognizes the need to publish current TRI data, and released the preliminary data release for 2010 reporting information on July 28, 2011, less than one month after the July 1[st] reporting deadline.

      In addition, EPA believes that in most cases, determining whether reporting facilities are located within Indian country will be straightforward, and there should be little or no confusion regarding such locations.  This is especially true for facilities that are covered by regulatory programs under other federal environmental statutes, e.g., the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as the land status of their locations may already have been considered in determining the applicable regulatory agency.  The EPA recognizes that certain rarer situations may raise more complex factual scenarios.  In such cases, EPA intends to work with the relevant Tribe, State, and facility to assess the Indian country status of the particular facility's location.  EPA believes that sufficient information will be available for first responders to determine the appropriate source for reporting information. EPA does not believe that this rule will increase risk to first responders and emergency response personnel.  While States and Tribes will be one resource for TRI data, EPA houses all of the reported toxic release information from facilities in one comprehensive database which provides a complete account of facilities and information on their chemicals.   EPA makes TRI release data available to the public approximately three weeks to a month after reports are submitted.  During the three-week period between new report submission and public availability, EPA encourages emergency response personnel to work with States, Tribes and EPA to assist in filling any alleged temporary data gaps.  In anticipation of an emergency, EPA also encourages such collaboration so that emergency response personnel can preemptively clarify the land status of any facilities of interest that may be in Indian country.

Comment 6:
      ODEQ and OHMERC comment that EPA's interpretation of EPCRA is unreasonable because it removes the state's responsibility for accepting TRI reports and making them publicly available.

Response 6:
      EPA does not believe that EPCRA designates states as the responsible entity for accepting TRI reports for facilities in Indian country.  EPA notes that, consistent with applicable principles of federal Indian law, it is the federal government and Tribes, and not the States, that generally implement programs in Indian country.  See, e.g., Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. at 527 n.1.  EPA does not interpret the language or legislative history of Title III as expressing any Congressional intent to extend State programs into Indian country.

Comment 7:
      OIPA comments that if the proposed rule is finalized, implementation should be delayed, because EPA and Tribes need time to develop a way for reporters to determine Indian country in Oklahoma.

Response 7:
      EPA does not believe there is any programmatic benefit to delaying implementation of this rule or establishing new deadlines.  The risks from chemical accidents are real and current, and EPA encourages the communities in which these risks exist to move quickly and expeditiously to begin addressing those risks.

      In addition, as noted above, EPA believes that in most cases, determining whether reporting facilities are located within Indian country will be straightforward.  This is especially true for facilities that are covered by regulatory programs under other federal environmental statutes, e.g., the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as the land status of their locations may already have been considered in determining the applicable regulatory agency.   EPA also notes that assessments of whether a reporting facility is located in Indian country can generally be easily verified through consultation with the Department of the Interior or through reference to readily available materials.  As stated above, EPA recognizes that certain rarer situations may raise more complex factual scenarios.  In such cases, EPA intends to work with the relevant State, Tribe, and facility to assess the Indian country status of the particular facility's location. EPA notes that it is ultimately a facility's responsibility to ascertain whether it is required to report to the Tribe or State, in addition to EPA.

Comment 8:
      OIPA comments that States will not have access to TRI information in Indian country and will thus have potential data gaps.

Response 8:
      EPA generally makes TRI data available to the public less than one month after the July 1[st] reporting deadline, thus making any alleged data availability gaps temporary and short-term in nature. We note that OIPA's concern would also apply to cross-border situations between States, which is an issue that exists irrespective of this rulemaking. Similarly, Tribes have expressed interest in release data for areas near, but outside of, their Indian country.  During the period between report submission and public data availability, EPA encourages States and Tribes to work together and with EPA if they have an immediate need to obtain any TRI data which may have been reported but not yet made available to the public.

Comment 9:
      ODEQ and OHMERC comment that this action may have adverse effects on compliance monitoring.  ODEQ states that it uses TRI data to compare reported quantities of releases to media-permitted releases, and this activity has revealed several releases in excess of permitted releases in the past.  ODEQ alleges that a delay in getting updated TRI information would delay this comparison and prolong potential noncompliance.

Response 9:
      EPA recognizes the need to publish current TRI data, and released the preliminary data release for 2010 reporting information on July 28, 2011, less than one month after the July 1[st] reporting deadline. With regard to compliance monitoring under federal environmental laws, EPA also notes that it is generally EPA or the relevant Indian Tribe that implements environmental programs in Indian country.  State programs are generally not approved by EPA for such areas.

Comment 10:
      OIPA requests that EPA further consider the impact on regulated entities and specifically asks whether the Economic Analysis included TRI facilities on Indian allotments.  OIPA asserts that there will be a cost in determining whether or not a facility is on an allotment.

Response 10:
      EPA has developed an economic analysis to assess the impact on facilities located in Indian country. The economic analysis estimates incremental economic burden for facilities that are required to report releases to TRI. The term Indian country, as defined in 40 CFR 372.3, includes Indian allotments, so EPA therefore accounted for such facilities in its universe of those affected by this rule. The Agency's estimation of burden to a facility included coordination with EPA and other offices regarding the Indian country issue. Originally, we estimated the time it would take for a facility to make this determination would be, on average, about 10 minutes. This 10-minute assumption considered the fact that most facilities are already aware of their geographic status relating to Indian country. In light of OIPA's concern, EPA increased the average time (over the full universe of facilities) for a facility to make this determination, including consulting with EPA as appropriate, to 30 minutes. This increase in reporter burden for compliance determination is reflected in the final economic analysis and raises the total first year incremental cost from $377,695 to $388,161, based on an updated total of 6,985 burden hours. EPA recognizes that certain rarer situations may raise more complex factual scenarios.  In such cases, EPA intends to work with the relevant State, Tribe, and facility to assess the Indian country status of the particular facility's location.

Comment 11:
      The National Tribal Air Association (NTAA) comments on the potential economic impact and implementation issues for Tribes.  NTAA comments that it is concerned about the increased workload for Tribes and asks that EPA share the rationale of the cost analysis or conduct a benefits analysis.  NTAA requests that EPA work with Tribes to assist Tribes in easily managing the data and using the data to educate the community.  NTAA also requests assistance with upgrades to paper or electronic reporting systems.

Response 11:
      As described by the rule, a Tribe's only responsibility would be to receive the submitted TRI report(s). Per the rule, Tribes are not required to manage data, i.e., analyze or disseminate data, or educate their community, although EPA does encourage the use of the TRI data for community right-to-know purposes. Separate from this rule, EPA already works with tribal communities to help them better understand the TRI data as well as the software tools with which individuals can access and analyze the releases on or near their location. EPA will continue to work with Tribes in this manner, and the Agency's intent through this rule is to increase tribal participation in the TRI program. Therefore, as Tribes and States will now have similar responsibilities and rights pertaining to TRI report receipt and chemical petitioning, EPA expects that Tribes may choose to increase their focus on the TRI. EPA is prepared to work with interested Tribes to increase their awareness and understanding of the TRI program.

Comment 12:
      The NTAA requested clarification about the procedure for petitioning to add TRI facilities.

Response 12:
      EPCRA section 313(b)(2) discusses the addition of facilities to the TRI list by the Administrator, including at the request of a Governor of a State with regard to facilities located in that State.  To add a facility, the Administrator must determine "that such action is warranted on the basis of toxicity of the toxic chemical, proximity to other facilities that release the toxic chemical or to population centers, the history of releases of such chemical at such facility, or such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate."

      EPCRA section 313(e) discusses the petition process for adding a chemical to or deleting a chemical from the TRI list.  When any person petitions to add or delete a chemical from the list, then EPA must initiate a rulemaking to add or delete the chemical or publish an explanation of why the petition is denied within 180 days. When a State Governor -- or a Tribal Chairperson or equivalent elected official -- petitions to add a chemical, the chemical will be added to the list after 180 days unless EPA has initiated a rulemaking to add the chemical to the list or publish an explanation of why the petition does not meet the requirements of section 313(d)(2).

      EPA is adding text at 40 CFR 372.20 to describe the process for petitioning EPA to add a facility to the TRI list of covered facilities or to add a chemical to or delete a chemical from the TRI list of covered chemicals.

Comment 13:
      NTAA asserted that tribal governments may enter into memoranda of agreement with EPA to implement the exchange of information between governments.  NTAA asked if there could be a full delegation of TRI programs under the rule rather than working under a memorandum of agreement.

Response 13:
      Although EPA agrees that EPA and Tribes may enter into memoranda of agreement (MOAs) for a variety of purposes, including the exchange of appropriate information, EPA notes that the tribal roles established under this regulation would not necessitate MOAs for purposes of tribal receipt of TRI reporting information, or for Tribes to petition EPA for the addition of chemicals or facilities for purposes of relevant TRI reporting requirements.  The requirement for facilities to report to Tribes  -  in addition to EPA  -  is consistent with the statute, as well as the rule, and does not include any corresponding requirement for an MOA between EPA and Tribes.  EPA also notes that the TRI reporting requirements do not involve any separate programmatic action such as a program approval or delegation for Tribes or States.

Comment 14:
      The Fond du Lac Band, the NTAA, and several other commenters approved of this rule as it promotes tribal sovereignty and will better enable Tribes to understand toxic releases within Indian country.  The Fond du Lac Band submitted several additional comments about the TRI Program.

Response 14:
      EPA appreciates these commenters' support and agrees that this rule is consistent with the concept of tribal sovereignty for environmental protection in Indian country.  EPA also appreciates the interest and comments regarding other aspects of the TRI Program, but these comments are outside the scope of this particular rulemaking.