UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

		PC Code No.:	128975

DP Barcode:	349574

		Date:	June 9, 2008

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Problem Formulation for Ecological Risk Assessment for Flutolanil

TO:		Jill Bloom, Chemical Review Manager

Special Review and Re-registration Division (7508P)

FROM:	Keith Sappington, Biologist

Larry Liu, Chemist

Environmental Risk Branch V

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH:	Mah Shamim, Ph.D., Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

Please find attached the problem formulation for the ecological risk assessment of current uses of flutolanil.

Should you have any questions or if we can provide further information, please contact Larry Liu (fate issues) or Keith Sappington (ecological effects issues).


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6185]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02253]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4465-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4465-DR), dated October 4, 2019,
and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 18, 2022.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin A.
Wallace, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Myra M. Shird as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-02253 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52522-52523]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC13-135-000
    Applicants: Direct Energy Business, LLC, Hess Corporation, Hess
Energy Marketing, LLC, Hess Small Business Services LLC
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
FPA of Direct Energy Business, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/15/13
    Accession Number: 20130815-5167
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/13

    Docket Numbers: EC13-136-000
    Applicants: CPV Sentinel, LLC, EFS Sentinel Holdings, LLC, Aircraft
Services Corporation, Voltage Finance LLC
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization of Disposition of
Facilities under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for
Confidential Treatment, Expedited Consideration and Waivers of CPV
Sentinel, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/15/13
    Accession Number: 20130815-5170
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/13

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG13-52-000
    Applicants: Goal Line L.P.
    Description: Self-Certification of EWG Status of Goal Line L.P.
    Filed Date: 8/16/13
    Accession Number: 20130816-5033
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/13

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-764-003
    Applicants: CED White River Solar, LLC
    Description: CED White River Solar, LLC submits Revised Market
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 10/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/16/13
    Accession Number: 20130816-5069
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1210-000
    Applicants: Westar Generating, Inc.
    Description: Supplemental Filing, Purchase Power Agreement with
Westar Energy, Inc. to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/16/13
    Accession Number: 20130816-5066
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2164-000
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: AG Study Backlog Clearing Process Tariff Revisions to
be effective 10/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/15/13
    Accession Number: 20130815-5136
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2165-000
    Applicants: PacifiCorp
    Description: Salt River Project MOU to be effective 10/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/15/13
    Accession Number: 20130815-5148
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2166-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3610; Queue No. V3-017/
X4-006 to be effective 7/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/15/13
    Accession Number: 20130815-5163
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2167-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue No. W2-014; First Revised Service Agreement No.
2797 to be effective 7/17/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/15/13
    Accession Number: 20130815-5164
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2168-000
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Interim Black Start
Agreement (RS No. 405) of Southern California Edison Company.
    Filed Date: 8/16/13
    Accession Number: 20130816-5022
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2169-000
    Applicants: Goal Line L.P.
    Description: Goal Line L.P. Initial Market-Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 10/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/16/13

    Accession Number: 20130816-5068
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2170-000
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits 2041R2 Kansas City
Board of Public Utilities PTP Agreement to be effective 8/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/16/13
    Accession Number: 20130816-5070
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2171-000
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits 2462 Twin Eagle/
Sunflower Meter Agent Agreement Cancellation to be effective 8/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/16/13
    Accession Number: 20130816-5071
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2172-000
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits Old
Laguna Tap Construction Agreement to be effective 7/22/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/16/13
    Accession Number: 20130816-5072
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/13
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 16, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20581 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 35421]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15223]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Neologic Animation Inc., Order of Suspension of
Trading

 June 17, 2015.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') that there is a lack of current and accurate
information concerning the securities of Neologic Animation Inc.
(``NANI \1\'') (CIK No. 1371310), a revoked Nevada corporation whose
principal place of business is listed as Zhejiang, China because it is
delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not
filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2013. As of June 10, 2015, NANI's common stock was
quoted on OTC Link (previously ``Pink Sheets'') operated by OTC Markets
Group Inc. On May 7, 2015, the Commission's Division of Corporation
Finance sent a delinquency letter to NANI at the address shown in its
then-most recent filing in the Commission's EDGAR system requesting
compliance with its periodic filing requirements, which NANI failed to
receive because the letter was undeliverable as addressed. NANI thus
failed to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as
required by Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR
232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual). To date, NANI has
failed to cure its delinquencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The short form of the issuer's name is also its ticker
symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 17, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT
on June 30, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15223 Filed 6-17-15; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 10248]
[DOCID:fr05mr10-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13642-000]

GB Energy Park, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

February 25, 2010.
    On December 11, 2009 and revised on January 14, 2010, GB Energy
Park, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the
feasibility of the Gordon Butte Pumped Storage Project, which would be
located near Martinsdale in Meagher County, Montana. The sole purpose
of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder
priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new upper reservoir
with a surface area of 50 acres and a storage capacity of 4,050 acre-
feet at a normal maximum surface elevation of 6,020 feet; (2) a new 50-
foot-high, 9,000-foot-long earthen and roller compacted concrete
embankment at the upper reservoir; (3) a new lower reservoir, with a
surface area of 80 acres and a storage capacity of 4,050 acre-feet at a
normal maximum surface elevation of 4,990 feet; (4) a new 50-foot-high,
10,000-foot-long earthen and roller compacted concrete embankment at
the lower reservoir; (5) a new 25-foot-diameter, 4,000-foot-long steel-
lined tunnel connecting to; (6) a new powerhouse containing two
reversible turbine generator units having a total installed capacity of
350 megawatts; (7) an existing 4-foot-wide by 4-foot-deep, 3-mile-long
canal carrying flows diverted from Cottonwood Creek by an existing
diversion structure, or a new 3-foot-diameter, 2,400-foot-long pipeline
carrying flows from an existing collection point on the South Fork of
the Musselshell River, terminating at; (8) a new pumphouse delivering
initial fill and make-up flows to the lower reservoir via a 3-foot-
diameter, approximately 250-foot-long pipeline; (9) a new substation;
(10) a new 500-kilovolt (kV), 5.7-mile-long transmission line
interconnecting with an existing 500-kV line, or a new 100-kV, 1.1-
mile-long transmission line interconnecting to an existing 100-kV line;
(11) 7.4 miles of new 20-foot-wide gravel access roads; and (12)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average
annual generation of 1,300 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Carl Borgquist, GB Energy Park, LLC, 1970
Stadium Drive, Suite 3, Bozeman, MT 59715; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only
comments, click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at
(866) 208-3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13642) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4605 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 61694-61696]
[DOCID:fr31oc07-137]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56701; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, Regarding Complex Orders

October 25, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 20, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
substantially by the CBOE. On October 19, 2007, the CBOE filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaces the original filing in its
entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CBOE proposes to amend its rules regarding the handling of
certain complex orders. The text of the proposed rule change is

http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the CBOE's Office of the Secretary, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    CBOE Rule 6.53C, ``Complex Orders on the Hybrid System,'' governs
the electronic handling and execution of complex orders by the
Exchange's Hybrid System. The purpose of this filing is to allow for
the electronic handling and execution of stock-option orders on the
Exchange. These are a type of complex order that consist of an option
component and a stock component. Stock-option orders are popular with
investors (e.g., buy-writes) and are frequently handled on CBOE. To
date, these orders are handled manually and the option component is
traded in open outcry by a broker. With the establishment of the CBOE
Stock Exchange (``CBSX''), an electronic stock trading facility of
CBOE, the Exchange is now positioned to handle and trade stock-option
orders electronically, with the stock component execution taking place
on CBSX.
    The Exchange proposes to handle these orders in a manner that is
substantially similar to other complex orders handled pursuant to CBOE
Rule 6.53C. Electronic stock-option orders will be accepted by the
Hybrid System and auctioned in the Complex Order Auction (``COA'')
pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.53C(d) when the requirements for an auction are
met. An unexecuted stock-option order can also be maintained by the
system (either in the Complex Order Book (``COB'') or on the PAR
workstation), either of which will monitor the marketability of the
order, taking into account the CBSX market for the execution of the
stock component of the order.
    There are four differences between the handling of stock-option
orders and other complex order types handled pursuant to CBOE Rule
6.53C. First, as previously mentioned, the stock portion of the stock-
option order will be executed on CBSX. All such executions will be
consistent with CBSX trading rules, including priority and matching
rules. The execution of the stock-option order cannot take place until
the desired price of the stock component is achievable on CBSX. The
option leg of the stock-option order will not trade ahead of any
resting public customer orders on the Hybrid book. This is consistent
with existing CBOE Rule 6.45A(b)(ii), which provides that stock-option
orders do not have priority over bids/offers in the public customer
limit order book. The option leg may be executed in one-cent increments
regardless of the minimum increment applicable to the series.
    For example: a customer enters a buy-write order to buy 100 shares
of XYZ (trading around $40) and sell a 45 call with a net price of
$39.00. There is a public customer order in the Hybrid book to sell the
45 call for $1. When executing the buy-write against auction responses,
the system will not allow the option leg of the transaction to trade at
$1 or higher (thereby preserving the resting limit order's priority at
that price). An execution could occur where the option leg prints at
$0.99 and the stock trade prints at $39.99 (in accordance with CBSX
priority rules). This meets the buy-write's limit price (involving a
total cost of $3900) and does not violate priority on CBOE or CBSX.
    Second, the execution of a stock-option order submitted to the COB
is slightly different than the priority outlined in CBOE Rule
6.53C(c)(ii). More specifically, a stock-option order submitted to the
CBOE will trade in the following sequence: (1) Against other stock-
option orders in the COB using public customer priority and then time
priority (thus, if there are multiple public customer and broker-dealer
stock-option orders resting in COB, the public customer orders will
trade first with time priority among them, and then the broker-dealer
orders will trade with time priority among them); (2) against
individual orders or quotes on the Exchange (i.e., the CBSX book and
the options Hybrid book), provided the stock-option order can be
executed in full (or in a permissible ratio); and (3) against orders or
quotes submitted by Market Participants, as set forth in CBOE Rule
6.53C(c)(ii)(3). Because a portion of a stock-option order is executed
on a different platform (CBSX), it is more practical to execute resting
stock-option orders against other stock-option orders received by the
system first before scanning for executions against the legs on the
CBSX book and the options Hybrid book.
    The third difference involves the manner in which stock-option
orders are executed through the COA. Individual orders and quotes for
the various legs of the order will have last priority. Again, this is
because it is more practical to execute resting stock-option orders
against other stock-option orders received by the system first before
scanning for executions against the legs on the CBSX book and the
options Hybrid book.

    For example: the market for XYZ stock on CBSX is $39.94-39.99.
The 45 call market on CBOE is $0.95-1.00. A stock-option order is
entered to buy 100 shares and sell the 45 call with a net price of
$39.00. The stock-option order is auctioned through the COA, but no
responses are received (if responses had been received, priority
would have been afforded to public customer responses and any
resting public customer stock-option orders that were marketable
against the auctioned order using time priority). After the system
has determined that there are no responses or resting stock-option
orders that can trade against the auctioned stock-option order, it
will look to the individual leg markets. In this case, the stock-
option order will be filled by the system by executing the stock at
$39.99 against the CBSX book and the option at $1 against the CBOE
book.

    With respect to the last difference, the N-second group timer shall
not be in effect for stock-option orders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it
is designed to facilitate transactions in securities, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. In particular, the Exchange believes that the addition of
stock-option orders to the list of complex orders eligible for
electronic handling under CBOE Rule 6.53C is a significant enhancement
for investors seeking automated handling of stock-option orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-68 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-68. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-68 and should be
submitted on or before November 21, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21383 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31722]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14316]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0137; FRL-9964-63-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Redesignation of the Muncie Area to
Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the May 30, 2017, direct final
rule approving the redesignation of the Muncie nonattainment area to
attainment for the 2008 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for lead, the state's plan for maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS through
2030 for the area, and the 2013 attainment year emissions inventory for
the area.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 82 FR 24553 on May 30, 2017,
is withdrawn effective July 10, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if
adverse comments were submitted by June 29, 2017, the rule would be
withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received an adverse comment prior to
the close of the comment period and, therefore, is withdrawing the
direct final rule. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final
action based upon the proposed action also published on May 30, 2017.
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: June 20, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.770 and 40 CFR 52.797
published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24553) on page
24559 are withdrawn effective July 10, 2017.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

    Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 81.315 published in the
Federal Register on May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24553) on page 24559 is
withdrawn effective July 10, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2017-14316 Filed 7-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 182)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53701-53704]
[DOCID:fr20se07-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29259; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-195-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to all Boeing Model 767 airplanes. The
existing AD currently requires repetitive measurements of the rudder
and elevator freeplay, repetitive lubrications of rudder and elevator
components, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary.
This proposed AD would instead require revised repetitive measurements
of the rudder freeplay and the elevator freeplay for each of the power
control actuators (PCAs) that move the rudder and elevator, corrective
and related investigative actions if necessary, and repetitive
lubrications of the rudder and elevator components. For some airplanes,
this proposed AD would also require related concurrent actions. This
proposed AD results from reports of freeplay-induced vibration of the
rudder and the elevator. The potential for vibration of the control
surface should be avoided because the point of transition from
vibration to divergent flutter is unknown. We are proposing this AD to
prevent excessive vibration of the airframe during flight, which could
result in loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 22,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD.
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this
proposed AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Anderson, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6421; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``Docket No.
FAA-2007-29259; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-195-AD'' at the
beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the
proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of
that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or may
can visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
, or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is located on the
ground level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after

the Docket Management System receives them.

Discussion

    On May 17, 2006, we issued AD 2006-11-12, amendment 39-14616 (71 FR
30272, May 26, 2006), for all Boeing Model 767 airplanes. That AD
requires repetitive measurements of the rudder and elevator freeplay,
repetitive lubrication of rudder and elevator components, and related
investigative/corrective actions if necessary. That AD resulted from
reports of freeplay-induced vibration of the rudder and the elevator.
We issued that AD to prevent excessive vibration of the airframe during
flight, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2006-11-12, we have learned that the procedures
in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 767-27-0197 and 767-27-
0198, both dated October 27, 2005 (referred to in the existing AD as
the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the
actions required by that AD), yielded false-positive results for the
measurements of the rudder and elevator freeplay. The service bulletin
instructions for measuring the freeplay also did not include
information on certain prior or concurrent actions to be performed on
certain airplanes. Therefore, we have determined that the requirements
of AD 2006-11-12 do not adequately address the identified unsafe
condition.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    On February 21, 2001, we issued AD 2001-04-09, amendment 39-12128
(66 FR 13227, March 5, 2001). That AD requires repetitively testing the
elevator control system to determine if an elevator power control
actuator (PCA) is rigged incorrectly due to yielded or failed shear
rivets in a bellcrank assembly, and follow-on actions, if necessary.
That AD refers to Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-27A0168 and 767-
27A0169, both dated November 21, 2000, as the applicable sources of
service information. Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-27A0168 and
767-27A0169 are referred to in this proposed AD as sources of service
information for accomplishing concurrent actions on certain airplanes.
This proposed AD would not affect any of the requirements of AD 2001-
04-09.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 767-27-
0197, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2007 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -
300F series airplanes); and 767-27-0198, Revision 1, dated July 19,
2007 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes). The service bulletins
describe improved procedures for repetitive measurements of the rudder
freeplay and the elevator freeplay for each of the PCAs that move the
rudder and elevator. For freeplay that exceeds certain specified
limits, the service bulletins describe procedures for doing applicable
related corrective and related investigative actions. Corrective and
related investigative actions include repairing or replacing all
applicable affected parts if necessary, and repeating the freeplay
measurement, until the freeplay is within acceptable limits. Affected
parts may include worn or loose hanger links, reaction links, PCA rod
ends, and trunnion connections that contribute to the freeplay. The
service bulletins also describe procedures and repetitive intervals for
repetitive lubrication of the rudder and elevator components that are
the same as those described in the original issues of the service
bulletins.
    For certain Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes, Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0197, Revision 1, specifies
prior or concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
767-27A0168, dated November 21, 2000, which describes, among other
actions, procedures for inspecting the elevator bellcranks for any
shear rivets that are broken or yielded.
    For certain Model 767-400ER series airplanes, Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0198, Revision 1, specifies prior or
concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0169,
dated November 21, 2000, which describes, among other actions,
procedures for inspecting the elevator bellcranks for any shear rivets
that are broken or yielded.
    Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the
same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which
would supersede AD 2006-11-12. This proposed AD would require
accomplishing the actions specified in the special attention service
bulletins described previously, except as discussed under ``Differences
Between the Proposed AD and the Special Attention Service Bulletins.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Special Attention Service
Bulletins

    Although Revision 1 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins
767-27-0197 and 767-27-0198 recommends accomplishing the initial rudder
and elevator freeplay measurements within 18 months after the date on
the service bulletins, the proposed AD would require a compliance time
of 12 months after the effective date of the AD. We have determined
that 18 months would not address the identified unsafe condition soon
enough to ensure an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet. In
developing an appropriate compliance time for this proposed AD, we
considered the degree of urgency associated with the subject unsafe
condition, and the possibility that this proposed AD could extend the
compliance time for airplanes on which the measurements required in AD
2006-11-12 have not been accomplished. In light of these factors, we
find that 12 months represents an appropriate interval of time for
affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.
This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 979 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. No parts are necessary
to accomplish any action.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
                  Action                      Work hours     Average labor         Cost per airplane          registered             Fleet cost
                                                             rate per hour                                    airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freeplay measurement.....................              30              $80   $2,400, per measurement                  423   $1,015,200, per measurement
                                                                              cycle.                                         cycle.

Lubrication..............................              27              $80   $2,160, per lubrication                  423   $913,680, per lubrication
                                                                              cycle.                                         cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-14616 (71 FR 30272, May 26, 2006) and adding the
following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2007-29259; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
195-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October
22, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-11-12.

Applicability

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

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of freeplay-induced vibration
of the rudder and the elevator. The potential for vibration of the
control surface should be avoided because the point of transition
from vibration to divergent flutter is unknown. We are issuing this
AD to prevent excessive vibration of the airframe during flight,
which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Service Bulletin References

    (f) The term ``service bulletin,'' as used in this AD, means the
Accomplishment Instructions and Appendices A, B, and C of the
following service bulletins, as applicable:
    (1) For Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes: Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0197, Revision 1, dated
July 19, 2007; and
    (2) For Model 767-400ER series airplanes: Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0198, Revision 1, dated July 19,
2007.

Repetitive Measurements

    (g) At the latest of the compliance times specified in
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable:
Measure the rudder and elevator freeplay. Repeat the measurement
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight hours or 36
months, whichever occurs first. Do all actions required by this
paragraph in accordance with the service bulletin.
    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Within 36 months since the date of issuance of the original
standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness.
    (3) For the elevator freeplay measurement: Within 12,000 flight
hours or within 36 months after the last elevator freeplay
inspection accomplished in accordance with Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 767-27-0197 or 767-27-0198, both dated October 27,
2005, as applicable, whichever occurs first.

Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (h) If any measurement found during the measurement required by
paragraph (g) of this AD exceeds any applicable limit specified in
the service bulletin: Before further flight, do the applicable
related investigative and corrective actions in accordance with the
service bulletin.

Initial Lubrication

    (i) At the latest of the compliance times specified in
paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable:
Lubricate the rudder and elevator components specified in the
service bulletin. Do all actions required by this paragraph in
accordance with the service bulletin.
    (1) Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, or
within 9 months since the date of issuance of the original standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness; whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes on which BMS 3-33 grease is not already in use
prior to the time the lubrication task is being accomplished: Within
3,000 flight hours or 9 months after the last lubrication
accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin or Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0197 or 767-27-0198, both
dated October 27, 2005, whichever occurs first.
    (3) For airplanes on which BMS 3-33 grease is already in use
prior to the time the lubrication task is being accomplished: Within
6,000 flight hours or 18 months after the last lubrication
accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletin or Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 767-27-0197 or 767-27-0198, both dated October 27,
2005, whichever occurs first.

Repetitive Lubrication

    (j) Repeat the lubrication required in paragraph (i) of this AD
at the applicable interval specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2)
of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes on which BMS 3-33 grease is not already in use
prior to the time the lubrication task is being accomplished: At
intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight hours or 9 months, whichever
occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes on which BMS 3-33 grease is already in use
prior to the time the lubrication task is being accomplished: At
intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever
occurs first.

Repetitive Prior or Concurrent Inspection

    (k) For airplanes specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of
this AD: Prior to or concurrently with the accomplishment of each
elevator freeplay measurement specified in paragraph (g) of this AD,
do all applicable actions required by AD 2001-04-09.
    (1) Group 1, configuration 2, airplanes as identified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0197, Revision 1, dated
July 19, 2007.
    (2) Group 1, configuration 1, airplanes as identified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0198, Revision 1, dated
July 19, 2007.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-11-12
are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (5) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2001-04-09,
are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph
(k) of this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 13, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-18544 Filed 9-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73129-73131]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27556]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0567; FRL-9001-02-R9]

Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Interstate Transport for the 2015
Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision from the State of Hawaii addressing
requirements in the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') regarding interstate
transport for the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). Hawaii submitted a SIP revision on November 12, 2019,
addressing the CAA provision prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in
amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state (the ``good
neighbor'' provision). The EPA is finalizing approval of Hawaii's good
neighbor SIP revision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 26, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0567. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Kelly, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On September 28, 2021, the EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM or ``proposed rule'') for the State of Hawaii.\1\ We
proposed approval of the Hawaii SIP revision that addresses the CAA
requirement prohibiting emissions from one state in amounts which
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. The Hawaii Department of
Health (HDOH) submitted its good neighbor SIP revision for the 2015
ozone NAAQS by letter dated November 12, 2019.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 86 FR 53571.
    \2\ Letter dated November 12, 2019, from Bruce Anderson, Ph.D.,
Director of Health, HDOH, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator,
U.S. EPA, Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to find that Hawaii would not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. The rationale for EPA's proposed rule is provided
in the NPRM.

II. Public Comments

    Our September 28, 2021 proposed rule provided a 30-day public
comment period that closed on October 28, 2021. We received no adverse
comments. One anonymous commenter supported the proposed action.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving, as a revision to the Hawaii SIP, HDOH's good
neighbor SIP revision submitted on November 12, 2019. This revision is
approved as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements that
emissions from each state do not contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this final rule merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those

imposed by state law. For that reason, this final rule:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 25, 2022. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Infrastructure SIP, Interstate transport, Nitrogen oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 15, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart M--Hawaii

0
2. In Sec.  52.620, amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry
for ``Hawaii State Implementation Plan Revision to address CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' immediately after the entry for ``Hawaii State
Implementation Plan Revision to Address CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l)
for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, excluding
Attachment 3'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                             EPA-Approved Hawaii Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable geographic
       Name of SIP provision        or nonattainment area    State submittal date               EPA approval date                     Explanation
                                       or title/subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          State of Hawaii Air Pollution Control Implementation Plans for Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, PM, and Lead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii State Implementation Plan    Statewide............  November 12, 2019.......  December 27, 2021, [Insert Federal       Approved SIP revision
 Revision to address CAA                                                              Register citation].                      excludes Attachment 2
 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015                                                                                (``Summary of Public
 Ozone National Ambient Air                                                                                Participation
 Quality Standards.                                                                                Proceedings'').
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2021-27556 Filed 12-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34957-34959]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15018]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0420]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Specialized Carriers & Rigging
Association (SC&RA); Application for Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant the Specialized Carriers
& Rigging Association (SC&RA) an exemption from the minimum 30-minute
rest break provision of the Agency's hours-of-service (HOS) regulations
for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemption enables all
specialized carriers and drivers responsible for the transportation of
loads that exceed normal weight and dimensional limits--oversize/
overweight (OS/OW) loads--and require a permit issued by a government
authority, to be exempt from the 30-minute rest break provision in 49
CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii). FMCSA has analyzed the exemption application and
the public comments and has determined that the exemption, subject to
the terms and conditions imposed, will achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.

DATES: The exemption is effective June 18, 2015 and expires on June 18,
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period of the
exemption (up to 2 years) and explain the terms and conditions of the
exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    The SC&RA is an international trade association of nearly 1,300
member companies from 43 nations. SC&RA members are involved in
specialized transportation, machinery moving and erecting, industrial
maintenance, millwrighting, and crane rigging, operation,
manufacturing, and rental.
    SC&RA requests an exemption from the 30-minute rest break provision
in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii). The exemption

would apply industry-wide to all specialized carriers and drivers
responsible for the transportation of loads exceeding standard legal
weight and dimensional limits--oversize/overweight (OS/OW) loads--that
require a permit issued by a government authority. According to SC&RA,
the 30-minute break uniquely affects OS/OW loads and has exacerbated
the number of instances in which drivers have had to park these loads
at roadside, impacting the safety of both the general public and the
driver. The hours of operation in which a driver may move an OS/OW load
on a valid permit vary from State to State, and among local
jurisdictions within a State. Because hours in which an OS/OW load can
travel are restricted by permit requirements, often those hours are in
conflict with the timing of the required 30-minute rest break.
    According to SC&RA, as less space is available for parking OS/OW
vehicles, specialized tractor/trailer combinations transporting OS/OW
loads will increasingly be parked alongside interstate or other
highways and ramp shoulders, further compromising safety. An average
OS/OW load may measure approximately 15-16 feet wide and high and in
excess of 100 feet in length. Occasionally, the safest option for
drivers is to park such loads on the shoulders of interstate routes and
other highways, and on ramps leading to and from those highways. This
decision requires the driver to protect and alert the motoring public
by employing traffic control measures such as setting up safety cones.
In some instances, the OS/OW load is so large and/or the shoulder width
is so limited, that the tractor-trailer combination cannot be properly
parked off the roadway and therefore occupies an entire lane of the
road.
    SC&RA states that the industry has been diligent in ensuring that
its drivers are safety-compliant by identifying, deploying, analyzing
and monitoring best practices. The effectiveness of the industry's
efforts is substantiated through its safety record. By demand and due
to the type and nature of the size and weight involved, these drivers
tend to be more experienced and skilled than many drivers in the
industry. Safety is achieved through rigorous, mandated training for
all drivers on a daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly basis in
conjunction with annual safety checks, and self-imposed random safety
audits. Furthermore, most specialized transportation carriers conduct
weekly--or sometimes more frequent--meetings with drivers to ensure
that they are current on information with regard to operating OS/OW
loads in their industry.
    Further details regarding SC&RA's safety controls can be found in
its application for exemption. The application can be accessed in the
docket identified at the beginning of this notice. SC&RA does not
foresee any negative impact to safety from the requested exemption. It
believes that granting the exemption would have a favorable impact on
overall safety by reducing the frequency of drivers resorting to less
than ideal parking options, thereby reducing the frequency of lanes
being partially or fully blocked.
    The proposed exemption would be effective for 2 years, the maximum
period allowed by Sec.  381.300.

Public Comments

    On November 24, 2014, FMCSA published notice of this application,
and asked for public comment (79 FR 69983); 79 responses were
submitted. Comments in favor of the proposed exemption were submitted
by the California Construction Trucking Association (CCTA); Dawes
Rigging & Crane Rental Inc.; Mammoet USA South Inc.; Miller Transfer;
the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA); Suit-Kote
Corporation; and 42 individuals and truck drivers.
    CCTA stated that it ``encourages FMCSA to grant the exemption from
the 30-minute break requirement (49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii)) requested by
SC&RA because we believe granting the exemption request will achieve
the same level of safety benefit when compared to those drivers still
mandated to take the break.''
    OOIDA concurred ``with the request for exemption of the 30-minute
break requirement submitted by the SCRA. The exemption request, which
addresses a number of concerns raised by OOIDA members with the 2013
changes to the hours-of-service regulations, would provide a level of
safety equal to or greater than that achieved without the exemption.
Oversize/Overweight loads present challenges for the driver and all
other parties involved in the movement of the load.''
    Ms. Tiffany Myhre commented that ``I support the exemption filed by
SC&RA regarding the 30 minute break requirement for carriers hauling
oversize/overweight loads under a permit. This break can cause concerns
when we have DPS escorts that are trying to push us through the 30
minute break.''
    The American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the International
Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) were among 26 respondents that did
not explicitly support or oppose the proposed exemption. Many of the
individual respondents commented on the impracticality of the 30-minute
rule and the unintended consequences it entails.
    The ATA wrote that ``The safety of the industry and the driving
public is better served by rules that encourage flexibility to drive
when alert and to make decisions to reduce risk. Furthermore, by
crafting and enforcing a rigid rule that doesn't account for diversity
of trucking operations, FMCSA is forced to expend additional valuable
resources to address the myriad of exemption requests seeking the
additional flexibility that should have been addressed during the
rulemaking process.''
    A commenter who identified himself as Arthur P. stated that ``Most
routes on 2 lane roads have no parking for trucks let alone a truck
with an OS load. States like Ohio and Pennsylvania will not allow you
off your route for fuel or food let alone a DOT required break. If you
stop before you enter Ohio for your 30 minute break, you might not have
enough time to cross Ohio. Then you will be in violation of Ohio law
because you have nowhere to stop.''
    The IUOE recommended that ``the FMCSA undertake a study of the
safety and health benefits of a 30-minute break for operators of
specialized CMVs in the construction industry before making a
determination on the SCRA's request for an exemption.'' IUOE also urged
``the FMCSA to study the extent to which the SCRA's primary
justification for the exemption from the rule--i.e., the alleged
greater danger created by the limited availability of commercial
vehicle parking spaces--is factually accurate for most OS/OW loads for
which a permit is required given the distances typically travelled.
Without this, information, the FMCSA is in no position to evaluate
whether the SCRA has met its burden of proof.''
    The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) were among
the five respondents who opposed the exemption. The Advocates commented
that ``None of the measures described by SCRA are related in any way to
the need to combat the acute fatigue of working and driving a vehicle
for up to eight hours straight. The FMCSA itself made the case that
safety requires a one-half hour break after eight hours on duty, and
the Application provides no information to either refute or countermand
the need for that break time as it applies to OS/OW operators.''
    A commenter identified only as Trish said that ``All drivers are
faced with the

challenge of finding refuge for the required 30 minute break, whether
it's from traffic or fear of life in some instances. Continuing to
grant exemptions defeats the purpose of the rule and is unfair to grant
on the basis of someone's business model. Choosing to haul cattle,
household OR oversize should not exempt carriers from the rules and
regulations enacted to promote safety.''

FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated SC&RA's application and the public comments and
decided to grant the exemption. The arguments against the exemption are
not trivial. While livestock may be physically endangered if the
vehicle transporting them has to stop while the driver takes a 30-
minute break--as recognized in the exemption granted to livestock
haulers (79FR 33634, June 11, 2014)--the same cannot be said of OS/OW
loads. It is also true that parking shortages affect drivers of many
types of vehicle. Nonetheless, finding suitable parking for trucks with
OS/OW loads is particularly difficult, as SC&RA pointed out, and the
default option is likely to be parking on the shoulder of a highway,
with the load sometimes extending into the lanes of traffic. No matter
how well marked, trucks parked at roadside, especially at night, are
too often mistaken for moving vehicles and struck, frequently with
fatal consequences, before an inattentive driver can correct his
mistake. Based on available information, the number of such crashes
likely to occur during a 30-minute break cannot be estimated, but the
Agency has concluded that drivers of OS/OW vehicles are at least as
likely to be involved in a crash while parked at roadside during a 30-
minute break as while driving during that same period and the hour or
so thereafter, where the break typically has the greatest benefit.
FMCSA has therefore decided to grant the exemption, subject to the
terms and conditions outlined below.

Terms of the Exemption

    1. Drivers of specialized loads moving in interstate commerce that
exceed normal weight and dimensional limits--oversize/overweight (OS/
OW) loads--and require a permit issued by a government authority, are
exempt from the requirement for a 30-minute rest break in Sec.
395.3(a)(3)(ii). Drivers of loads not moving in interstate commerce are
not eligible for this exemption.
    2. Drivers must have a copy of this exemption document in their
possession while operating under the terms of the exemption. The
exemption document must be presented to law enforcement officials upon
request.
    3. All motor carriers operating under this exemption must have a
``Satisfactory'' safety rating with FMCSA, or be ``unrated.'' Motor
carriers with ``Conditional'' or ``Unsatisfactory'' FMCSA safety
ratings are prohibited from using this exemption.
    4. All motor carriers operating under this exemption must have
Safety Measurement System (SMS) scores below FMCSA's intervention
thresholds, as displayed at http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/sms/.

Period of the Exemption

    This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) is
granted for the period from 12:01 a.m., June 18, 2015 through 11:59
p.m., June 18, 2017.

 Extent of the Exemption

    This exemption is limited to the provisions of 49 CFR
395.3(a)(3)(ii). These drivers must comply with all other applicable
provisions of the FMCSRs.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), during the period this
exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation
that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect
to a firm or person operating under the exemption.

Notification to FMCSA

    Any motor carrier utilizing this exemption must notify FMCSA within
5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving
any of the motor carrier's CMV drivers operating under the terms of
this exemption. The notification must include the following
information:
    a. Name of operating motor carrier and USDOT number,
    b. Date of the accident,
    c. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    d. Driver's name and license number and State of issuance,
    e. Vehicle number and State license plate number,
    f. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    g. Number of fatalities,
    h. The police-reported cause of the accident,
    i. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws
or motor carrier safety regulations, and
    j. The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time period
prior to the accident.
    Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Termination

    FMCSA believes carriers transporting OS/OW loads under permit will
continue to maintain their previous safety record while operating under
this exemption. However, should problems occur, FMCSA will take all
steps necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation or
restriction of the exemption. The FMCSA will immediately revoke or
restrict the exemption for failure to comply with its terms and
conditions.

    Issued on: June 8, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-15018 Filed 6-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P