[Federal Register: October 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 64608-64609]
[DOCID:fr30oc08-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-13-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of
Application

October 24, 2008.
    Take notice that on October 21, 2008, Natural Gas Pipeline Company
of America LLC (Natural), 3250 Lacey Road, 7th Floor, Downers Grove,
Illinois 60515-7918, filed an application in Docket No. CP09-13-000,
pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, requesting permission
and approval to abandon, by sale to CPI Pipe and Steel, Inc. (CPI), the
following facilities: (1) The majority of Natural's Hooker Lateral
located in Texas and Beaver Counties, Oklahoma; (2) Booster Station No.
63 located in Texas County, Oklahoma; (3) the Baker Lateral located in
Texas County, Oklahoma; (4) the Beaver Lateral located in Texas County,
Oklahoma; (5) the ANR tap located in Beaver County, Oklahoma; and (6)
the Regier Lateral located in Beaver County, Oklahoma.
    Natural states that there has been no flow of gas on the Hooker
Lateral for the last four years and thus the Hooker Lateral and the
other appurtenant facilities to be sold no longer serve any purpose.
Natural further states that the sale of the subject facilities will
save Natural operation and maintenance expenses. Moreover, Natural
states that the abandonment and transfer of the facilities as proposed
will allow Natural to serve the needs of its transportation shippers
more effectively by eliminating inefficiencies associated with the
operation and maintenance of facilities which are no longer required,
all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be
viewed on the Web at 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, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866)
208-3676, or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Bruce H. Newsome, Vice President, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, 7th Floor, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515-
7918, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail: bruce_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) 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 EA for this
proposal. The filing of the 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.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be

required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties.
However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all
documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except
for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission)
and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's
final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: November 14, 2008.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25919 Filed 10-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38377-38382]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12416]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No.: FAA-2019-0343; Amdt. No. 25-149]
RIN 2120-AL11

Decompression Criteria for Interior Compartments

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its standards for pressurized compartment
loads such that partitions located adjacent to a decompression hole
need not be designed to withstand a certain decompression condition.
This rulemaking is necessary because, in some cases, it is not
practical to design partitions in certain airplane compartments to
withstand this decompression condition if it occurs within that
compartment.

DATES: Effective August 14, 2023.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
to Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Todd Martin, Airframe Section, AIR-622, Technical
Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the FAA's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
Requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations and minimum standards for the design and performance of
aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it
prescribes new safety standards for the design and performance of
transport category airplanes.

II. Overview of Final Rule

    The FAA is amending Sec.  25.365, ``Pressurized compartment
loads,'' in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25,
``Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes.''
Specifically, the FAA is revising Sec.  25.365(g) to allow the failure
of partitions that are adjacent to the decompression hole. This
allowance only applies to the formula decompression hole specified in
Sec.  25.365(e)(2). The ability to withstand a hole of this size is
typically the most severe decompression load design requirement for
small compartments, such as lavatories, private suites, and crew rest
areas. With this revision, partition failure is only allowed if (1)
failure of the partition would not interfere with continued safe flight
and landing, and (2) meeting the decompression condition in paragraph
(e)(2) would be impractical.
    This final rule codifies current practice and will not result in
additional costs or significant benefits to airplane manufacturers, but
will relieve applicants of some administrative burden--see Regulatory
Evaluation below.

III. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    The airworthiness standards in Sec.  25.365 address the safety
effects of decompression. When the fuselage skin or another part of the
pressurized boundary of an airplane fails for any reason, a
decompression occurs if the cabin pressure is greater than the outside
air pressure. When a decompression occurs, the pressurized air inside
the airplane exits the hole, or opening, in the fuselage until
equilibrium is reached. This can result in potentially high air loads
on floors, partitions, and bulkheads.
    Section 25.365(g) requires applicants to design bulkheads, floors,
and partitions, in pressurized compartments for occupants, to withstand
the sudden decompression conditions specified in paragraph (e). Section
25.365(g) also requires applicants to take reasonable design
precautions to minimize the probability of parts becoming detached and
injuring seated occupants.
    For certain smaller compartments on the airplane, such as
lavatories, private suites, and crew rest areas, it has been difficult
for applicants to achieve compliance with Sec.  25.365(g), because a
large decompression hole, of the size specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(2),
occurring in one of these compartments would result in very high air
loads on the partitions that form the compartment. Strengthening the
partitions to sustain such high loads has been shown to be impractical
in many cases for these smaller compartments because doing so could
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and its
continued safe flight and landing. Further, alternative design
strategies may impede the compartment's intended function.

B. History

    Amendment 25-54 to Sec.  25.365 (45 FR 60154, Sept. 11, 1980),
introduced the requirement, in revised paragraph (e), that bulkheads,
floors, and partitions be designed to withstand the decompression
conditions specified in the rule.
    In amendment 25-71 to Sec.  25.365 (55 FR 13474, Apr. 10, 1990),
the specific references to ``bulkheads, floors, and partitions'' were
moved from paragraph (e) to paragraph (g) to provide the required
passenger protection criteria related to failure of these structures in
occupied compartments, regardless of whether their failure could
interfere with safe flight and landing.
    Prior to this final rule, Sec.  25.365 required that the applicant
consider partition failure in terms of the effects on occupant safety.
However, the FAA has long recognized that structural integrity might
not be maintained near the decompression hole. The Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for amendment 25-71 (53 FR 8742, Mar. 16,
1988) stated that loss of structural integrity at the opening location,
or physiological effects on occupants, were not considerations of that
rule. Thus, at that time the FAA was aware of and accepted this risk to
an occupant next to the opening location.
    The FAA has certified numerous airplane designs for which the
partition strength criteria in Sec.  25.365(e) at amendment 25-54 or
Sec.  25.365(g) at amendment 25-71 were included in the project's
certification basis. Since the issuance of amendment 25-54, the FAA has
made several equivalent level of safety (ELOS) findings to Sec.
25.365(e) (at amendment 25-54) or Sec.  25.365(g) (at amendment 25-71,
as applicable) in accordance with 14 CFR 21.21.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An ELOS finding is made when the design does not comply with
the applicable airworthiness provisions, but compensating factors,
such as the incorporation of mitigating features (e.g., lanyards to
restrain loose parts, or frangible structure to cause structural
failure in a direction away from the seated occupant), provide an
equivalent level of safety in accordance with 14 CFR 21.21(b)(1).
The FAA documents an ELOS finding in an ELOS memorandum that
communicates to the public the rationale for the FAA's determination
of the design's equivalency to the level of safety intended by the
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Summary of the NPRM and Final Rule

    The FAA published an NPRM on May 15, 2019 (84 FR 21733), that
proposed revisions to the partition failure criteria in Sec.
25.365(g). The NPRM described the decompression criteria in Sec.
25.365 and explained the difficulty of designing certain partitions to
withstand a decompression condition. The NPRM proposed changes to Sec.
25.365 that would allow partition failure if it would not interfere
with continued safe flight and landing and the applicant shows that
designing the partition to meet the decompression load condition of
Sec.  25.365(e)(2) would be impractical. This action finalizes the
proposal with minor clarifying changes.

D. General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received comments from the Boeing Company (Boeing), Airbus,
Bombardier Aerospace (Bombardier), the European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association
(GAMA). Commenters were generally in favor of the proposal but
requested additional flexibility in several aspects of the final rule.
All of the commenters requested clarification of terminology used in
the proposed rule.

IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule

A. Affected Decompression Conditions

    The NPRM proposed to revise Sec.  25.365(g) to allow failure of
partitions for the decompression condition specified in Sec.
25.365(e)(2). This decompression condition, referred to as the
``formula'' hole size, is typically the most severe condition required
by Sec.  25.365(e).
    Airbus and Boeing commented that partition failure should also be
allowed for the decompression condition specified in Sec.
25.365(e)(1): penetration of any pressurized compartment by a portion
of an engine following engine disintegration. Airbus suggested that
partition failure should also be allowed for the decompression
condition specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(3): any other opening caused by
failures not shown to be extremely improbable. Both commenters noted
that the hole size specified in these other subparagraphs may, in some
cases, be greater than the formula hole size specified in Sec.
25.365(e)(2); and therefore, their position is that the same
impracticality issues exist for these other decompression conditions.
    The FAA disagrees with both suggested changes. The FAA has not seen
evidence to suggest that designing partitions to withstand the
decompression conditions in Sec.  25.365(e)(1) and (e)(3) is
impractical. Unlike the decompression condition specified in Sec.
25.365(e)(2), the FAA has not granted exemptions, or issued equivalent
level of safety findings, that allow partition failure for these other
two conditions.
    With regard to the engine rotor burst example presented by Airbus
and Boeing in support of their request for relief from Sec.
25.365(e)(1), the FAA finds that partition failure should not be
allowed in this instance. Since a decompression that occurs as a result
of a rotor burst would be limited to an area of the fuselage near the
engines, affected compartments could be placed outside this area if
needed. Also, this condition would likely only result in a hole that is
larger than the formula hole if the decompression was the result of a
tangential strike to the fuselage. That is, the rotor disk penetrates
the fuselage laterally at a tangential angle either towards the top or
bottom of the fuselage, resulting in a long narrow decompression hole.
By its nature, such a hole would not likely be limited to a single
compartment.
    The decompression condition suggested for addition by Airbus, and
specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(3), covers the maximum opening caused by
airplane or equipment failures not shown to be extremely improbable.
The FAA concludes that partition failure should not be allowed for this
decompression condition. The FAA would not expect any situation in
which the size of such an opening would exceed that of the formula
hole. If there were such a condition, then the FAA concludes that the
rule should require partitions be designed for that condition, or
design changes made to reduce the size of the anticipated decompression
hole.

B. Use of ``Impractical'' Standard

    The NPRM proposed to allow partition failure only if the applicant
could show, in addition to the failure's lack of interference with
continued safe flight and landing, that designing the partition to
withstand the specified decompression condition (formula hole) of Sec.
25.365(e)(2) is impractical.
    GAMA commented that requiring an applicant to show impracticality
could lead to inconsistent applications of the regulation, and
therefore that this requirement should be removed. GAMA proposed
instead that the passenger protection criteria of Sec.  25.365(g),
which currently apply to all three of the decompression conditions of
paragraph (e), should only apply to the effects of the smaller hole
sizes determined under Sec.  25.365(e)(3) (those due to failures not
shown to be extremely improbable), and that such partitions would
therefore be excepted from (e)(2). The FAA does not agree. To remove
the decompression conditions under Sec.  25.365(e)(2) from having to
meet the passenger protection criteria of Sec.  25.365(g) would
constitute a reduction in safety. To ensure that the required element
of impracticality does not lead to inconsistent application of the
regulation, the FAA explains the intended meaning of ``impractical''
later in this discussion.

C. Safety Analysis of Potential Floor Failure

    As part of its rationale, the NPRM noted that strengthening a
partition, to the extent it would not fail, could increase loads on the
floor and thereby the risk of floor failure, thus jeopardizing
continued safe flight and landing.
    EASA commented that in these cases, reinforcing the floor may be a
practical solution, and therefore, partition failure should not be
allowed. The FAA partially agrees. To show compliance with the rule,
the applicant must show that the floor be designed to withstand the
decompression conditions specified in Sec.  25.365(e). If the
applicant's analysis shows that the floor could fail if a

partition does not fail after decompression, then, in order to obtain
the relief provided by this final rule, the applicant could revise
their proposed design to increase venting as far as practical within
the affected compartment. If the applicant shows that floor failure
would still occur with those design changes in place, then the FAA
would likely consider reinforcement of the floor to be impractical.

D. Addressing Potential Skin Bay Failure

    Airbus asked the FAA to clarify whether a failure of the standard
skin bay (the area between two adjacent stringers and two adjacent
frames) would be an ``opening'' within the meaning of Sec.
25.365(e)(3)--the maximum opening not shown to be extremely
improbable--and therefore one that the airplane must be designed to
withstand. The FAA currently has no guidance as to whether a standard
skin bay failure should be assumed under Sec.  25.365(e)(3). Airbus is
requesting guidance on compliance with Sec.  25.365(e)(3), which is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    Airbus also asked whether a skin bay failure should be considered
as an opening of the maximum size expected to be confined to a small
compartment, in accordance with Sec.  25.365(e)(2), and therefore
covered under Sec.  25.365(g)(2). The FAA explains the meaning of
``small compartments,'' as used in Sec.  25.365(e)(2), later in this
discussion. No change was made to the final rule as a result of these
comments.

E. Required Design Precautions To Protect Occupants

    Section 25.365(g) requires that reasonable design precautions be
taken to minimize the probability of parts becoming detached and
injuring occupants while in their seats. The FAA did not propose any
changes to this language in the NPRM.
    Boeing commented that these design precautions should no longer
apply to partitions that are allowed to fail. Boeing noted that once a
partition is allowed to fail, it is structurally difficult to restrain
that partition. GAMA noted that there was no practical design standard
for this requirement.
    As explained in the NPRM, it may not be practical to design the
partitions of certain compartments to withstand the decompression
condition specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(2) if it occurs within that
compartment. The rule would allow partition failure in these cases, if
the applicant also shows that such failure would not interfere with
continued safe flight and landing. However, even in these cases,
``reasonable design precautions'' must still be made to protect
occupants. Also, this is a performance-based design standard.
Accordingly, applicants for type certificates have flexibility to
satisfy the standard through a variety of means. For example, an
applicant may propose lanyards or other devices to reduce the chance
that a failed partition or part will impact an occupant, or may design
the partition such that it fails in a direction away from seated
occupants.
    Boeing also proposed that the FAA remove the discussion in the NPRM
that indicated that applicants must add venting, as a reasonable design
precaution, to the extent practical to reduce the chance the partition
will fail as a result of smaller decompression hole sizes.
    The discussion in the NPRM regarding the continuing requirement to
take reasonable design precautions to protect occupants remains valid.
However, the FAA clarifies that Sec.  25.365(e)(2) requires evaluation
of decompression hole sizes ``up to'' the formula hole size, so new
Sec.  25.365(g)(2), which references that requirement, also requires
evaluation of decompression hole sizes up to the formula hole size.
This includes smaller sizes for which the FAA finds that applicants
will be able to add venting to the extent practical to reduce the
chance the partition will fail.

F. Need for Additional Guidance Material

    EASA and GAMA proposed that the FAA issue an advisory circular (AC)
or policy statement to accompany the proposed rule change to clarify
terminology and application of the rule. The FAA does not find that an
AC or policy statement is necessary. The FAA finds that the discussions
in the NPRM and this final rule provide sufficient guidance on how an
applicant can comply with the new rule.

G. Crew Rest Compartments

    EASA proposed that the FAA provide further guidance to that
provided in the NPRM on how to maximize the safety of occupants
situated under and within crew rest compartments. EASA reasoned that
the lower sections of such compartments are a significant contributor
to ensuring all masses and occupants within those compartments are
retained. The FAA finds that specific guidance is not needed for crew
rest areas. The intent of the rule and the rule change are clear, and
specific guidance for every conceivable configuration and compartment
type is not possible or necessary.

H. Project-Specific Review

    EASA commented that compliance with the proposed requirement should
be subject to a project-specific (``case-by-case'') review for each
proposed compartment because it may be possible to show compliance
without failure of partitions for some larger compartments. The FAA
agrees and intends to conduct a project-specific review for each
compartment. This final rule does not allow partition failure unless
the applicant shows that designing the partition to withstand the
condition specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section is impractical,
and that such failure would not interfere with continued safe flight
and landing.

I. Clarification of Terms

    Several commenters suggested that the FAA clarify terms in Sec.
25.365. Airbus and Bombardier requested clarification of the term
``impractical;'' Boeing, EASA and GAMA requested clarification of
``adjacent;'' Bombardier requested clarification of the term
``bulkheads;'' and Bombardier and EASA requested clarification of
``small compartments'' as specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(2). Bombardier
also requested clarification of the term ``seated occupants'' as used
in the NPRM as compared to ``occupants while in their seats'' as used
in Sec.  25.365(g). The FAA provides the following clarification of
these terms:
    Impractical. New Sec.  25.365(g)(2) allows partition failure if
designing the partition to withstand the specified decompression
condition would be ``impractical.'' As explained in the NPRM, designing
a partition to withstand the decompression condition specified in Sec.
25.365(e)(2) would be impractical, in the context of this rule, if (1)
doing so would adversely affect the structural integrity of surrounding
primary structure, including floors; or (2) the design changes would
invalidate the compartment's intended function. The following is an
example of the latter. Having a solid door is a fundamental feature for
the intended use of some compartments, such as lavatories. While using
a curtain in place of a solid door would greatly improve the
decompression capability of such a compartment and is physically
practical for the purpose of compliance with Sec.  25.365(g), the FAA
accepts that changing the lavatory door to a curtain in such cases
would be impractical because the resulting design would invalidate the
compartment's intended function.

    As previously noted, Sec.  25.365(e)(2), which has not been revised
in this rulemaking, defines a decompression condition as an opening
``up to'' the formula hole size defined in that paragraph. Therefore,
while partition failure may be accepted as impractical for the maximum
hole size specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(2), this regulation means that
the applicant must evaluate smaller hole sizes, up to the maximum
formula hole size, and where practical, design all partitions to
withstand those smaller hole sizes.
    Adjacent. Section 25.365(g)(2) allows failure of partitions
``adjacent'' to the opening specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(2). In this
context, adjacent partitions are those that form the compartment
exposed to the decompression hole.
    Partitions, Floors and Bulkheads. This rule only applies to
partitions--meaning, in the context of this rule, any non-structural
wall, non-structural floor, or non-structural ceiling panel--the
failure of which would not compromise the structural integrity of the
airplane.
    In the context of this rule, the term ``floor'' means a structural
floor, such as a passenger or cargo floor that carries airplane
structural loads. The floor of an overhead crew rest area, which is
elevated above the main floor, would not be a structural floor unless
it carries airplane structural loads. However, if partition failure is
allowed to occur in such a compartment, then to protect the safety of
the persons in the compartment and below it, only partitions other than
the crew rest floor should be designed to fail, rather than the floor
itself. As previously stated, Sec.  25.365(g) requires the applicant to
take all reasonable design precautions to protect occupants.
    The term ``bulkhead,'' as used in this rulemaking, means a
structural pressure bulkhead or other wall that carries airframe
structural loads. The FAA considers a non-structural, non-pressure
bulkhead to be a partition because it does not carry airplane
structural loads. The applicability of this rule is limited to
partitions because the integrity of bulkheads and floors must be
maintained to ensure continued safe flight and landing.
    Small compartments. This final rule revises Sec.  25.365(g) to
allow failure of partitions for the decompression condition specified
in Sec.  25.365(e)(2). Section 25.365(e)(2), which was not changed as a
result of this rulemaking, states that small compartments may be
combined with an adjacent pressurized compartment and both considered
as a single compartment for openings that cannot reasonably be expected
to be confined to the small compartment. This regulation was added at
amendment 25-71 to Sec.  25.365 (55 FR 13474, Apr. 10, 1990). The FAA
defines ``small compartment'' as a compartment with an exposed fuselage
surface area of two times the formula hole size, or less. Applicants
may propose alternative definitions.
    As indicated in the final rule preamble for amendment 25-71, if an
applicant is using the small-compartment exception, then two conditions
must be evaluated: (1) The small compartment is combined with an
adjacent pressurized compartment and both considered as a single
compartment for the maximum size opening specified by the formula; and
(2) An opening of the maximum size expected to remain confined in the
small compartment would be considered in the small compartment. In
keeping with the definition of ``small compartment,'' the FAA defines
``the maximum size expected to remain confined'' in any compartment
evaluated under Sec.  25.365(e)(2) to be one-half of the exposed
fuselage area of that compartment.
    Seated occupant: The FAA considers the term ``seated occupants,''
as used in the preamble of the NPRM and this final rule, to be
synonymous with the regulatory (Sec.  25.365(g)) term of ``occupants
while in their seats.''

J. Safety Factors of Sec.  25.365(d)

    Airbus commented that the FAA should introduce a discussion of
removing the 1.33 safety factor specified in Sec.  25.365(d) in the
context of a general update to Sec.  25.365. This comment is unrelated
to the change to Sec.  25.365(g), and is outside the scope of this
rulemaking.

K. Miscellaneous

    This final rule omits the proposed words ``The applicant shows
that'' from Sec.  25.365(g)(2)(ii) because such language is unnecessary
given the 14 CFR 21.20(a) requirement for applicants for a type
certificate to show compliance with all applicable regulations.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a
variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. Fourth, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current
threshold after adjustment for inflation is $176 million using the most
current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product.
This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the
economic impacts of this rule.
    This final rule codifies current practice and will not result in
additional costs or significant benefits to airplane manufacturers. As
noted previously, in some cases, the FAA accepted the possibility of
local partition failure based on a finding of equivalent level of
safety. This final rule will relieve the administrative burden for type
certification applicants who might otherwise be required to submit
requests for an equivalent level of safety under Sec.  21.21(b)(1).
However, cost savings for the FAA will be minimal because the FAA
received only two such type certification applications in the past 5
years and does not expect numerous similar applications in the future.
Cost savings for industry will be minimal because the cost of
administration of the FAA's finding of equivalent safety on each
applicable certification project is not high, even though it is applied
several times per year. The FAA, therefore, has determined that this
final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration. The RFA

covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-
for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
    This final rule will only have impact on applicants for type
certification of transport category airplanes. All such United States
transport category airplane manufacturers exceed the Small Business
Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, as provided in section
605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it
will impose no costs on domestic and international entities and thus
has a neutral trade impact.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4)
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The
current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $177 million using
the most current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic
Product. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.

F. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f for regulations and involves
no extraordinary circumstances.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, Federalism. The FAA has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have
federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,70 and FAA Order 1210.20,
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and
Procedures,71 the FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes)
are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input
regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to affect
uniquely or significantly their respective Tribes. At this point, the
FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects, environmental
or otherwise, on tribes resulting from this proposed rule.

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The FAA has determined that it is
not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action will have no
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

VII. Additional Information

A. Electronic Access and Filing

    A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, this final rule, and all
background material may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using
the docket number listed above. A copy of this final rule will be
placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are
available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded

from the Office of the Federal Register's website at
www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website
at www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at the FAA's Regulations
and Policies website at www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this final rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in
the electronic docket for this rulemaking.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this
document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the
preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Navigation (air), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and
44704.

0
2. Amend Sec.  25.365 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  25.365  Pressurized compartment loads.

* * * * *
    (g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section,
bulkheads, floors, and partitions in pressurized compartments for
occupants must be designed to withstand the conditions specified in
paragraph (e) of this section. In addition, reasonable design
precautions must be taken to minimize the probability of parts becoming
detached and injuring occupants while in their seats.
    (2) Partitions adjacent to the opening specified in paragraph
(e)(2) of this section need not be designed to withstand that condition
provided--
    (i) Failure of the partition would not interfere with continued
safe flight and landing; and
    (ii) Designing the partition to withstand the condition specified
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section would be impractical.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a)
in Washington, DC, on or about June 6, 2023
Billy Nolen,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-12416 Filed 6-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62228-62229]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21646]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78762; File No. SR-ICEEU-2016-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Certain Default Management Requirements Under Applicable
Law

September 2, 2016.
    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 August 30, 2016, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule changes described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear
Europe filed the proposed rule changes pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(i) \4\ thereunder, so that the
proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
changes from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The principal purpose of the proposed changes is to modify the ICE
Clear Europe Clearing Rules (``Clearing Rules'') in order to clarify
the timing of certain default management procedures in light of
requirements under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation
(``EMIR'') \5\ and relevant UK law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC Derivatives, Central
Counterparties and Trade Repositories, as well as various
implementing regulations and technical standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule
changes. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. ICE Clear Europe 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
    The purpose of the rule amendments is to modify the ICE Clear
Europe Clearing Rules to clarify the timing of certain default
procedures in light of regulatory requirements under EMIR and UK law.
    In particular, Rule 1604(c), which applies to defaults involving an
FCM/BD Clearing Member, has been revised in light of EMIR Article
48(5)-(6) and Paragraph 34(2)(d) of the UK FSMA Recognition
Requirements (SI 2001/995).\6\ These provisions require that the
clearing house rules explicitly specify a pre-defined transfer period
within which a transfer of customer positions carried by a defaulting
clearing member to a new clearing member is to take place, if possible
(and after which the clearing house would exercise default remedies to
close out any such positions not transferred). The amendments to Rule
1604(c) specify that the clearing house will seek to transfer under the
Default Portability Rules any customer positions carried by a
defaulting FCM/BD Clearing Member within seven calendar days of the
default, and if a transfer has not been effected within such period (or
the clearing house otherwise deems it necessary for its protection),
the clearing house will terminate or liquidate such contracts, subject
to applicable law and its default rules. The transfer period is
intended to be consistent with the timing set forth in CFTC Rule 190.03
for the transfer of customer positions carried by a defaulting FCM and
for the liquidation of such contracts that have not been transferred.
The amendments do not otherwise affect the rights or obligations of the
clearing house or clearing members in respect of such a default. The
amendments are also consistent with the general approach in place for
non-FCM/BD Clearing Members in paragraph 6(f) of the applicable
Standard Terms Annexes to the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Paragraph 34(2)(d) of the UK Financial Services and Markets
Act 2000 (Recognition Requirements for Investment Exchanges and
Clearing Houses) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/995), which was added by
UK Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Over the Counter
Derivatives, Central Counterparties and Trade Repositories)
Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/504), Part 4, Paragraph 5(6). Citation has
been added by SEC staff and confirmed by ICEEU's outside counsel by
telephone on August 31, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the changes described herein are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the
regulations thereunder applicable to it, and are consistent with the
prompt and accurate clearance of and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements,
contracts and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in
the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or for which it is
responsible and the protection of investors and the public interest,
within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\8\ The changes
to the Rules clarify the timing of certain actions to be taken in the
management of a default of an FCM/BD Clearing Member, in order to
comply with requirements under EMIR and UK law, and do not limit the
authority of the clearing house to act under its default management
rules for its protection. As such, ICE Clear Europe believes that the
changes will generally promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities and derivatives transactions, and further the
public interest in the safe and effective clearing of such
transactions. ICE Clear Europe does not believe the amendments will
adversely affect the safeguarding of securities and funds in its
custody or control or for which it is responsible. The changes are thus
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed changes would have
any impact, or impose any burden, on

competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose
of the Act. ICE Clear Europe is adopting amendments to the Clearing
Rules to clarify the timing of certain default management procedures in
light of regulatory requirements. ICE Clear Europe does not believe
that these changes will impose significant additional costs on Clearing
Members or other market participants. ICE Clear Europe also does not
believe the amendments will adversely affect access to clearing by
Clearing Members or their customers or otherwise adversely affect
Clearing Members or market participants. In this regard, the changes
will apply to all FCM/BD Clearing Members, and accordingly are not
expected to affect competition among Clearing Members or in the market
for clearing services generally.

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

    ICE Clear Europe has not solicited or received any written comments
with respect to the proposed changes. ICE Clear Europe will notify the
Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.

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

    The foregoing rule changes have become effective upon filing
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(i)
\11\ thereunder. The amendments effect a change in an existing service
of a registered clearing agency that does not adversely affect the
safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or control of the
clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and does not
significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of the
clearing agency or persons using its clearing service, within the
meaning of Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(i). As noted above, the amendments clarify
the timing of certain default management actions by the clearing house,
including the period in which a transfer of customer positions of an
FCM/BD Clearing Member will be attempted and after which the clearing
house in which the clearing house will exercise default remedies to
close out remaining positions. These changes are intended to comply
with requirements under EMIR and UK law, and to be consistent with the
timing specified in applicable CFTC regulations. The amendments do not
otherwise affect the rights or obligations of the clearing house or
clearing members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
changes are 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-ICEEU-2016-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2016-010. 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 changes that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule changes between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe
and on ICE Clear Europe's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation#rule-filings.
    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-ICEEU-2016-010
and should be submitted on or before September 29, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21646 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


March 31, 2004 Mr. J. I. Palmer, Jr., Regional Administrator U. S. EPA, Region 4 Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303 Dear Mr. Palmer:

The Early Action Compact requires local areas to submit Early Action Plans to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) by March 31, 2004. To fulfill that required milestone, this package contains the local area plans as well as information regarding statewide activities that contribute to bringing cleaner air to the citizens of South Carolina.

Both the 2007 future year modeling emissions inventory and the attainment maintenance analysis have been completed. Information regarding these two Early Action Compact ( EAC) milestones, as well as information regarding the modeled control cases is contained in the DRAFT 8 hour Ozone Modeling Analysis and Attainment Demonstration for South Carolina's Early Action Compact, Technical Support Document, March 2004. This document will be finalized and submitted to EPA as a part of the Early Action SIP, December 2004. A copy of the Technical Support Document, Executive Summary can be found in Enclosure 1. The Technical Support Document and associated files can be found on the enclosed disk. South Carolina has invested significant resources to conduct a statewide 8 hour ozone modeling analysis. Modeling results demonstrate that all areas of South Carolina will attain the 8 hour ozone standard by 2007. In fact, modeling results indicate a 12 percent statewide average decrease in ozone levels. In addition, a modeling analysis for 2012 demonstrates continued attainment. The results of this modeling validate the regional modeling done by EPA, which also demonstrated attainment for all South Carolina areas. Work is currently underway on a modeling run using estimated 2017 emissions. This work is being done to review attainment issues beyond the mandated 2012 time frame.

South Carolina has also implemented a comprehensive ozone forecasting program that covers twentynine of the state's forty six counties, including those most vulnerable to higher ozone levels. Citizens in those counties are advised on a daily basis about predicted air quality so that they can take actions to protect their health. In addition, South Carolina is an original partner with EPA on the AIRNow project, which allows the current and forecast ozone and particulate matter air quality information to be available to citizens statewide.

The South Carolina General Assembly passed, and Governor Sanford signed, a joint resolution endorsing Early Action Compacts and encouraging state agencies to lead by example and develop programs that focus on reduction in ground level ozone. At the end of 2002, 45 of South Carolina's 46 counties had entered into Early Action Compacts to implement ozone reduction strategies earlier than federally required. These counties, along with other government entities, industry, environmental groups, and other stakeholders have worked together both at the local level and state level to develop strategies to reduce ozone pollution. These efforts affirm our commitment to improve air quality for all of South Carolina. In fact, the stakeholders involved in this early action process identified 675 initiatives to obtain ozone reductions at a local level. To ensure that future growth does not adversely affect South Carolina's ability to meet the 8 hour ozone standard, the state is on schedule to impose regulations to address NOx Letter to Mr. Palmer March 31, 2004 Page 2 emissions from new and existing stationary sources and open burning activities statewide. These requirements will have the potential of reducing and preventing the addition of over 5,500 tons of NOx to the state's current emissions inventory.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control ( Department) has also been working with the largest existing industrial sources in the more vulnerable areas of South Carolina to reduce NOx emissions. These efforts will result in a reduction of 12,458 tons per year in NOx emissions from 8 facilities, and these reductions will be captured through permit limits. Detailed information regarding the specific facilities and the respective reductions will be included in South Carolina's Early Action SIP submittal, December 2004.

Department air officials have been proactive in planning for improved air quality in the state and in the region. In 2001, it became apparent that there was a significant interest by the utility industry in the I 85 corridor of South Carolina due to the location of the natural gas pipeline and access to the electrical power grid. The Department began to receive numerous power plant permit applications. As this was a vulnerable area with regards to ground level ozone, the numbers of permit applications and the potential impact of these sources on the area's ability to meet the 8 hour ozone standard became an utmost concern. The Department determined that authorizing the large amounts of additional NOx emissions that were proposed by these and other similar large NOx sources would not be appropriate without a showing that these additional emissions would not adversely impact this area. As a result of this determination, NOx emissions estimated at 3610 tons per year have not been authorized.

In addition to the milestones for identifying and adopting early control measures established in the EAC, one condition set by EPA Region 4 for York, Chester, and Lancaster counties participation, requires that South Carolina continue to actively participate in the Charlotte Region Integrated Air Quality Management Pilot Project. This project has since been renamed " Sustainable Environment for Quality of Life" ( SEQL) and the Department is an active partner in this project. Further, the Department has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources to improve air quality in the Charlotte region.

To ensure air quality goals are considered in all transportation plans, programs and projects, the Department is working closely with Federal Highways, EPA Region 4, South Carolina Department of Transportation and local Metropolitan Planning Organizations. While this effort, referred to as " Smart Highways," is not a strategy that will result in emission reductions, it will provide the citizens of South Carolina the assurance that air quality goals are considered in transportation improvements.

The Department anticipates having plans in place by April 2005 for statewide compliance with 8 hour ozone standards, well before EPA's deadline of April 2007 with attainment for some marginal and moderate areas in 2007 and 2009, and until 2024 for areas with the worst air quality.

Enclosed you will also find the local Early Action Plans completed by participating counties and a progress report update of emission reduction strategies for the Department. This information will be available on our website as soon as possible. Enclosure 2 includes the updated progress report for the Department and Enclosure 3 includes the final local Early Action Plan for each participating county, grouped by the following areas: Letter to Mr. Palmer March 31, 2004 Page 3 Appalachian: Anderson, Cherokee, Greenville, Oconee, Pickens, Spartanburg Catawba: Chester, Lancaster, Union, York Pee Dee: Chesterfield, Darlington, Dillon, Florence, Marion, Marlboro Waccamaw: Georgetown, Horry, Williamsburg Santee Lynches: Clarendon, Kershaw, Lee, Sumter Berkeley Charleston Dorchester: Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester Low Country: Beaufort, Colleton, Hampton, Jasper Lower Savannah: Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Calhoun, Orangeburg Central Midlands: Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, Richland Upper Savannah: Abbeville, Edgefield, Greenwood, Laurens, Saluda Local stakeholder groups continue to meet and upon request, the Department attends as many of these meetings as possible to offer technical assistance and updates regarding the 8 hour ozone standard and the early action process.

To date, the early action process has been a positive experience for South Carolina. The awareness of air quality issues has reached an all time high and is expected to increase as the local areas implement education and outreach initiatives. Thank you for the assistance and support EPA has provided in this process. We look forward to continuing to work with EPA as we implement measures to achieve cleaner air sooner for our citizens. Should you have questions or desire additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at ( 803) 896 8940 or Henry Phillips, of my staff at ( 803) 898 3260.

Sincerely,

Robert W. King, Jr., P. E. Deputy Commissioner Environmental Quality Control Enclosures: 1. DRAFT 8 hour Ozone Modeling Analysis and Attainment Demonstration for South Carolina's Early Action Compact, Technical Support Document, March 2004 2. South Carolina's March 2004 Progress Report Update 3. Local Early Action Plans for Participating Areas cc: Kay Prince, EPA Region 4 County Officials ( no attachments*) Ron Methier, GA Dept. of Natural Resources ( no attachments*) Keith Overcash, NC Dept. of Environmental and Natural Resources ( no attachments*) EQC District Directors ( no attachments*) Henry Phillips ( no attachments*)

* All those not receiving attachments will be notified when materials are placed on website.


[Federal Register: October 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 66352]
[DOCID:fr26oc11-116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Request To Release Airport Property

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property
at the Halifax County Airport (RZZ), Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of land at the Halifax County Airport (RZZ), Roanoke Rapids, NC
under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Larry F. Clark, Assistant Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701
Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-260, College Park, GA 30337.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: Tony N. Brown, Halifax County Manager, 10 North
King Street, Halifax, NC 27839.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry F. Clark, Assistant Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701
Columbia Avenue, Campus Building, Suite 2-260, College Park, GA 30337.
    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release approximately 292 acres of property known as the
Halifax County Airport (RZZ) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.
47107(h)(2). In May, 2009, the Halifax-Northampton Regional Airport
Authority opened the new Halifax-Northampton Regional Airport (IXA) as
a replacement for the Halifax County Airport (RZZ). On April 20, 2010,
the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Halifax County and the
Mayor of Roanoke Rapids notified the FAA that because of the opening of
the new Halifax-Northampton Regional Airport and the subsequent
decommissioning of RZZ that they were officially requesting a full
release of the affected property from federal obligations. All
operations at RZZ have ceased. The FAA has determined that the request
to release property at RZZ submitted by the airport sponsors meets the
procedural requirements of the FAA. The release of this property does
not and will not impact future aviation needs in the region. The FAA
may approve the request in whole no sooner than 30 days after
publication of this notice.

The Following Is a Brief Overview of the Request

    The Airport Sponsors are proposing the release of the entire
airport property and associated facilities. The release of land is
necessary to comply with FAA Grant Assurances that do not allow
federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation
purposes. The permanent abandonment of the subject property will result
in the lands of RZZ being changed from aeronautical to nonaeronautical
use and release of the lands from the conditions of the AIP Grant
Agreement Grant Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the Airport Sponsor has reinvested an
amount equal to the fair market value of RZZ in the recently-
constructed IXA.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect
the application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Halifax County Manager's
Office, 10 North King Street, Halifax, NC.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia on October 12, 2011.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, FAA Atlanta Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2011-27634 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6801-6802]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0493]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Additional Criteria
and Procedures for Classifying Over-the-Counter Drugs as Generally
Recognized as Safe and Effective and Not Misbranded

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by March
10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910--New and
title ``Additional Criteria and Procedures for Classifying Over-the-
Counter Drugs as Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective and Not
Misbranded.'' Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Additional Criteria and Procedures for Classifying Over-the-Counter
Drugs as Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective and Not
Misbranded--(OMB Control Number 0910--New)

    In the Federal Register of January 23, 2002 (67 FR 3060), we
established regulations in Sec.  330.14 (21 CFR 330.14) providing
additional criteria and procedures for classifying over-the-counter
(OTC) drugs as generally recognized as safe and effective and not
misbranded (2002 time and extent application (TEA) final rule). The
regulations in Sec.  330.14 state that OTC drug products introduced
into the U.S. market after the OTC drug review began and OTC drug
products without any marketing experience in the United States can be
evaluated under the monograph process if the conditions (e.g., active
ingredients) meet certain ``time and extent'' criteria outlined in
Sec.  330.14(b). The regulations allow a TEA to be submitted to us by
any party for our consideration to include new conditions in the OTC
drug monograph system. TEAs must provide evidence described in Sec.
330.14(c) demonstrating that the condition is eligible for inclusion in
the monograph system. (Section 330.14(d) specifies the number of copies
and address for submission of a TEA.) If a condition is found eligible,
any interested parties can submit safety and effectiveness information
as explained in Sec.  330.14(f). Safety and effectiveness data include
not only the data and information listed in 21 CFR 330.10(a)(2) (Sec.
330.14(f)(1)), but also a listing of all serious adverse drug
experiences that may have occurred (Sec.  330.14(f)(2)) as well as an
official or proposed compendial monograph (Sec.  330.14(i)).
    In the Federal Register of October 8, 2010 (75 FR 62404), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. In that notice, we stated that we considered
our estimate, in the 2002 TEA final rule, of 480 hours to prepare a TEA
and 800 hours to prepare and submit safety and effectiveness data to
continue to be valid (75 FR 62404 at 62405). In the same document, we
stated that, based on the number of submissions we had received in the
8 years following publication of the TEA final rule, we expected to
receive an

average of two TEAs and two submissions of safety and effectiveness
data each year. Therefore, we estimated the total annual reporting
burden to be 2,560 hours. This number included 960 hours for preparing
TEAs (two TEAs per year times 480 hours per TEA) and 1,600 hours (two
submissions of safety and effectiveness data times 800 hours per
submission).
    We received a submission from a manufacturer that filed two TEAs
stating that our estimates in the 60-day notice were too low. The
submission noted that the time spent on ``gathering, compiling,
evaluating and preparing'' the TEA and safety and effectiveness
submissions was ``significantly greater'' than what FDA had estimated
in the 2002 TEA final rule and the more recent 60-day notice. The
submission estimates that approximately 1,526 hours are required to
prepare a TEA and approximately 2,348 hours to prepare a safety and
effectiveness submission.
    Because the information provided in the submission is based on
actual experience by a TEA applicant, we agree with the submission and
are adjusting our estimates in this document accordingly. We continue
to estimate that we will receive two TEAs and two safety and
effectiveness submissions each year. We now estimate that it will take
approximately 1,525 hours to prepare a TEA and 2,350 hours to prepare a
comprehensive safety and effectiveness submission.
    The submission included, as part of the estimated burden of safety
and effectiveness data submission, an estimated burden to submit
environmental data. We agree with the submission and are including the
environmental data in our estimated burden of safety and effectiveness
data submission. In February 2010, we published a call-for-data to
request data on the environmental impact of amending OTC drug
monographs to include any of 13 active ingredients that were found
eligible for potential inclusion in an OTC monograph through the TEA
process (75 FR 7606, February 22, 2010). In that document, we explain
that a proposed rule that would add an ingredient to an OTC drug
monograph would be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (see 21 CFR 25.1). In order to comply with NEPA, an
environmental assessment of such an Agency action is required, unless
we determine that a categorical exclusion is warranted (21 CFR
25.20(f)). Therefore, in this document, the estimated burden of
collection for safety and effectiveness data submission includes the
burden to collect environmental data to support the application of any
categorical exclusion or to conduct an environmental assessment, if
necessary.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual
         21 CFR section              Number of     frequency per   Total annual      Hours per      Total hours
                                    respondents      response        responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
330.14(c) and (d) \2\...........               2               1               2           1,525           3,050
330.14(f) and (i) \3\...........               2               1               2           2,350           4,700
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           7,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.
\2\ TEA.
\3\ Safety and effectiveness submission, including environmental data in accordance with 21 CFR 25.1.

    Dated: February 2, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-2692 Filed 2-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P