Springsteen B., EERGC Inc., personal communication, November 19, 2003 Phone Call between Bruce Springsteen of EERGC and Jason Price of Industrial Economics.

  Jason Price called Bruce Springsteen at EERGC to get information on secondary environmental impacts associated with the proposed HWC MACT replacement standards. Springsteen provided Price with the following numbers:

  Systems that implement dry scrubbing systems to control chlorine emissions will generate slightly more than 34,000 tons of sorbent per year.   Systems using activated carbon to control emissions of dioxin/ furans and mercury will generate almost 11,000 tons of carbon on an annual basis.

  Springsteen confirmed that the cost of disposing of the wastes associated with controlling HAP emissions is included in the engineering cost estimates EERGC provided to EPA.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 130 (Friday, July 8, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40759-40763]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14469]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0531; FRL-9976-01-R7]

Air Plan Disapproval; Missouri; Control of Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove revisions to the Missouri

State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by Missouri on March 7, 2019.
In its submission, Missouri requested rescinding a regulation
addressing sulfur compounds from the SIP and replacing it with a new
regulation that establishes requirements for units emitting sulfur
dioxide (SO2). The EPA is proposing to disapprove the SIP
revision because the state has not demonstrated that the removal of
SO2 emission limits for the Evergy-Hawthorn (Hawthorn,
formerly Kansas City Power & Light-Hawthorn) and Ameren Labadie
(Labadie) power plants from the SIP would not interfere with National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) as required under CAA section 110(l). This disapproval action
is being taken under the CAA to maintain the stringency of the SIP and
preserve air quality.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2022-0531 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Vit, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
    A. Hawthorn SO2 Emission Limit
    B. Labadie SO2 Emission Limit
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-
0531, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    Missouri revised title 10, division 10 of the code of state
regulations (CSR) by rescinding 10 CSR 10-6.260 ``Restriction of
Emission of Sulfur Compounds'' and replacing it with a new regulation,
10 CSR 10-6.261 ``Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions.'' 10 CSR 10-
6.260 was originally approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1320(c) in 1998
(63 FR 45727, August 27, 1998) and has been revised several times.\1\
10 CSR 10-6.261 has not been approved into the SIP. On March 7, 2019,
the state submitted a request to revise the SIP by removing 10 CSR 10-
6.260 and replacing it with 10 CSR 10-6.261 (effective date March 30,
2019). Missouri's analysis of the rescission and replacement can be
found in the technical support document (TSD) submitted to the EPA on
May 4, 2022 and included in this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 71 FR 12623 (March 13, 2006), 73 FR 35071 (June 20,
2008), and 78 FR 69995 (November 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for the EPA to fully approve a SIP revision, the state
must demonstrate that the SIP revision meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA
may not approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. The EPA interprets section 110(l)
such that states have two main options to make this noninterference
demonstration. First, the state could demonstrate that emissions
reductions removed from the SIP are replaced with new control measures
that achieve equivalent or greater emissions reductions. Thus, the SIP
revision will not interfere with the area's ability to continue to
attain or maintain the affected NAAQS or other CAA requirements. The
EPA further interprets section 110(l) as requiring such substitute
measures to be quantifiable, permanent, and enforceable, among other
considerations. For section 110(l) purposes, ``permanent'' means the
state cannot modify or remove the substitute measure without EPA review
and approval. Second, the state could conduct air quality modeling or
develop an attainment or maintenance demonstration based on EPA's most
recent technical guidance to show that, even without the control
measure or with the control measure in its modified form, the area (as
well as interstate and intrastate areas downwind) can continue to
attain and maintain the affected NAAQS.
    As discussed in detail in its TSD, Missouri contends that there are
substitute measures of comparable or greater stringency to the Hawthorn
and Labadie SO2 limits, and therefore argues that removal of
these emission limits from the SIP would satisfy CAA section 110(l)
requirements without the need for an air quality analysis showing that
removing the measures will not interfere with NAAQS attainment or other
applicable requirements.
    We disagree with Missouri's analysis and rationale for removing the
Hawthorn and Labadie SO2 emission limits from the SIP. The
substitute SO2 emission limit for Hawthorn is contained in a
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit that is not
approved in the SIP and could be later modified without requiring EPA
approval, and therefore the substitute measure is not considered
permanent. For Labadie, the substitute SO2 emission limit is
not as stringent as the limit currently in the SIP-approved 10 CSR 10-
6.260, nor does it result in surplus emission reductions. In addition,
Missouri has not provided an air quality analysis demonstrating the
revisions related to the Labadie SO2 emission limits in the
SIP will not interfere with NAAQS attainment or other applicable
requirements. For these reasons we are proposing to disapprove the
rescission of 10 CSR 10-6.260 and replacement with 10 CSR 10-6.261 in
the SIP.
    This proposed disapproval action, if finalized, would maintain 10
CSR 10-6.260 requirements at 40 CFR 52.1320(c) as federally approved
SIP obligations.

    The EPA's rationale for disapproving removal of the Hawthorn and
Labadie SO2 emission limits from the SIP is further
discussed in the sections below.

A. Hawthorn SO2 Emission Limit

    Table 1 of 10 CSR 10-6.260 in the SIP includes a 30-day rolling
average SO2 emission limit of 0.12 pounds/million British
thermal units (lb/MMBtu) for the Hawthorn plant. The footnote to Table
1 in 10 CSR 10-6.260 states: ``The SO2 emission rate comes
from the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit for Unit 5A and
is implemented in accordance with the terms of the permit.'' The
referenced permit for Hawthorn is Construction Permit Number 888 issued
by the Kansas City Health Department in August of 1999 and amended in
2001 after the reconstruction of the unit 5 boiler (which was renamed
unit 5A). The permit contains the 30-day rolling average SO2
emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu referenced in Table 1 of 10 CSR 10-
6.260, and it stipulates that the facility must achieve the limit by
utilizing a dry flue gas desulfurization system and low-sulfur coal.
This permit has not changed since 2001 when the reconstruction of unit
5 was completed, and the SO2 limit has also been part of the
facility's Title V operating permit since that time.
    Missouri's rationale for removing the 0.12 lb/MMBtu SO2
limit from the SIP is based on using the equivalent SO2
emission limit in Hawthorn's PSD permit as a substitute measure.
Missouri contends that removal of the 0.12 lb/MMBtu SO2
limit from the SIP satisfies CAA section 110(l) because the same limit
remains in place through Hawthorn's PSD permit. Missouri further states
that any relaxation of the 30-day rolling average SO2
emission limit in the PSD permit would subject the facility to PSD
permitting requirements.
    EPA disagrees with Missouri's assessment because it relies on a
substitute measure from Hawthorn's PSD permit that is not SIP-approved.
Although the PSD permit is federally enforceable, it is not considered
permanent because it is not contained in the Missouri SIP and could be
modified without requiring EPA approval. While the EPA can provide
comments on PSD permits during the state's public notice period,
Missouri can issue or modify PSD permits that are not in the SIP
without EPA approval pursuant to the state's federally approved
permitting program. Therefore, because substitute measures must be
quantifiable, permanent, and enforceable to be used for 110(l) analysis
purposes, EPA's approval of the removal of a SIP-approved limit based
on permits that are not SIP-approved would not be consistent with CAA
section 110(l).

B. Labadie SO2 Emission Limit

    The Labadie SO2 emission limit found at 10 CSR 10-6.260
(3)(C)3.A.(II) in the SIP is a daily average of 4.8 lb/MMBtu, which
applies to each of Labadie's four boilers. In 2015, the state entered
into a Consent Agreement with the operating entity to limit
SO2 emissions at Labadie. The Consent Agreement includes a
facility-wide SO2 emission limit of 40,837 pounds per hour
(lb/hr) for Labadie. As stated in Missouri's TSD included in this
docket, the purpose of the Consent Agreement was to strengthen the SIP
related to attainment in the Jefferson County, Missouri nonattainment
area for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. In December 2020, the
state amended the 2015 Consent Agreement with an addendum to clarify
that all four of Labadie's units are covered under the facility-wide
SO2 limit and incorporate the enforceable monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated with the facility-
wide limit. The EPA approved the Consent Agreement including the limits
for Labadie, as amended, into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1320(d) on January
28, 2022 (87 FR 4508). 10 CSR 10-6.261 does not include any of the
limits contained in the Consent Agreement.
    Missouri's rationale for removing the 4.8 lb/MMBtu SO2
limit from the SIP is based on using the already SIP-approved Consent
Agreement SO2 emission limit as a substitute measure of
greater stringency. The state's analysis of the stringency of the
Consent Agreement facility-wide SO2 limit of 40,837 lb/hr
compared to the 10 CSR 10-6.260 unit-level SO2 limit of 4.8
lb/MMBtu assumes all four boilers are operating at their maximum hourly
design rate, which is a combined total heat input of 24,580 MMBtu/
hr.\2\ Labadie's maximum hourly SO2 emissions allowed under
10 CSR 10-6.260 is calculated by multiplying 4.8 lb/hour by 24,580
MMBtu/hr, which equates to 117,984 lb/hr, nearly three times the
maximum hourly emissions of 40,837 lb/hr allowed by the already SIP-
approved Consent Agreement. Based on these calculations, Missouri
concludes that the limit in the already SIP-approved Consent Agreement
is more restrictive than the limit in 10 CSR 10-6.260, and therefore,
removal of the 4.8 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission limit from the SIP
will not relax requirements for Labadie, thus satisfying CAA section
110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Labadie units 1 and 2 each have a rated maximum heat input
capacity of 6,183 MMBtu/hr. Labadie units 3 and 4 each have a rated
maximum heat input capacity of 6,107 MMBtu/hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA agrees that maximum allowable facility-wide hourly
SO2 emissions for Labadie are lower under the already SIP-
approved Consent Agreement than were under 10 CSR 10-6.260 alone.
However, our calculations show that under a different set of
assumptions, there are potential operating scenarios for Labadie in
which individual units could operate at a rate greater than the current
4.8 lb/MMBtu SO2 SIP limit if it were removed from the SIP,
while still complying with the already SIP-approved Consent Agreement
limit. In our analysis, we converted the Consent Agreement facility-
wide lb/hr limit to a unit-level lb/MMBtu rate for multiple scenarios
by dividing 40,837 lb/hr by the total heat input for all units assumed
to be operating. An example of a scenario in which Labadie could
potentially exceed the emission rate allowed under the 4.8 lb/MMBtu
SO2 limit but still comply with the Consent Agreement limit
is when a single unit is operating at 100% load. A maximum hourly heat
input rate of 6,107 MMBtu/hr (representative of either unit 3 or 4) is
used in this example. Dividing 40,837 lb/hr by 6,107 MMBtu/hr equates
to an SO2 rate of 6.69 lb/MMBtu, which is greater than the
4.8 lb/MMBtu SO2 limit in 10 CSR 10-6.260 in the current
SIP. If this limit were removed from the SIP, there would not be a
permanent and enforceable limit or condition in place to prevent
Labadie from operating a single unit at an SO2 rate higher
than 4.8 lb/MMBtu.
    In order for a state to use a previously SIP-approved measure (one
that is already obtaining emissions reductions) as a substitute measure
to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(l), the emissions
reductions must be surplus, meaning they cannot otherwise be relied on
for attainment/maintenance or Rate of Progress/Reasonable Further
Progress requirements. The area should have an approved attainment/
maintenance demonstration in order to ascertain that the emissions
reductions from the existing SIP-approved measure are indeed surplus.
As Missouri states in the TSD included in this docket, the purpose of
the Consent Agreement was to strengthen the SIP related to attainment
in the Jefferson County, Missouri nonattainment area for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS. When the Jefferson County, Missouri area was
redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the
Consent Agreement was approved into the SIP as

part of the maintenance plan for the area (87 FR 4508, January 28,
2022). The Labadie SO2 emission limit in the Consent
Agreement is not surplus and therefore cannot be relied on as a
substitute measure to meet the requirements of section 110(l).
    The EPA's approval of the removal of the 4.8 lbs/MMBtu
SO2 limit from the SIP would not be consistent with CAA
section 110(l) because the substitute SO2 limit from the
already SIP-approved Consent Agreement is not as stringent as the SIP's
4.8 lb/MMBtu limit in all situations, nor is it surplus. Moreover,
Missouri has not demonstrated that this change in the SIP would be
protective of all NAAQS.

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

    As explained above, because EPA's approval of the revision would
not be consistent with CAA section 110(l), we are proposing to
disapprove the submission. However, the state submission has met the
public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40
CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of
40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The state provided public notice of the
revisions from August 1, 2018, to October 4, 2018, and held a public
hearing on September 27, 2018. The state received and addressed four
comments from three entities, which included the EPA. The state did not
make changes to the rule as a result of comments received prior to
submitting to the EPA.

IV. What action is the EPA proposing to take?

    The EPA is proposing to disapprove a SIP submission from Missouri
that would rescind 10 CSR 10-6.260 ``Restriction of Emission of Sulfur
Compounds'' and replace it with 10 CSR 10-6.261 ``Control of Sulfur
Dioxide Emissions.'' By disapproving these revisions, 10 CSR 10-6.260
will be retained in the SIP, along with the already SIP-approved
Consent Agreement. The EPA has determined that Missouri's proposed SIP
revisions do not meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act because the
revisions would remove permanent and enforceable emission limits,
thereby relaxing the stringency of the SIP. Furthermore, Missouri has
not shown that the proposed SIP revisions would not have an adverse
impact on air quality.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the CAA (CAA
sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call)
starts a sanctions clock. The Missouri SIP submission that we propose
to disapprove was not submitted to meet either of these requirements.
Therefore, any action we take to finalize this proposed disapproval
will not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179. In
addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years after either finding
that a State has failed to make a required submission or disapproving a
SIP submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision
correcting the deficiencies within that two-year period. With respect
to our proposed disapproval of Missouri's SIP submission, however, we
propose to conclude that any FIP obligation resulting from finalization
of the proposed disapproval would be satisfied by our determination
that there is no deficiency in the SIP to correct.\3\ Specifically, the
limits discussed in this proposed rulemaking would remain in the SIP
and remain federally enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA's obligation under CAA section 110(c)(1) to issue a
FIP following a SIP disapproval is not limited to ``required'' plan
submissions. However, the EPA can avoid promulgating a FIP if the
Agency finds that there is no ``deficiency'' in the SIP for a FIP to
correct. Association of Irritated Residents vs. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final
rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not meeting
the CAA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes to disapprove a SIP
submission as not meeting the CAA.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this

action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or
indigenous populations. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP
submission as not meeting the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 30, 2022.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2022-14469 Filed 7-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 14290-14291]
[DOCID:fr17mr08-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57450; File No. SR-ISE-2008-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Exchange's Limitation of Liability

March 7, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 5, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' 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 ISE. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 705, Limitation of Liability, to
codify that it may provide compensation for losses sustained by Members
as a result of a malfunction of the Exchange's physical equipment,
devices and/or programming. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the ISE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.ise.com.

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 ISE 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 ISE 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 ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 705 to codify that it may
provide compensation for losses sustained by Members as a result of a
malfunction of the Exchange's physical equipment, devices, and/or
programming. Currently, ISE Rule 705 generally states that the Exchange
is not liable for any losses due to the Exchange's negligence or
unintentional actions. Notwithstanding the Exchange's current
limitation on liability, from a customer service perspective, the
Exchange may compensate a Member for certain identified losses.\3\ As
such, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 705 in order to establish
limits with respect to compensating Members, both in the ISE's stock
and options markets, as a result of a malfunction of the Exchange's
physical equipment, devices, and/or programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ISE represents that the determination as to whether a
Member is compensated or not will be made on an equitable and non-
discriminatory basis without regard to the status of that Member,
i.e., whether that Member is a Primary Market Maker, a Competitive
Market Maker, or an Electronic Access Member of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, payments for any and all system
failures on any given day would be capped at $250,000. That is, for the
aggregate of all claims made by all market participants related to the
use of the Exchange on a single trading day, the Exchange's payment
shall not exceed $250,000. In the event that all of the claims arising
out of the use of the Exchange's systems cannot be fully satisfied
because in the aggregate they exceed the limitations provided for in
the Rule, then the maximum permitted amount will be proportionally
allocated among all such claims arising on a single trading day. A
system failure will be deemed to have occurred when there is a
malfunction of the Exchange's physical systems, devices, or software.
    In order for a Member to be eligible to receive payment, claims
must be made in writing and must be submitted no later than the opening
of trading on the next business day following the day on which the
incident giving rise to a claim occurred. Once in receipt of a claim,
the Exchange will verify that: (i) a valid order was accepted into the
Exchange's systems; and (ii) an Exchange system failure occurred during
the execution or handling of that order. If all of the criteria for
submitting a claim have been met, the claim will be qualified for
processing with all other eligible claims at the end of the calendar
month in which the incident occurred.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\

in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. In particular, the ISE believes that the proposed rule
change will protect investors and the public interest by providing more
certainty as to the Exchange's potential liability resulting from
system problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not 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 has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve 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 No. SR-ISE-2008-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-15. 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, 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
ISE. 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-ISE-
2008-15 and should be submitted on or before April 7, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5237 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50536-50538]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19410]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-D-0875]

S12 Nonclinical Biodistribution Considerations for Gene Therapy
Products; International Council for Harmonisation; Draft Guidance for
Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``S12
Nonclinical Biodistribution Considerations for Gene Therapy Products.''
The draft guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International
Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly the International Conference
on Harmonisation. The draft guidance provides harmonized
recommendations for the conduct and overall design of nonclinical
biodistribution (BD) studies for gene therapy (GT) products.
Considerations for interpretation and application of the BD data to
support a nonclinical development program and inform the design of
clinical trials are also provided. The recommendations in the guidance
endeavour to facilitate the development of investigational GT products,
while avoiding unnecessary use of animals, in accordance with the 3Rs
(reduce/refine/replace) principles. The draft guidance is intended to
promote harmonization of recommendations for BD studies for
investigational GT products and facilitate a more efficient and timely
nonclinical development program.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by November 8, 2021 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

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

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2021-D-0875 for ``S12 Nonclinical Biodistribution Considerations
for Gene Therapy Products.'' Received comments will be placed in the
docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
are publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-
402-7500.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper

submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include
the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover
note that states ``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.''
The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential
information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which
will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out,
will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made
publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet
and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002, or to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New
Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that
office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be
obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Regarding the guidance: Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.
    Regarding the ICH: Jill Adleberg, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6364, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``S12 Nonclinical Biodistribution Considerations for Gene
Therapy Products.'' The draft guidance was prepared under the auspices
of ICH. ICH has the mission of achieving greater regulatory
harmonization worldwide to ensure that safe, effective, high-quality
medicines are developed, registered, and maintained in the most
resource-efficient manner.
    By harmonizing the regulatory requirements in regions around the
world, ICH guidelines have substantially reduced duplicative clinical
studies, prevented unnecessary animal studies, standardized the
reporting of important safety information, standardized marketing
application submissions, and made many other improvements in the
quality of global drug development and manufacturing and the products
available to patients.
    The six Founding Members of the ICH are FDA; the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America; the European Commission; the
European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the
Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; and the Japanese
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. The Standing Members of the
ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Additionally, the
Membership of ICH has expanded to include other regulatory authorities
and industry associations from around the world (refer to https://www.ich.org/).
    ICH works by involving technical experts from both regulators and
industry parties in detailed technical harmonization work and the
application of a science-based approach to harmonization through a
consensus-driven process that results in the development of ICH
guidelines. The regulators around the world are committed to
consistently adopting these consensus-based guidelines, realizing the
benefits for patients and for industry.
    As a Founding Regulatory Member of ICH, FDA plays a major role in
the development of each of the ICH guidelines, which FDA then adopts
and issues as guidance for industry. FDA's guidance documents do not
establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, they describe
the Agency's current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as
recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements
are cited.
    In June 2021, the ICH Assembly endorsed the draft guideline
entitled ``S12 Nonclinical Biodistribution Considerations for Gene
Therapy Products'' and agreed that the guidance should be made
available for public comment. The draft guidance is the product of the
Safety Expert Working Group of the ICH. Comments about this draft
guidance will be considered by FDA and the Safety Expert Working Group.
    FDA is thus announcing the availability of a draft guidance for
industry entitled ``S12 Nonclinical Biodistribution Considerations for
Gene Therapy Products.'' The draft guidance discusses the definition of
BD and gives examples of GT products that are within the scope of the
document. The guidance also provides recommendations for the design of
nonclinical BD studies, such as the test article and dose level(s)
administered, the animal species tested, route of administration,
biofluid and tissue collection procedure, and other design elements. In
addition, specific considerations, such as BD assay methods, GT
expression product levels, and product immunogenicity are provided. The
recommendations in the draft guidance are intended to promote
harmonization in the development of a nonclinical development program
for GT products to support clinical trial design, and reduce the use of
animals, in accordance with the 3Rs (reduce/refine/replace) principles.
    This draft guidance has been left in the original ICH format. The
final guidance will be reformatted and edited to conform with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115) and style before
publication. The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the
current thinking of FDA on ``S12 Nonclinical Biodistribution
Considerations for Gene Therapy Products.'' It does not establish any
rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can
use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to

previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0001 and in 21 CFR part 601 under OMB control number 0910-
0338.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at https://www.regulations.gov, https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances.

    Dated: September 2, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19410 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: January 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5554-5555]
[DOCID:fr30ja08-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-58-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Prior Notice of
Activity Under Blanket Certificate

January 24, 2008.
    Take notice that on January 18, 2008, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation (TGPL) filed a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.210 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act, and
TGPL's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-426, for
authorization to replace three segments of mainline pipeline in Howard
County, Maryland (MD).
    As a result of population density increases along TGPL's mainline,
TGPL must upgrade three parallel segments of pipeline--Mainlines A, B
and C--each approximately 0.377 miles long, in Howard County, MD. These
replacements are required in order to ensure compliance with the United
States Department of Transportation's (USDOT) regulations at 49 CFR
192.611 and to maintain certificated service and the safety and
reliability of TGPL's mainline. The replacement will take place in an
area recently classified as meeting the USDOT Class 4 regulations, as
defined at 49 CFR 192.5(b)(4). The estimated total cost of all pipeline
replacements is approximately $9.6 million. TGPL's proposal is more
fully described in the application that is on file with the Commission.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Bill
Hammons LLP, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251 at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must
file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate.
Such motions or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant, on or before the comment date. It is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission 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 online 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-1625 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 CREOSOTE  CASE OVERVIEW II. CASE OVERVIEW A. Chemical Overview The following active ingredients are covered by this Creosote Reregistration Eligibility Decision:

Common Name: Creosote Case Number: 0139 Chemical Names: CAS Registry Numbers: OPP Chemical Codes:

Coal Tar Creosote 8001 58 9 25004 Creosote Oil 61789 28 4 25003 Coal Tar 8007 45 2 22003 Total Number of Basic Manufacturers: Primary Registrants Registered Products Coopers Creek Chemical Corp. 2 KMG Bernuth, Inc. 5 Koppers Industries, Inc. 4 Osmose utilities Services, Inc. 1 Railworks Wood Products, Inc. 2 Rutgers VFT 1 Trenton Sales, Inc. 1 B. Use Profile The following is information on the currently registered uses for Creosote with an overview of use sites and application methods. A detailed table of the uses can be found in Appendix A.

TYPE OF PESTICIDE: Fungicide, Insecticide, Miticide, and Sporicide 2 USE SITES: Creosote used for wood/ wood structure protection treatments via pressure methods to utility poles and railroad ties. Treated wood intended for exterior/ outdoor uses only.

Terrestrial Non Food Crop ( e. g., Utility Poles/ Crossarms, Crossties, Railroad Ties, Fenceposts, Fences, Foundation Timbers, Timbers, Lumber)

Wood or Wood Structure Protection Treatments:

 Wood Pressure Treatment to Forest Products  Pesticides for Manufacturing, Reformulating or Repackage Use  Pesticide Products for Formulation of Other Products Aquatic Non Food Outdoor ( e. g., Pilings, Posts)

Wood or Wood Structure Protection Treatments:

 Pressurized Wood Protection Treatment to Wooden Aquatic Structures and Items TARGET PESTS:

INVERTEBRATES ( Insects, Miscellaneous Invertebrates, and Related Organisms.)

 Insects  Wood Destroying Insects  Wood Boring Insects  Roundheaded Wood Borers  Marine Borers  Wood Infesting Insects  Termites  Beetles  Powderpost Beetles  Bees  Carpenter Bees  Carpenter Ants PLANT PATHOGENIC ORGANISMS ( Bacteria, Fungi, and Other Fouling Organisms.) 3  Fungi  Dry Rot Fungi  Wood Rot/ Decay Fungi  Fungal Rot/ Decay Organisms  Wood Rot/ Decay Organisms  Slime FORMULATION TYPES REGISTERED:

At present there are a total of 16 products registered with the U. S. EPA for wood preservation uses which contain the Creosote active ingredients in the following formulations: Total No. of Registered Manufacturing Use Product ( MUP): Percent A. I. Products Soluble Concentrate ( Liquid) 97.00 to 98.50% 1 End Use Product ( EUP):

Ready to Use Compound ( Grease) 37.00 to 60.00% 1 ( a Coal tar/ Creosote oil mixture) Ready to Use Solution ( Liquid) 44.00 to 99.99% 14 TYPES AND RATES OF APPLICATION:

The following covers only those application rates which are specified on the Creosote product labeling:

Terrestrial Non Food Crop Wood Pressure Treatment to Forest Products:

Wood Protection Treatment by Pressure ( Pressure Treating Vessel)  apply at rate of 12 lbs. per cu. ft..

Aquatic Non Food Outdoor Wood Pressure Treatment to Aquatic Structures/ Items:

Wood Protection Treatment by Pressure ( Pressure Treating Vessel)  apply 4 at rate of 12 lbs. per cu. ft..

Types of Treatment:

Pressure Treatment Equipment:

Pressure Treating Vessel Timing:

Prior to end use of wood.

C. Regulatory History Creosote, one of the three " heavy duty wood preservatives" ( the others being the wood preservatives containing arsenic and/ or chromium, and Pentacholorphenol) was first registered in the United States in 1948 as a coal tar creosote active ingredient. Presently, 16 products are registered for use as industrial wood preservatives for above and below ground wood protection treatments, as well as treating wood in marine environments. All 16 Creosote products are Restricted Use Pesticides; 15 are Ready to Use End Use Products and 1 is a Manufacturing Use Product for formulating industrial end use wood preservative products. Creosote wood preservatives are used primarily in the pressure treatment of railroad ties/ crossties ( about 70% of all Creosote use) and utility poles/ crossarms ( about 15  20% of all Creosote use). Assorted Creosote treated lumber products ( e. g., timbers, poles, posts and ground line support structures) account for the remaining uses for this wood preservative. The industry refers to different blends of Creosote based on the wood treatment standards set by the American Wood Preservers'Association ( AWPA). For instance, P1/ P13 and P2 are the predominant blends used by the wood treating industry. Typically, railroad ties/ crossties are treated with a P2 blend which is more viscous than the P1/ P13 blend typically used for treating utility poles.

In October 1978, an administrative review process was initiated to consider whether the pesticide registration of the three heavy duty wood preservative uses ( including Creosote) should be canceled or modified. The Federal Register ( Vol. 49, No. 139) of July 13, 1984 concluded that process and announced that certain changes in the terms and conditions of registration were required if registrants and applicants wished to avoid cancellation.

After carefully evaluating the risks to public health posed by these three heavy duty wood preservative chemicals ( including Creosote) along with the significant economic benefits resulting from their use, the Agency determined that the use of Creosote as a wood 5 preservative chemical in accordance with certain modifications to terms of registration would satisfy the statutory standard for registration. These modifications ( classification as restricted use pesticide, workers protection/ protective clothing and equipment requirements, restricted to non residential uses, etc.) are noted in the Federal Register of January 13, 1986 ( Vol. 51, No. 7).

The Agency has announced and is currently processing a notice of receipt of requests by registrants of pesticide products containing creosote to voluntarily cancel certain registrations and/ or to amend to terminate certain uses of affected products. Specifically, the five registrants who are members of the Creosote Council III ( Coopers Creek Chemical Corporation, KMG Bernuth, Inc., Koppers, Inc., Railworks Wood Products, and Rutgers Chemicals AG) have requested in letters dated September 5, 2003 to cancel the registrations for their creosote non pressure treatment end use products and/ or to amend to terminate all non pressure treatment uses of other creosote products. These registrants are requesting that the voluntary product cancellations and/ or use terminations become effective December 31, 2004. The registrants waived all but 30 days of the 180 day comment period and have not requested any existing stocks provision. At the request of a registrant, the Agency published an extension to the public comment period on November 26, 2003, for an additional 30 days. Unless a request is withdrawn by December 26, 2003, the Agency intends to issue orders granting these requests to cancel certain products, and to amend to terminate certain uses.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44673-44674]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14752]

========================================================================
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. 133 / Thursday, July 13, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0707; Airspace Docket No. 18-AWP-28]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Benton Field Airport, Redding,
CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Benton Field Airport, Redding, CA. The
Class E airspace supports the airport's transition from visual flight
rules (VFR) to instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 5th, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    FAA Order 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov//air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and Regulations Group,
Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Adams, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace at Benton Field Airport, Redding,
CA, to support the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 49985; August 17, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0707 to
establish Class E airspace at Benton Field Airport, Redding, CA.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One
comment was received in support of the proposal.

Differences From the NPRM

    Subsequent to the publication of the NPRM, the FAA determined that
a modification of the original Benton Field Class E5 airspace proposal
is needed to remove a small gap between the proposed airspace at Benton
Field Airport and the existing airspace at Redding Regional Airport,
Redding, CA. Additionally, the arrival procedures were modified and
renamed to circling-only type approaches, which warranted a revision to
the proposed modification of Class E airspace extension to the south of
the airport to better contain the procedures. Accordingly, the FAA
published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (88 FR 19895;
April 4, 2023). Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above
the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO
7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA
Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document. These amendments will be published in the
next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.3-mile
radius of Benton Field Airport, CA. In addition, airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface is established within 4 miles
east and 2.3 miles west of the 002[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 3.3-mile radius to 12.4 miles north of the airport.
Furthermore, airspace is established extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within 3.1 miles each side of the 179[deg] bearing
from the airport, extending from the 3.3-mile radius to 8.8 miles south
of the airport. This airspace would contain IFR departures to 1,200
feet above the surface and IFR arrivals below 1,500 feet above the
surface, supporting the airport's transition from VFR to IFR
operations.
    Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order 7400.11is published annually and becomes effective on
September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established

body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial,
and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore:
(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not
warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only
affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Redding, CA [New]

Benton Field Airport, CA

(Lat. 40[deg]34'25'' N, long. 122[deg]24'26'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 3.3-mile radius of the airport, within 4 miles east and 2.3
miles west of the 002[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from
the 3.3-mile radius to 12.4 miles north of the airport, and within
3.1 miles each side of the 179[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 3.3-mile radius to 8.8 miles south of the
airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 6, 2023.
B.G. Chew,
Group Manager, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group.
[FR Doc. 2023-14752 Filed 7-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		September 4, 2014

TO:		Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Region 7, EPA

SUBJECT:	September 3, 2014, Conference Call Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A conference call was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on September 3, 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The majority of the discussion centered on renewable credits and projecting CO2 using modeling. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.        ATTENDEES

EPA Region 7: Mark A. Smith Ward Burns Toni Gargas Josh Tapp Mike Jay

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Catherine Fitzsimmons Marnie Stein Jason Marcel

Kansas Department of Health and Environment Melissa Weide Miles Stotts Lynn Deahl Tom Gross Rick Brunetti

Missouri Department of Natural Resources  Emily Wilbur Paul Meyers

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Adam Yarina Brian Kozisek Katie Gutierrez