[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30933-30935]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13900]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81030; File No. SR-ICC-2017-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice
Relating to the Clearance of Additional Credit Default Swap Contracts

June 27, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ notice is hereby given that on
June 13, 2017, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, security-based swap
submission, or advance notice as described in Items I, II and III
below, which Items have been primarily prepared by ICC. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the
ICC Rulebook (the ``Rules'') to provide for the clearance of Standard
Asia Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (collectively, ``STASC
Contracts''), Standard Asia Financial Corporate Single Name CDS
contracts (collectively, ``STASFC Contracts''), and Standard Emerging
Market Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (collectively, ``STEMC
Contracts'').

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

A. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt rules that will
provide the basis for ICC to clear additional credit default swap
contracts.

Specifically, ICC proposes amending Chapter 26 of the ICC Rules to add
Subchapters 26O, 26P, and 26Q to provide for the clearance of STASC,
STASFC, and STEMC Contracts, respectively. ICC believes the addition of
these contracts will benefit the market for credit default swaps by
providing market participants the benefits of clearing, including
reduction in counterparty risk and safeguarding of margin assets
pursuant to clearing house rules. Clearing of the STASC, STASFC, and
STEMC Contracts will not require any changes to ICC's Risk Management
Framework or other policies and procedures constituting rules within
the meaning of the Act.
    STASC Contracts have similar terms to the Standard European
Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (``STEC Contracts'') and Standard
Australian Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (``STAC Contracts'')
currently cleared by ICC and governed by Subchapters 26G and 26M of the
ICC Rules, respectively. Accordingly, the proposed rules found in
Subchapter 26O largely mirror the ICC Rules for STEC Contracts in
Subchapter 26G and STAC Contracts in Subchapter 26M, with certain
modifications that reflect differences in terms and market conventions
between those contracts and STASC Contracts. STASC Contracts will be
denominated in United States Dollars.
    ICC Rule 26O-102 (Definitions) sets forth the definitions used for
the STAC Contracts. The definitions are substantially the same as the
definitions found in Subchapters 26G and 26M of the ICC Rules, other
than certain conforming changes. ICC Rules 26O-203 (Restriction on
Activity), 26O-206 (Notices Required of Participants with respect to
STASC Contracts), 26O-303 (STASC Contract Adjustments), 26O-309
(Acceptance of STASC Contracts by ICE Clear Credit), 26O-315 (Terms of
the Cleared STASC Contract), 26O-316 (Relevant Physical Settlement
Matrix Updates), 26O-502 (Specified Actions), and 26O-616 (Contract
Modification) reflect or incorporate the basic contract specifications
for STASC Contracts and are substantially the same as under Subchapters
26G and 26M of the ICC Rules.
    STASFC Contracts have similar terms to the Standard European
Financial Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (``STEFC Contracts'') and
Standard Australian Financial Corporate Single Name CDS contracts
(``STAFC Contracts'') currently cleared by ICC and governed by
Subchapters 26H and 26N of the ICC Rules, respectively. Accordingly,
the proposed rules found in Subchapter 26P largely mirror the ICC Rules
for STEFC Contracts in Subchapter 26H and STAFC Contracts in Subchapter
26N, with certain modifications that reflect differences in terms and
market conventions between those contracts and STASFC Contracts. STASFC
Contracts will be denominated in United States Dollars.
    ICC Rule 26P-102 (Definitions) sets forth the definitions used for
the STASFC Contracts. The definitions are substantially the same as the
definitions found in Subchapters 26H and 26N of the ICC Rules, other
than certain conforming changes. ICC Rules 26P-203 (Restriction on
Activity), 26P-206 (Notices Required of Participants with respect to
STASFC Contracts), 26P-303 (STASFC Contract Adjustments), 26P-309
(Acceptance of STASFC Contracts by ICE Clear Credit), 26P-315 (Terms of
the Cleared STASFC Contract), 26P-316 (Relevant Physical Settlement
Matrix Updates), 26P-502 (Specified Actions), and 26P-616 (Contract
Modification) reflect or incorporate the basic contract specifications
for STASFC Contracts and are substantially the same as under
Subchapters 26H and 26N of the ICC Rules.
    STEMC Contracts also have similar terms to the STEC and STAC
Contracts currently cleared by ICC and governed by Subchapters 26G and
26M of the ICC Rules, respectively. Accordingly, the proposed rules
found in Subchapter 26Q largely mirror the ICC Rules for STEC Contracts
in Subchapter 26G and STAC Contracts in Subchapter 26M, with certain
modifications that reflect differences in terms and market conventions
between those contracts and STEMC Contracts. STEMC Contracts will be
denominated in United States Dollars.
    ICC Rule 26Q-102 (Definitions) sets forth the definitions used for
the STEMC Contracts. The definitions are substantially the same as the
definitions found in Subchapters 26G and 26M of the ICC Rules, other
than certain conforming changes. ICC Rules 26Q-203 (Restriction on
Activity), 26Q-206 (Notices Required of Participants with respect to
STEMC Contracts), 26Q-303 (STEMC Contract Adjustments), 26Q-309
(Acceptance of STEMC Contracts by ICE Clear Credit), 26Q-315 (Terms of
the Cleared STEMC Contract), 26Q-316 (Relevant Physical Settlement
Matrix Updates), 26Q-502 (Specified Actions), and 26Q-616 (Contract
Modification) reflect or incorporate the basic contract specifications
for STEMC Contracts and are substantially the same as under Subchapters
26G and 26M of the ICC Rules.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \3\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. As described above, the STASC, STASFC, and
STEMC Contracts proposed for clearing are similar to contracts
currently cleared by ICC, and will be cleared pursuant to ICC's
existing clearing arrangements and related financial safeguards,
protections and risk management procedures. Clearing of the STASC,
STASFC, and STEMC Contracts will allow market participants an increased
ability to manage risk and ensure the safeguarding of margin assets
pursuant to clearing house rules. ICC believes that acceptance of the
STASC, STASFC, and STEMC Contracts, on the terms and conditions set out
in the Rules, is consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance of
and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements,
contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, the safeguarding of
securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC, and the
protection of investors and the public interest, within the meaning of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing of the STASC, STASFC, and STEMC Contracts will also
satisfy the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\5\ In particular, in terms of
financial resources, ICC will apply its existing initial margin
methodology to the additional contracts. ICC believes that this model
will provide sufficient initial margin requirements to cover its credit
exposure to its clearing members from clearing such contracts,
consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2).\6\ In addition,
ICC believes its Guaranty Fund, under its existing methodology, will,
together with the required initial margin, provide sufficient financial
resources to support the clearing of the additional contracts
consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3).\7\ ICC also
believes that its existing operational and managerial resources will be
sufficient for clearing of the additional contracts, consistent with
the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4),\8\ as the new contracts are
substantially the same from an

operational perspective as existing contracts. Similarly, ICC will use
its existing settlement procedures and account structures for the new
contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(5), (12)
and (15) \9\ as to the finality and accuracy of its daily settlement
process and avoidance of the risk to ICC of settlement failures. ICC
determined to accept the STASC, STASFC, and STEMC Contracts for
clearing in accordance with its governance process, which included
review of the contracts and related risk management considerations by
the ICC Risk Committee and approval by its Board. These governance
arrangements are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(8).\10\ Finally, ICC will apply its existing default management
policies and procedures for the STASC, STASFC, and STEMC Contracts. ICC
believes that these procedures allow for it to take timely action to
contain losses and liquidity pressures and to continue meeting its
obligations in the event of clearing member insolvencies or defaults in
respect of the additional single names, in accordance with Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(11).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(5), (12) and (15).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The STASC, STASFC, and STEMC Contracts will be available to all ICC
participants for clearing. The clearing of these STASC, STASFC, and
STEMC Contracts by ICC does not preclude the offering of the STASC,
STASFC, and STEMC Contracts for clearing by other market participants.
Accordingly, ICC does not believe that clearance of the STASC, STASFC,
and STEMC Contracts will impose any burden on competition not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate 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 or disapprove 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2017-009 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-ICC-2017-009. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, 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 Credit
and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    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-ICC-2017-009
and should be submitted on or before July 24, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13900 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57903-57904]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-0008]

Advisory Committee; Arthritis Advisory Committee; Renewal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; renewal of Federal advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
renewal of the Arthritis Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it
is in the public interest to renew the Arthritis Advisory Committee for
an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new
charter will be in effect until the April 5, 2024, expiration date.

DATES: Authority for the Arthritis Advisory Committee will have expired
on April 5, 2022, unless the Commissioner had formally determined that
renewal is in the public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Seo, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-7699, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by
the Department and Health and Human Services and by the General
Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Arthritis
Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee is a discretionary
Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the
Commissioner. The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in
discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe
and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product
for which the FDA has regulatory responsibility.
    The Committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the treatment of arthritis, rheumatism, and related diseases,
and

makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs.
    The Committee shall consist of a core of 11 voting members
including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the
Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the
fields of arthritis, rheumatology, orthopedics, epidemiology or
statistics, analgesics, and related specialties. Members will be
invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Non-Federal
members of this committee will serve as Special Government Employees,
representatives or Ex-Officio members. Federal members will serve as
Regular Government Employees or Ex-Officios. The core of voting members
may include one technically qualified member, selected by the
Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and
is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented
organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting
members, the Committee may include one non-voting representative member
who is identified with industry interests. There may also be an
alternate industry representative.
    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other
information can be found at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/human-drug-advisory-committees/arthritis-advisory-committee or by
contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). In light of the fact that no change has been made to the
committee name or description of duties, no amendment will be made to
21 CFR 14.100.
    This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory
committees, please visit us at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: September 16, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-20516 Filed 9-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: September 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 52193-52195]
[DOCID:fr12se07-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56369; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change,
as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to the Definition of
Common Stock

September 6, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 2, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
On August 30, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, 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 Exchange proposes to adopt Phlx Rule 800 providing for a
definition of the term ``common stock,'' as used in Phlx Rules 800-899.
In those rules, the term ``common stock'' will include any security of
an issuer designated as common stock and any security of an issuer,
however designated, which by statute or by its terms, is a common stock
(e.g., a security which entitles the holders thereof to vote generally
on matters submitted to the issuer's security holders for a vote). This
definition is substantially similar to NYSEArca Equities Rule
5.1(b)(12). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.Phlx.com/exchange/phlx_rule_fil.html
, at the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference

Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt Phlx Rule 800
providing for a definition of the term common stock as used in Phlx
Rules 800-899.\3\ The term common stock is typically used to refer to a
security issued by corporations in the United States, whose holders
have a residual right to the corporation. However, at times, another
name may be given to this security or this type of security may not be
issued by a corporation.\4\ Phlx believes that the proposed definition
reflects the fact that the term common stock is not always given to a
security that has the characteristics of a common stock or that the
issuer of this type of security is not always a corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The proposed definition in Phlx Rule 800(a) is identical to
the definition of common stock in Phlx Rule 812(d)(2), which, by its
terms, is limited to Phlx Rule 812. The definition in proposed Phlx
Rule 800(a) would be applicable to Phlx Rules 800-899.
    \4\ For example, the Blackstone Group, L.P., a limited
partnership, recently listed their common units representing limited
partner interests on the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'').
However, the NYSE Web site page on Blackstone Group, L.P., http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/bx.html
, describes the security as common

stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By adopting this new, expanded definition of common stock, Phlx
would be permitted to list and trade, pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges (``UTP''), securities of issuers that have the
characteristics of common stock, even though the security is not
designated as common stock. Phlx is permitted to trade certain
securities that are not listed on Phlx pursuant to provisions of the
Act, the rules thereunder, and Phlx Rules. Section 12(f)(1)(A)(i) of
the Act states that ``any national securities exchange, in accordance
with the requirements of this subsection and the rules hereunder, may
extend unlisted trading privileges to any security that is listed and
registered on a national

securities exchange * * * .'' \5\ Rule 12f-5 under the Act states that
``[a] national securities exchange shall not extend unlisted trading
privileges to any security unless the national securities exchange has
in effect a rule or rules providing for transactions in the class or
type of security to which the exchange extends unlisted trading
privileges.'' \6\ Generally, Phlx Rule 801 permits the Exchange to
trade securities pursuant to UTP.\7\ In addition, Phlx Rules 160-189
describe the operation of Phlx's electronic equity trading system, XLE,
for transactions in, among other things, common stock and the
responsibilities of XLE Participants \8\ using XLE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 781(f)(1)(A)(i).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.12f-5.
    \7\ Phlx Rule 801 states ``[o]nly such securities as shall have
been approved by the Exchange for listing or admission pursuant to
unlisted trading privileges shall be dealt in on the Exchange.''
    \8\ XLE Participants are Phlx members, Phlx member
organizations, their Sponsored Participants (non-members who are
sponsored by Phlx member organizations) and individuals authorized
by Phlx member organizations or Sponsored Participants to enter
orders on XLE. See Phlx Rule 1(nn).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx has listing standards for common stock.\9\ The listing
standards set forth minimum quantitative requirements for both the
issuer \10\ and the security,\11\ and standards for the security's
voting rights.\12\ However, Phlx's current listing standards for common
stock would not apply to certain securities covered by the expanded
definition of common stock proposed herein. With the adoption of the
proposed expanded definition of common stock, the current listing
standards for common stock in Rule 803(a) would apply to such
securities and accordingly, as described above, such securities would
be eligible for trading pursuant to UTP. Further, Phlx would apply the
same quantitative criteria in Phlx Rule 803(a) to an issuer, and its
security designated as common stock, applying to list under this
expanded definition of common stock as it would to a corporation
listing its common stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Phlx Rule 803(a).
    \10\ Phlx Rule 803(a)(1)-(2) provides:
    ``The listing criteria for Tier I Issues are as follows:
    (a) In the case of Common Stock:
    (1) Net Tangible Assets--Total assets (including the value of
patents, copyrights and trademarks but excluding the value of
goodwill) less total liabilities of at least $4,000,000.
    (2) Earnings--Pretax income of $750,000 and net income of at
least $400,000 in its last fiscal year.''
    \11\ Phlx Rule 803(a)(3)-(4) provides:
    ``The listing criteria for Tier I Issues are as follows:
    (a) In the case of Common Stock:
    * * * * *
    (3) Public Distribution--at least 500,000 publicly held shares
and at least 800 public shareholders if the issuer has between
500,000 and 1 million shares publicly held, or at least 400 public
shareholders if the issuer has either (i) over 1 million shares
publicly held or (ii) over 500,000 shares publicly held and average
daily trading volume in excess of 2,000 shares per day for a six
month period preceding the date of application.
    (4) Stock Price/Market Value of Shares Publicly Held--$5 per
share on each of the five business days prior to the application
date and $3,000,000 aggregate market value.''
    \12\ See Phlx Rules 803(a)(5) and 812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest, by providing an additional venue for the listing and trading,
pursuant to UTP, of common stock to which the proposed definition would
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied the five-day pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \17\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \18\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. Phlx has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposed definition of common stock is identical to
NYSEArca Equities Rule 5.1(b)(12) and raises no new regulatory issues.
Moreover, waiving the operative delay will allow the Exchange, pursuant
to its current listing standards and UTP, to immediately list and trade
securities that now fall within this new definition of common stock,
providing an additional venue for such securities. For these reasons,
the Commission designates that the proposed rule change become
operative immediately.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, the
Commission considers the period to commence on August 30, 2007, the
date on which the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-Phlx-2007-56 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-56. 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 the filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2007-56 and should be submitted on or before October 3, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17961 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="Document">
<META name="creation-date" content="23/09/2008 08:05:40 ">
<TITLE>Document</TITLE>

54600
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 184 /Monday, September 22, 2008 /Notices
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
Advisory Council for the Elimination of
Tuberculosis Meeting (ACET)
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC)
announces the following council
meeting.
Times and Dates:
8:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m., October 7, 2008.
8:30 a.m.–2 p.m., October 8, 2008.
Place: Corporate Square, Building 8,
1st Floor Conference Room, Atlanta,
Georgia 30333, Telephone (404) 639–
8317.
Status: Open to the public, limited
only by the space available. The meeting
room accommodates approximately 100
people.
Purpose: This council advises and
makes recommendations to the
Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Assistant Secretary for
Health, and the Director, CDC, regarding
the elimination of tuberculosis.
Specifically, the Council makes
recommendations regarding policies,
strategies, objectives, and priorities;
addresses the development and
application of new technologies; and
reviews the extent to which progress has
been made toward eliminating
tuberculosis.
Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items
include issues pertaining to update on
nucleic acid amplification guidelines;
update on interferon gamma release
assays guidelines; update on the
isolation guidelines; update on travel
restrictions guidelines and other related
tuberculosis issues.
Agenda items are subject to change as
priorities dictate.
Contact Person for More Information:
Margie Scott-Cseh, Coordinating Center
for Infectious Diseases, Strategic
Business Unit, 1600 Clifton Road, NE.,
M/S E–07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333,
Telephone (404) 639–8317.
The Director, Management Analysis
and Services Office, has been delegated
the authority to sign Federal Register
Notices pertaining to announcements of
meetings and other committee
management activities, for both the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry.
Dated: September 15, 2008.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services
Office, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. E8–22040 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163–18–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2008–D–0372]
Global Harmonization Task Force,
Study Groups 1 and 5; Proposed and
Final Documents; Availability;
Correction
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice; correction.
SUMMARY:
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is correcting a
notice that appeared in the Federal
Register of July 11, 2008 (73 FR 39968).
The notice announced the availability of
Global Harmonization Task Force
documents entitled ‘‘Role of Standards’’
and ‘‘Clinical Investigations.’’ The
notice was published with an incorrect
document number. This document
corrects that number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul
Gadiock, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (HFZ–215), Food
and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard
Dr., Rockville, MD 20850, 240–276–
2343.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In FR Doc.
E8–15797, appearing on page 39968 in
the Federal Register of Friday, July 11,
2008, the following correction is made:
1. On page 39968, in the third
column, in the third paragraph, in the
8th and 9th lines, ‘‘SG5(PD)/N37:2007’’
is corrected to read ‘‘SG5(PD)/
N3R7:2007.’’
Dated: September 11, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and
Planning.
[FR Doc. E8–22094 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Center for Scientific Review; Amended
Notice of Meeting
Notice is hereby given of a change in
the meeting of the Biophysics of Neural
Systems Study Section, October 2, 2008,
8 am to October 3, 2008, 5 pm, One
Washington Circle Hotel, One
Washington Circle, Washington, DC
20037 which was published in the
Federal Register on September 9, 2008,
73 FR 52395–52397.
The meeting will be held one day
only October 2, 2008, from 8 am to 8
pm. The meeting location remains the
same. The meeting is closed to the
public.
Dated: September 15, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8–22055 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–M
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of Diabetes and
Digestive And Kidney Diseases; Notice
of Closed Meetings
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given of the following
meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the
public in accordance with the
provisions set forth in sections
552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,
as amended. The grant applications and
the discussions could disclose
confidential trade secrets or commercial
property such as patentable material,
and personal information concerning
individuals associated with the grant
applications, the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.
Name of Committee: National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
Special Emphasis Panel; R13 Conference
Application.
Date: October 23, 2008.
Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: National Institutes of Health, Two
Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy
Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone
Conference Call).
Contact Person: D.G. Patel, PhD, Scientific
Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA,
NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room
756, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda,
MD 20892–5452, (301) 594–7682,
<FONT STYLE="font-size<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Name of Committee: National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
Special Emphasis Panel; Ancillary Study for
PKD.
Date: October 27, 2008.
Time: 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:11 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM
22SEN1


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14477-14478]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1336; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-20]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Pine Island, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Pine
Island, FL, to accommodate a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) special Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) serving Pine Island Heliport. This action would enhance the
safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2012-1336; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-20, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2012-1336; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-20) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2012-1336; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-20.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Pine
Island, FL providing the controlled airspace required to support the
new Copter RNAV (GPS) special standard instrument approach procedures
for Pine Island Heliport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface is required for IFR operations within a 6-mile
radius of the point in space coordinates of the heliport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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 proposed 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.
    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 proposed 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 proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Pine Island
Heliport, Pine Island, FL.

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Pine Island, FL [New]

Pine Island Heliport, FL
    (Lat. 26[deg]36'24'' N., long. 82[deg]6'39'' W.)
Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 26[deg]36'24'' N., long. 82[deg]6'39'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space Coordinates (lat.
26[deg]36'24'' N., long. 82[deg]6'39'' W.) serving Pine Island
Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 15, 2013.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-05207 Filed 3-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 25456]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10248]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0427]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Medical Devices; Inspection by
Accredited Persons Program

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Medical Devices; Inspection by
Accredited Persons Program'' has been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 31, 2013, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Medical Devices;
Inspection by Accredited Persons Program'' to OMB for review and
clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now
approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number
0910-0510. The approval expires on April 30, 2016. A copy of the
supporting statement for this information collection is available on
the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: April 26, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-10248 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64153-64154]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0741; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-4]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Encinal, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Encinal,
TX. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at El Jardin Ranch Airport. The
FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2014-0741/Airspace Docket No. 14-
ASW-4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone:
817-321-7654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0741/
Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-4.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of El Jardin
Ranch Airport, Encinal, TX, to accommodate new standard instrument
approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014 and effective September 15, 2014, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an

established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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 would establish controlled airspace at El Jardin Ranch Airport,
Encinal, TX.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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 part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 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 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014 and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Encinal, TX [New]

El Jardin Ranch Airport, TX
    (Lat. 28[deg]04'26'' N., Long. 99[deg]17'50'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of El Jardin Ranch Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 10, 2014.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-25528 Filed 10-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-14-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40291-40293]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0651; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-041-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Inc. Model 45 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD would require revising the
maintenance program to incorporate life limits for the main landing
gear (MLG) actuator end cap. This proposed AD was prompted by a report
of the potential for fatigue cracking of the end cap of the MLG prior
to the published life limitation. We are proposing this AD to prevent
fatigue cracking of the end cap of the MLG, which could result in the
failure of the MLG actuator upon landing, and failure of the MLG to
extend or retract during flight.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 67209-2942; telephone
316-946-2000; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may

review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Chapman, Aerospace Engineer,
Aviation Safety, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,
1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, KS 67209;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0651;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-041-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report from Learjet that indicated the life
limitation of the main landing gear actuator was determined using
fatigue testing during the Model 45 certification; however, the
supplier discovered they had not tested the actuator properly during
subsequent testing for another application. Learjet identified the
potential for fatigue cracking of the end cap of the main landing gear
actuator prior to the published life limitation. This potential for
fatigue cracking, if not corrected, could result in failure of the main
landing gear actuator upon landing, and failure of the MLG to extend or
retract during flight.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Learjet 40 Temporary Revision 4-23, dated January 24,
2011, to Learjet 40 Maintenance Manual MM-105; and Learjet 45 Temporary
Revision 4-34, dated January 24, 2011, to Learjet 45 Maintenance Manual
MM-104. Among other things, the Airworthiness Limitations sections
contained in Learjet 40 Temporary Revision 4-23 and Learjet 45
Temporary Revision 4-34 provide new life limits and replacement
compliance times for the MLG actuator end cap.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance program to
incorporate life limits for the MLG actuator end cap.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 351 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
               Action                      Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise maintenance plan............  1 work-hour x $85 per           $0   $85 per revision.....         $29,835
                                      hour = $85 per
                                      revision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

Learjet Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2011-0651; Directorate Identifier 2011-
NM-041-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 22, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Learjet Inc. Model 45 airplanes,
certificated in any category; all serial numbers.

    Note 1:  This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g. inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired
in the areas addressed by these actions, the operator may not be
able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (i) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the
continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by a report of the potential for
fatigue cracking of the end cap of the main landing gear (MLG) prior
to the published life limitation. We are issuing this AD to prevent
fatigue cracking of the end cap of the MLG, which could result in
the failure of the MLG actuator upon landing, and failure of the MLG
to extend or retract during flight.

Compliance

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

Maintenance Program Revision

    (g) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the maintenance program by incorporating IRN T3220105 (Main Landing
Gear Actuator End Cap (P/N 200-0303)) as specified in Learjet 40
Temporary Revision 4-23, dated January 24, 2011, to Learjet 40
Maintenance Manual MM-105; or Learjet 45 Temporary Revision 4-34,
dated January 24, 2011, to Learjet 45 Maintenance Manual MM-104; as
applicable. The initial compliance for the replacement specified in
IRN T3220105 is prior to the accumulation of 2,387 total flight
cycles on the end cap (P/N 200-0303), or within 25 flight cycles
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    (h) After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g)
of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., replacements) or
intervals, may be used, unless the actions or intervals are approved
as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.

Related Information

    (j) For more information about this AD, contact Paul Chapman,
Aerospace Engineer, Aviation Safety, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent
Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (k) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 67209-2942;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 29, 2011.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-17265 Filed 7-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 20)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4432-4435]
[DOCID:fr31ja07-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0547; FRL-8274-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan; Control of Gasoline Volatility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Michigan on May 26, 2006, and July 14, 2006,
establishing a lower Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) fuel requirement for
gasoline distributed in the Southeast Michigan area which includes
Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and
Wayne Counties. Michigan has developed these fuel requirements to
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in accordance with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is approving
Michigan's fuel requirements into the Michigan SIP because EPA has
found that the requirements are necessary for Southeast Michigan to
achieve the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
On August 15, 2006, the EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing to approve the SIP revision. During the comment period
EPA received adverse comments from one commenter.
    This document summarizes the comments received, EPA's responses,
and finalizes the approval of Michigan's SIP revision to establish a
RVP limit of 7.0 pounds per square inch (psi) for gasoline sold in
Southeast Michigan.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0547. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo,
Environmental

Protection Specialist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of
proposed rulemaking?
III. Is this action consistent with provisions of the Energy Policy
Act (EPAct)?
IV. What action is EPA taking today?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What is the background for this action?

    On June 15, 2004, the EPA designated eight counties in Southeast
Michigan as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard (Detroit-Ann
Arbor CMSA--Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,
Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties). These counties were initially
classified under the CAA as Moderate, but EPA later reclassified them
as Marginal on September 22, 2004. See 69 FR 56697 (September 22, 2004)
for further details. As part of this reclassification, the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the Southeast Michigan
Council of Governments (SEMCOG) committed to a schedule to identify and
implement controls that will help the area attain by the Marginal
attainment date of June 15, 2007.
    To bring this area into attainment, the State is adopting and
implementing a broad range of ozone control measures including control
of emissions from cement manufacturing, control of emissions from the
use of consumer/commercial products, and the implementation of a 7.0
psi low-RVP fuels program.
    The State of Michigan submitted a SIP revision on May 26, 2006, and
July 14, 2006, which included legislation establishing a lower RVP fuel
requirement for gasoline distributed in the 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area portions of Southeast Michigan. In addition, Michigan submitted
additional technical support for the SIP revision, including materials
supporting the State's request to waive the CAA preemption of State
fuel controls pursuant to section 211(c)(4) of the CAA. On August 15,
2006, EPA proposed approval of the State's SIP revision to establish a
7.0 psi low-RVP fuel program in the Southeast Michigan area which
includes Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,
Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. (See 71 FR 46879.) As detailed in the
proposed approval, EPA found the State's demonstration sufficient to
satisfy the necessity requirement of Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA.
In addition, EPA also proposed approval of the State's SIP revision as
consistent with the provisions of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct), based
on our interpretation of the EPAct provisions discussed at 71 FR 32532
(June 6, 2006).

II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of proposed
rulemaking?

    During the comment period we received two comment letters on the
August 15, 2006, proposal. The first, from the Grand Rapids Area
Chamber of Commerce, supported the proposed SIP approval and
recommended that it be implemented as quickly as possible. The second,
from the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA), raised
concerns regarding whether the August 15, 2006, proposal addressed all
the pertinent requirements under EPAct needed to approve Michigan's
fuel waiver request. NPRA's comments are addressed below.
    Comment: The NPRA expressed support for EPA's fuel controls
preemption review process, but commented that EPA could not approve
Michigan's request for a waiver from preemption of state fuel controls,
prior to finding, after public review and comment, that the proposed
new fuel would not cause either supply or distribution disruptions or
have an adverse impact on fuel producibility in the affected or
contiguous areas. The NPRA also stated that EPA should consult with the
Secretary of Energy and publish findings in the Federal Register that
the proposed new fuel will not cause supply or distribution disruptions
and will not have an adverse impact on fuel producibility in the
affected area or in contiguous areas.
    Response: In our proposed approval of Michigan's waiver of
preemption to adopt a 7.0 psi RVP fuel program, we explained that the
EPAct amended CAA section 211(c)(4)(C) by requiring EPA, in
consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE), to determine the
total number of fuels approved into all SIPs as of September 1, 2004,
under section 211(c)(4)(C), and publish for public review and comment a
list of such fuels, including the state and Petroleum Administration
for Defense District (PADD) in which they are used. We explained that
the EPAct also placed three additional restrictions on our authority to
waive preemption by approving a state fuel into the SIP. Under one
restriction, where our approval of a new fuel would not increase the
total number of fuels approved into SIPs as of September 1, 2004,
because the total number of fuels at that point is below the number of
fuels approved into SIPs as of September 1, 2004, we make a finding,
after consultation with the DOE, that the new fuel will not cause
supply or distribution interruptions or have a significant adverse
impact on fuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas.
    We further explained that, on June 6, 2006, we had discussed an
interpretation of the EPAct that required EPA to identify and publish a
list of the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs as of
September 1, 2004, and imposed three restrictions on our ability to
approve future state fuel programs into SIPs.
    We also explained that, based on our June 6, 2006, interpretation
of the EPAct amendments, Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP requirement for
Southeast Michigan would not increase the total number of fuels
approved into all SIPs, as of September 1, 2004, and was not a ``new
fuel type,'' because 7.0 psi RVP is on the published draft list of
fuels. We further explained that we did not need to make a finding,
after consultation with DOE, on the effect of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel
requirement in Southeast Michigan on fuel supply and distribution in
either Southeast Michigan or the contiguous areas because the fuel was
not a new fuel, and the total number of fuels approved into SIPs as of
our consideration of Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP fuel was not below the
number of fuels approved into SIPs as of September 1, 2004, or, in
other words, below the total number of fuels on the published draft
list. 71 FR 46879, 46882-46883 (August 15, 2006).
    At proposal, we also referenced that an April 2005 American
Petroleum Institute study titled ``Potential Effects of the 8-Hour
Ozone Standard on Gasoline Supply, Demand and Production Costs,'' which
had concluded that the petroleum industry was capable of supplying 7.0
psi RVP fuel without any fuel supply or distribution disruptions. 71 FR
46879, 46882-46883.
    We have now finalized the interpretation of the EPAct amendments,
and published our final list of fuels, subject to a few revisions. See
the final Federal Register notice

entitled ``Boutique Fuels List'' under Section 1541(b) of the Energy
Policy Act.'' 71 FR 78192 (December 28, 2006). Under this final
interpretation, because the 7.0 psi RVP is not a new fuel; and the
total number of fuels approved into all SIPs at this time is not below
the number of fuels on the final list of fuels, we are not required to
make a finding, after consultation with DOE, on the effect of
Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP fuel requirement in Southeast Michigan on fuel
supply and distribution in either Southeast Michigan or the contiguous
areas.
    Comment: The commenter emphasized that the fuel supply analysis and
public comment duties outlined in the EPAct apply to this approval
process because currently there are no other summer maximum 7.0 psi RVP
conventional gasoline areas within hundreds of miles of Detroit and Ann
Arbor.
    Response: As earlier explained, under the fuel type interpretation
that we have adopted, where there is a new fuel type and there is
``room'' on the fuels list, we may approve a state fuel program, after
consultation with the DOE, and a finding that the state fuel will not
cause either supply or distribution interruptions; or have a
significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in either the affected
or contiguous areas. This fuel is not a new fuel and the total number
of fuels approved into all SIPs at this time is not below the number of
fuels on the final list of fuels (See 71 FR 78192), therefore we do not
believe that we are required to make a finding on the effect of a 7.0
psi RVP fuel requirement in Southeast Michigan on fuel supply and
distribution in either Southeast Michigan or the contiguous areas. In
addition, EPA consulted with DOE and they have concurred with our
determination that the 7.0 psi Michigan fuel does not constitute a new
boutique fuel and hence a supply study is not required.

III. Is this action consistent with provisions of the Energy Policy Act
(EPAct)?

    In a Federal Register notice published on June 6, 2006 (71 FR
32532), we discussed an interpretation of the EPAct provisions which
was based on a fuel type interpretation. We also identified and
published a draft list of the total number of fuels approved into all
SIPs as of September 1, 2004, pursuant to section 211(c)(4)(C)(i). On
August 15, 2006, we proposed approval of Michigan's SIP revision as
consistent with our June 6, 2006, interpretation of the EPAct
provisions. On December 21, 2006, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson
signed a Federal Register notice containing EPA's final interpretation
of the EPAct provisions. The final notice was published in the Federal
Register on December 28, 2006. (See 71 FR 78192.) Our approval of
Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP program is consistent with EPA's final
promulgated interpretation of the EPAct.

IV. What action is EPA taking today?

    EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of Michigan
on May 26, 2006, and July 14, 2006, establishing a 7.0 psi RVP fuel
requirement for gasoline distributed in Southeast Michigan which
includes Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,
Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. EPA is approving Michigan's fuel
requirements into the SIP because EPA has found that the requirements
are necessary for Southeast Michigan to achieve the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone. EPA's approval is consistent with the boutique fuel provisions
of section 211(c)(4)(C) enacted in EPAct.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.

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

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 2, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: January 18, 2007.
Mary A. Gade,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart X--Michigan

0
2. The table in Sec.  52.1170(c) entitled, ``EPA Approved Michigan
Regulations'' is amended by adding a new entry in the ``State
Statutes'' section after ``House Bill 5016'' titled ``House Bill 5508''
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                       EPA--Approved Michigan Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    State
      Michigan citation              Title        effective     EPA approval                Comments
                                                     date           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
State Statutes

                                                  * * * * * * *
House Bill 5508..............  Amendment to          4/06/06  3/2/07, [Insert  .................................
                                Motor Fuels                    page number
                                Quality Act,                   where the
                                Act 44 of 1984.                document
                                                               begins].

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

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-1421 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P