[Federal Register: June 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 121)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30259]
[DOCID:fr25jn09-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0676-200820(b); FRL-8903-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Tennessee; Approval of Revisions to the Knox County Portion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Knox County portion of the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of Tennessee on April 21, 2008. The revision
pertains to the Knox County Department of Air Quality Management
(KCDAQM) Regulation, Section 25.0 ``Permits,'' specifically subsection
25.6--Exemptions. This revision removes ``mobile sources'' from the
list of exempted air contaminant sources, with respect to operating
permits and reserves subsection 25.6.A. This revision is part of KCDAQM
strategy to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for 8-hour ozone, particulate matter (PM)2.5 and
PM10. This revision was certified by the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation to be at least as stringent
as the State of Tennessee's existing requirements in Chapter 1200-3-
9-.04 ``Exemptions,'' and is being approved pursuant to section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal
and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments
are received in response to this rule, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2008-0676, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0676,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal
holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Bradley can also be reached via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.

    Dated: June 15, 2009.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9-14871 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 69497]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27522]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0502]

Report on the Standardization of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation
Strategies; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
entitled ``Report on the Standardization of Risk Evaluation and
Mitigation Strategies'' that appeared in the Federal Register of
September 23, 2014. The document misstated the name of an organization.
This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Currey, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6125, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3918, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Adam
Kroetsch, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1192, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002;<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 23,
2014 (79 FR 56816), in FR Doc. 2014-22513, the following correction is
made:
    1. On page 56817, in the third column, under ``Draft Report
Describing Findings Concerning REMS Standardization and Plans for
Projects to Standardize REMS,'' ``Accreditation Commission for
Education in Nursing'' is corrected to read ``American Nurses
Credentialing Center.''

    Dated: November 17, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-27522 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50614-50615]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19511]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0529; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-18]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Monroe, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface for Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport, Monroe,
NC. The FAA is taking this action as a result of the Charlotte Class B
Biennial Review. This action also updates the airport's name to
Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport (formerly Monroe Airport). In
addition, this action updates the geographic coordinates of the airport
to coincide with the FAA's database. Controlled airspace is necessary
for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations in the area.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 2, 2021. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface in Monroe, NC, to support IFR operations in the area.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 35419, July 6, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0529 to
amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport, Monroe, NC.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One
comment supporting this action was received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by amending the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Charlotte-Monroe
Executive Airport, Monroe, NC, by increasing the radius to 9.0 miles,
(formerly 6.3 miles). In addition, this action updates the airport's
name to Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport (formerly Monroe Airport)
and updates the geographical coordinates to coincide with the FAA's
database.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is

published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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 minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only
affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASO NC E5 Monroe, NC [Amended]

Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport, NC
    (Lat. 35[deg]01'03'' N, long. 80[deg]37'19'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.0-mile radius of Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 3, 2021.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2021-19511 Filed 9-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44118-44120]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0766; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-056-AD;
Amendment 39-17133; AD 2012-15-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model EC155B1 helicopters with a certain
automated flight control system installed. This AD requires changing
the minimum required crew for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
from one pilot to two. This AD is prompted by a report that an EC155B1
helicopter experienced significant intermittent roll oscillations while
coupled to the autopilot. These actions are intended to decrease the
pilot's workload while experiencing any oscillations during landing,
which could result in possible loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 13, 2012.
    We must receive comments on this AD by September 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket
Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clark Davenport, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and

an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective.
However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that
resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended
change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not
contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of
written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters
should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all
comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this
rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments
we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those
comments.

Discussion

    During a flight test of a Model EC155B1 helicopter, intermittent
uncommanded roll oscillations were discovered during coupled instrument
landing system (ILS) and localizer (LOC) approaches. The aircraft,
which was coupled to the autopilot when these oscillations occurred,
was not able to provide a stabilized approach from the final approach
fix through the decision altitude or the minimum descent altitude.
These intermittent oscillations occur during the landing phase of a
flight, at an altitude of 500 feet or less above ground level, and
result in higher single-pilot workload.
    After an investigation, Eurocopter determined that these
oscillations were caused by software in the automated flight control
system (AFCS) that does not adequately filter the electronic ``noise''
from the U.S. ILS and LOC signals. This behavior of the autopilot was
not experienced by aircraft operating in European airspace. An
additional FAA flight test of an EC155B1 with unmodified AFCS software
coupled to various ILS signals confirmed the oscillations, and that
they can roll the helicopter up to +/-15 degrees.
    Eurocopter is developing a software modification that will update
the filtering algorithms for U.S. category 1 ILS and LOC signals. Until
this update is approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency and
validated by the FAA, we have determined that single pilot IFR
operations constitute an unsafe condition for this model helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. We are
issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and
determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, before further flight, changing the minimum
flight crew requirements for IFR operations from one pilot to two by
revising the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) Operating Limitations
section.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval
holder is currently developing a modification that will address the
unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is
developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional
rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect six helicopters of U.S.
Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in
order to comply with this AD. Revising the RFM will require about .25
hour at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, for a total cost
per helicopter of about $22 and a total cost to U.S operator fleet of
$132.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that
the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment
prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective
actions must be accomplished before further flight.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
    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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-15-04 EUROCOPTER FRANCE: Amendment 39-17133; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0766; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-056-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model EC155B1 helicopters with an automated
flight control system part number (P/N) 416-00297-161 and software
level P/N 704A47-1332-79 installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as intermittent uncommanded
roll oscillations during coupled instrument landing system and
localizer approaches with the autopilot coupled, which could result
in subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 13, 2012.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Before further flight, revise the Operating Limitations section
of Eurocopter EC 155B1 Flight Manual Section 2.1, by inserting a
copy of this AD into the Flight Manual or by making pen and ink
changes as follows. Under paragraph 5, Minimum Flight Crew/Maximum
Personnel Transport Capability, beneath ``Minimum flight crew,''
remove the phrase ``--one pilot in right-hand seat'' and replace it
as follows:
    --VFR: One pilot in right-hand seat.
    --IFR: Two pilots required.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Clark Davenport, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2210: Autopilot
System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 16, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-17960 Filed 7-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25277-25278]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-0620]

Advisory Committee; Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical
Pharmacology 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 Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology
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 Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology
Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter
expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until the January
22, 2024, expiration date.

DATES: Authority for the Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical
Pharmacology Advisory Committee will expire on January 22, 2024, unless
the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public
interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhea Bhatt, Division of Advisory
Committee and Consultant Management, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by
the Department of Health and Human Services and by the General Services
Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Pharmaceutical
Science and Clinical Pharmacology 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 FDA has regulatory
responsibility.
    The Committee reviews and evaluates scientific, clinical and
technical issues related to the safety and effectiveness of drug
products for use in the treatment of a broad spectrum of human
diseases, the quality characteristics which such

drugs purport or are represented to have, and as required, any other
product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility, and make
appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner. The Committee may also
review Agency sponsored intramural and extramural biomedical research
programs in support of FDA's drug regulatory responsibilities and its
critical path initiatives related to improving the efficacy and safety
of drugs and improving the efficiency of drug development.
    The Committee shall consist of a core of 14 voting members
including two Chairpersons. Members and Chairpersons are selected by
the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in
the fields of pharmaceutical sciences (pharmaceutical manufacturing,
bioequivalence research, laboratory analytical techniques,
pharmaceutical chemistry, physiochemistry, biochemistry, molecular
biology, immunology, microbiology) and clinical pharmacology (dose-
response, pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics, modeling and simulation,
pharmacogenomics, clinical trial design, pediatrics and special
populations and innovative methods in drug development), biostatistics,
related biomedical and pharmacological specialties, current good
manufacturing practices, and quality systems implementation. 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 up to three non-voting
representative members who are 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/pharmaceutical-science-and-clinical-pharmacology-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 notice 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 http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: April 22, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-09076 Filed 4-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72507-72508]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23218]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4737-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Maine; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Maine (FEMA-4737-DR), dated September 6,
2023, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued September 6, 2023.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 6, 2023, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Maine resulting from a severe storm and flooding on June 26,
2023, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Maine.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, William F. Roy, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Maine have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Oxford County for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Maine are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23218 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45089-45095]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16450]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895; FRL-9948-86-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS90

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Ferroalloys Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Reconsideration; proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 30, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published the residual risk and technology review (RTR) final rule,
establishing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) for the Ferroalloys Production source category. Subsequently,
the EPA received two petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects
of the final rule. The EPA is announcing reconsideration of and
requesting public comment on three issues raised in the petitions for
reconsideration, as detailed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this action. The three issues the EPA is reconsidering and seeking
public comment on are the following: the polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) compliance testing frequency for furnaces that
produce ferromanganese (FeMn); the use of the digital camera opacity
technique (DCOT) for determining compliance with the shop building
opacity standards; and the use of bag leak detection systems (BLDS) on
positive pressure baghouses. The EPA is seeking comment only on these
three issues and will not respond to comments addressing other issues
or other provisions of the final rule. The EPA is not proposing any
changes to the NESHAP in this document.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 26,
2016.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a
public hearing by July 18, 2016, a public hearing will be held on July
27, 2016. If you are interested in attending the public hearing,
contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to verify that a hearing will be held. If the EPA
holds a public hearing, the EPA will keep the record of the hearing
open for 30 days after completion of the hearing to provide an
opportunity for submission of rebuttal and supplementary information.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0895, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy information about CBI, or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0895. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you submit an
electronic comment through http://www.regulations.gov, the EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the EPA may not

be able to consider your comment. If you send an email comment directly
to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC
West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Hearing. If requested by July 18, 2016, we will hold a
public hearing on July 27, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. [Eastern Standard
Time] to 5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Park, NC 27711. Please contact Virginia Hunt of the Sector
Policies and Programs Division via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> to request a hearing, register to speak at the
hearing, or to inquire as to whether or not a hearing will be held. The
last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the hearing will be
July 25, 2016. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of
the hearing at the hearing registration desk, although preferences on
speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. If you require the
service of a translator or special accommodations such as audio
description, we ask that you pre-register for the hearing, as we may
not be able to arrange such accommodations without advance notice. The
hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present
data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule reconsideration
action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who
arrive and register. Because this hearing is held at a U.S. government
facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared
to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to
gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act,
passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering
Federal facilities. If your driver's license is issued by Alaska,
American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma, or the state of Washington, you
must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal
building. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include:
Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses, and
military identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a
property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon
leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass
to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building,
cameras may only be used outside of the building, and demonstrations
will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons. The EPA
may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will
not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and
supporting information submitted during the comment period will be
considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public hearing. Verbatim transcripts of
the hearing and written statements will be included in the docket for
the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule
as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan
for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Again, a hearing will not be held on this rulemaking unless requested.
A hearing needs to be requested by July 18, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action,
contact Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about the applicability
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Cary Secrest, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2242A), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of this Document. The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the agency taking?
    C. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
    D. What are the incremental cost impacts of this action?
II. Background
III. Discussion of the Issues Under Reconsideration
    A. Quarterly PAH Testing for Furnaces Producing FeMn
    B. DCOT Opacity Compliance Demonstration
    C. BLDS on Positive Pressure Baghouses
IV. Impacts of This Action
    A. Economic Impacts
    B. Environmental Impacts
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this action are
shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               NESHAP and source category                 NAICS \1\ Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferroalloys Production.................................          331112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action.
This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your
entity may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 63.1620 of Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What action is the agency taking?

    In this action, in response to petitions for reconsideration from
Eramet Marietta Inc. (Eramet) and Felman Production LLC (Felman), the
EPA is granting reconsideration of and requesting comment on the
following three provisions of the final rule: (1) The requirement to
conduct PAH performance testing every 3 months for furnaces producing
FeMn for the first year with the opportunity to reduce to annual
testing after the first year; (2) the requirement to demonstrate
compliance with the shop building opacity standards using DCOT in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
D7520-13; and (3) the requirement to monitor positive pressure baghouse
emissions using BLDS. As described in detail in Section II of this
preamble, one or both of the petitioners requested EPA reconsider these
three provisions.
    This action is limited to the specific three provisions identified
previously. Another issue raised by Eramet in their petition concerned
the method we used to calculate the PAH emission limits. The EPA is
deferring any decisions regarding whether to grant or deny
reconsideration of this issue, and we are not reopening comment at this
time on this issue. We will determine whether to grant or deny
reconsideration of the PAH emission calculation issue no later than
when we take final action on the three provisions we are reopening in
this action.
    We will not respond to any comments addressing any other provisions
not being reconsidered in the final Ferroalloys Production NESHAP.
Furthermore, the EPA is not proposing any changes to the NESHAP in this
action.

C. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412
and 7607(d)(7)(B)).

D. What are the incremental cost impacts of this action?

    There are no changes to the estimated incremental cost impacts that
were presented in the Ferroalloys Production RTR final rule published
in the Federal Register on June 30, 2015, (80 FR 37366) in this action.
These incremental impacts were described in detail in the Final Cost
Impacts of Control Options Considered for the Ferroalloys Production
NESHAP to Address Fugitive HAP Emissions (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-
0301) and the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for the Manganese
Ferroalloys RTR Final Report (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0290).

II. Background

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage
regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from stationary major sources. In the first stage, sections
112(d)(2) and (3) require EPA to promulgate national technology-based
emission standards for these sources based on maximum achievable
control technology (MACT). These standards are commonly called MACT
standards. The EPA finalized the MACT standards for Ferroalloys
Production on May 20, 1999 (64 FR 27450). In the second stage, section
112(f) of the CAA requires EPA to assess the risks to human health
remaining after implementation of the MACT standards. In addition,
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise these
MACT standards, as necessary, taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies since EPA promulgated
the original standards. The CAA requires EPA to conduct these reviews
within 8 years of the publication of the final MACT standards. The EPA
typically conducts the two reviews, commonly referred to as the risk
and technology reviews (RTRs), concurrently, as we did with the
Ferroalloys Production source category. The EPA completed the RTR for
the Ferroalloys Production in 2015 and published a final RTR rule for
the Ferroalloys Production source category in the Federal Register on
June 30, 2015 (80 FR 37366), which included, among other things, the
following:
     Revisions to the emission limits for particulate matter
(PM) from stacks for the electric arc furnaces (EAF), metal oxygen
refining (MOR) processes, and crushing and screening operations, to
minimize PM emissions from these units;
     Emission limits for four previously unregulated hazardous
air pollutants (HAP): Formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride, mercury, and
PAH;
     Requirements to capture process fugitive emissions using
effective, enhanced local capture, and duct the captured emissions to
control devices;
     An average opacity limit of 8 percent during a full
furnace cycle, and a maximum opacity limit of 20 percent for the
average of any two consecutive 6-minute periods, to ensure effective
capture and control of process fugitive emissions;
     A requirement to conduct opacity observations using the
DCOT at least once per week for a full furnace cycle for each operating
furnace and each MOR operation for at least 26 weeks. After 26 weeks,
if all tests are compliant, facilities can decrease to monthly opacity
observations;
     A requirement to use BLDS to monitor PM emissions from all
furnace baghouses; and
     A requirement to conduct periodic performance testing to
demonstrate compliance with the stack emission limits for the various
HAP, including a requirement to conduct PAH performance testing every 3
months for furnaces producing FeMn for the first year with the
opportunity to reduce to annual testing after the first year.
    Following promulgation of the final rule, the EPA received two
petitions for reconsideration of several provisions of the NESHAP
pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). The EPA received a petition dated
August 25, 2015, from Eramet, and a petition dated August 28, 2015,
from Felman. In the petition submitted by Eramet, the company requested
that the EPA reconsider the following provisions: (1) The requirement
to conduct PAH performance testing every 3 months for furnaces
producing FeMn; (2) the requirement to demonstrate compliance weekly
with shop building opacity limits using the DCOT in accordance with
ASTM D7520-13; and (3) the PAH emission limits for existing furnaces
producing FeMn and silicomanganese (SiMn). In addition, the company
requested a stay of 90 days from the effective date of the final
amendments pending completion of the reconsideration proceeding. In the
petition submitted by Felman, the company stated that they support and
adopt the petition submitted by Eramet and requested reconsideration of
the requirement to use BLDS to monitor emissions from positive pressure
baghouses. Copies of the petitions are provided in the docket (see EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0895).

    On November 5, 2015, the EPA sent letters to the petitioners
granting reconsideration of the PAH compliance testing frequency issue
raised by Eramet and the use of BLDS on positive pressure baghouses
raised by Felman. In those letters, the EPA said we were continuing to
review the other issues and intend to take final action on those issues
no later than the date we take final action on the PAH testing
frequency and BLDS issues. The agency also stated in the letters that a
Federal Register action would be issued initiating the reconsideration
process for the issues on which the EPA is granting reconsideration,
which is what we are doing here with publication of this action.
    In addition to the two requirements mentioned previously (i.e.,
regarding PAH testing frequency for furnaces producing FeMn and the use
of BLDSs to monitor PM emissions from positive pressure baghouses) for
which the EPA granted reconsideration via letters, after further review
and consideration, the EPA has also decided to grant reconsideration of
the requirement to use DCOT in accordance with ASTM D75520-13 to
demonstrate compliance with shop building opacity standards. However,
for each of these three requirements, after further analyses,
evaluation, and consideration, we continue to believe these
requirements are appropriate. Therefore, in this action, we are not
proposing any changes to these requirements. Instead, we are providing
further discussion and explanation as to why we believe it is
appropriate to maintain these requirements in the rule, providing
additional technical information to support our decisions, and
requesting comment on these three requirements for which the EPA is
granting reconsideration. If a commenter disagrees with our assessment
of these issues, we encourage the commenter to provide a detailed
technical explanation as to why they disagree and provide supporting
information. Furthermore, if a commenter recommends any changes to the
three rule requirements addressed in this action, we encourage the
commenter to describe the specific rule changes they recommend and an
explanation as to why they recommend such changes.

III. Discussion of the Issues Under Reconsideration

A. Quarterly PAH Testing for Furnaces Producing FeMn

    In the 2014 supplemental proposal, which was published in the
Federal Register on October 6, 2014 (79 FR 60238), the EPA proposed an
emission limit of 1.4 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm)
for PAHs from existing furnaces producing FeMn based on two emissions
tests (with a total of six runs). The EPA based the limit on the only
valid PAH data we had for FeMn producing furnaces during the
development of the supplemental proposed rule. We received an
additional test report in August 2014 (a few weeks before signature of
the supplemental proposed rule) that included data from one additional
emissions test (with three runs). However, we were not able to
incorporate that additional data into our analyses for the supplemental
proposal. As we explained in the supplemental proposal, we had not yet
completed our technical review of those new data and we were not able
to incorporate those new data into our analyses in time for the
completion of the supplemental proposal. However, we did seek comments
on that data.
    After publication of the supplemental proposal, we received
additional data during the comment period that included one additional
emissions test for PAHs, with four runs.
    In the development of the final rule, after we completed our
technical review of all the data, we incorporated the additional data
into our analyses such that the PAH limit for furnaces producing FeMn
was based on four emissions tests (with a total of 13 runs). As we
explained in the final rule preamble, the additional data we received
just before signature of the supplemental proposal and again during the
comment period indicated PAH emissions from furnaces producing FeMn
were much higher than indicated by the data we had prior to August
2014. For example, the PAH concentrations for furnaces producing FeMn
in these additional test reports were over 12 times higher than in
previous test reports submitted by Eramet (as shown in appendix A of
the Revised MACT Floor Analysis for the Ferroalloys Production Source
Category document, which is available in the docket).
    To calculate the MACT floor emissions limit for the final rule, we
incorporated all the data (13 runs) and applied our standard 99 percent
upper prediction limit (UPL) methodology. Using the UPL methodology
resulted in a MACT floor emissions limit of 12 mg/dscm, which was 9
times higher than the MACT floor limit of 1.4 mg/dscm we had proposed
in 2014.
    With regard to testing frequency, in the 2014 supplemental
proposal, we proposed that compliance testing for PAHs from furnaces
producing FeMn be conducted at least once every 5 years. However, as we
explained in the final rule preamble, due to the large variation in PAH
emissions from these furnaces during FeMn production, we required
quarterly compliance testing for PAHs (i.e., at least one PAH
compliance test every 3 months) for furnaces while producing FeMn in
the final rule, with an opportunity for facilities to request decreased
frequency of such compliance testing (e.g., to annual testing) from
their permitting authority after the first year.
    In their petition, Eramet stated that ``without warning, in the
final Ferroalloys NESHAP, EPA increased the compliance test frequency
for PAH emissions from ferroalloys production by 20 times.''
Specifically, the petitioner asserted that in the 2014 supplemental
proposal, the EPA proposed PAH compliance testing every 5 years, which
the petitioners considered appropriate, and, therefore, they did not
comment on the provision. For the 2015 final rule, the EPA increased
the PAH compliance testing frequency to quarterly, which the
petitioners believe is a surrogate for information collection and not
an appropriate use of the rulemaking process. The petitioners also
stated that the increased PAH testing frequency increases compliance
costs (by about $75,000 for the first year) and increases penalty
risks.
    After considering the petition from Eramet, the EPA is not
proposing any changes to the testing frequency in this action.
    However, in consideration of the fact that the public lacked the
opportunity to comment on the change in testing frequency, the EPA has
granted reconsideration of this issue to provide an opportunity for
public comment on the testing frequency. We are proposing no change to
the quarterly testing for PAH for furnaces producing FeMn due to the
high variability of the PAH test data and the fact that the new data
were much higher than the previous data. The inclusion of these data
increased the MACT emissions limit for PAHs (which was based on the 99
percent UPL) for furnaces producing FeMn in the 2015 final rule by
about 9 times compared to the MACT limit proposed in the 2014
supplemental proposal. In contrast, the PAH concentrations for furnaces
producing SiMn were only slightly higher than previous test data
received from the facilities. Furthermore, we believe the quarterly
testing, along with the collection of process information that a
facility may choose to collect voluntarily, could provide data that
would help facilities learn what factors or conditions are

contributing to the quantity and variation of PAH emissions. For
example, among other things, we believe the collection and analyses of
information about the amounts and types of input materials, types of
electrodes used, electrode consumption rates, furnace temperature, and
other furnace, process, or product information may help facilities
understand what factors are associated with the higher emissions and
could provide insight regarding how to limit these emissions.
Furthermore, as we described in the preamble of the final rule (80 FR
37383), if a facility decides to apply for decreased frequency of
compliance testing from their permit authority, this type of
information (described previously) could be helpful input for such an
application.
    In addition, we believe initial quarterly PAH compliance testing
will help ensure that the public is not exposed to high concentrations
of PAH due to emissions from these facilities. By retaining frequent
testing with the ability to reduce the frequency of testing with
compliant results, the rule ensures adequate protection of the public
while providing an additional incentive for the source to promptly
achieve compliance with the new MACT emission limit.
    While we are not proposing any changes to the testing frequency for
PAHs from FeMn furnaces, we seek comment on whether the goals of
gaining a further understanding of factors influencing emissions,
incentivizing prompt compliance, and ensuring minimizing public
exposures to PAH emissions can be achieved with a slightly different
testing frequency such as semiannual testing for 2 years with an
opportunity to reduce frequency thereafter to annual testing.

B. DCOT Opacity Compliance Demonstration

    In the 2014 supplemental proposal), we proposed that facilities
would need to take opacity readings for an entire furnace cycle once
per week per furnace using Method 9 or DCOT to demonstrate compliance
with the opacity limits. However, in the supplemental proposal, we also
said we were seeking comments on the feasibility and practice
associated with the use of automated opacity monitoring with ASTM
D7520-13, using DCOT to assess the opacity of visible emissions from
roof vents associated with the processes at each facility, and how this
technology could potentially be included as part of the requirements in
the NESHAP for ferroalloys production sources.
    In the final rule, we explained that after considering public
comments, we decided to require DCOT, rather than allow its use as an
option, and maintained the same frequency as proposed for Method 9, at
least for the first 26 weeks. Therefore, the final rule includes a
requirement to conduct opacity observations using the DCOT at least
once per week for a full furnace cycle for each operating furnace and
each MOR operation for at least the first 26 weeks. After 26 weeks, if
all tests are compliant, the final rule allows facilities to decrease
to monthly opacity observations.
    In their reconsideration petitions, the petitioners stated the EPA
solicited comment on the use of DCOT for determining opacity from the
shop building in the 2014 supplemental proposal, but did not propose to
require DCOT in accordance with ASTM D7520-13 as the sole method of
demonstrating compliance with the opacity standard. In their
supplemental proposal comments (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0269 and -
0272), the petitioners stated that the EPA had provided insufficient
description of what might be required to employ DCOT on the shop
buildings, and argued that DCOT was an unproven substitute for EPA
Method 9 measurements. They also commented that the open roof monitors
in the shop building create variability in plume location and
orientation, which they believed would make DCOT infeasible or too
costly.
    In their reconsideration petitions, the petitioners claimed that
the referenced ASTM method expressly applies to stack openings of 7
feet in diameter or less, whereas the shop building open roof monitors
at the facilities stretch along the top of the roofline and are
hundreds of feet long. They also noted that only one vendor provides
DCOT and that the vendor would be free to charge the facilities
whatever prices they want.
    After considering the petitions from Eramet and Felman, and after
gathering, reviewing, and evaluating additional information, the EPA is
not proposing any changes to the requirements for demonstrating
compliance with the opacity limits. The EPA continues to believe it is
appropriate to require ferroalloys production facilities to conduct
opacity observations using the DCOT at least once per week for a full
furnace cycle for each operating furnace and each MOR operation for at
least the first 26 weeks. However, we are seeking comments on this DCOT
monitoring requirement and the additional information and analyses
which are described in the following paragraphs.
    First, we have gathered and reviewed additional information that
shows that opacity readings using DCOT are statistically equivalent to
EPA Method 9 opacity readings, including several studies from
government agencies and other organizations,1 2 which
compare Method 9 to DCOT. Each of these studies determined that DCOT is
statistically equivalent to EPA Method 9 when measuring nonzero visible
emissions. We have also reviewed the results of Method 301 evaluations
where DCOT was used to measure opacity of emissions from stacks greater
than 7 feet in diameter and exiting along rooflines (see the
Statistical Comparison of ASTM D7520 to EPA Reference Method 9 on
Opacity from Stacks with Diameters Over 7 Feet, by Hicks, S., et. al.,
August 28, 2015, which is available in the docket for this action).
These Method 301 studies showed no statistical difference between the
opacity measured using DCOT and EPA Method 9, regardless of the stack
diameter. In addition, we have learned that ASTM International is
currently revising the DCOT test method (ASTM D7520-13) to remove the
provision limiting application to stacks with diameters of 7 feet or
less. While DCOT has a record of accuracy comparable to Method 9, it
also offers the distinct advantage of generating a permanent record of
the observation. This will be advantageous to the facility, oversight
authorities, and affected third parties (such as the community) if
there is a dispute about the facility's emissions. Opacity measurement
using DCOT offers measurements that are statistically as accurate as
Method 9, creates a permanent record of opacity measurements, and
presents a scientifically defensible approach for opacity
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Air Force Research Laboratory, An Alternative To EPA Method
9--Field Validation Of The Digital Opacity Compliance System (DOCS):
Results From The One-Year Regulatory Study, August 2005. AFRL-ML-TY-
TR-2006-4515.
    \2\ Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Digital Camera
Opacity Technique: Field Test Evaluation Report, Technical Update,
June 2014. 1023954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comment that there is only one vendor, we believe
there will be an increase use of DCOT in the future and an increased
market and therefore other vendors will begin offering these services.
We believe that once other vendors learn that EPA is starting to
require DCOT in various rules and other actions, that other vendors
will become available, which will likely keep prices approximately the
same, or possibly lower. We are not aware of any evidence

that the vendor has raised, or will raise, its prices due to the
Ferroalloys Production final rule.

C. BLDS on Positive Pressure Baghouses

    In the 2014 supplemental proposal, we proposed that furnace
baghouses would be required to be equipped with BLDS. In response to
the supplemental proposal, Felman commented that the existing positive
pressure baghouses and the baghouse monitoring system at the Felman
site constrain the kinds of monitoring and monitoring systems that
Felman can use, and that BLDS had never been demonstrated on a
positive-pressure baghouse. Felman requested that the EPA not require
BLDS on their baghouses because they claimed this would effectively
require Felman to replace its existing control system with a negative-
pressure baghouse simply to meet the baghouse monitoring requirement.
In response to this comment, we explained that the EPA has knowledge of
BLDS being used on positive pressure baghouse systems, including those
baghouses with large area roof emissions points. A change to a negative
pressure baghouse would not be necessary. Manufacturers of BLDSs
provide information on how best to deploy their instruments on the
outlet of a positive pressure baghouse.
    In their petition, Felman asserted that the EPA did not provide any
information regarding the use of BLDS on positive pressure baghouses.
The commenter stated that in the Response to Comment document,\3\ the
EPA claimed that they had knowledge of BLDS being used on positive
pressure baghouses and that the facility should check with
manufacturers of BLDS for how best to comply. However, the petitioner
stated that this knowledge is not included in the record, and the most
current published EPA technical guidance on this topic stated that BLDS
is not appropriate for positive pressure baghouses. In addition, the
petitioner claimed the EPA had not evaluated the costs associated with
this application and estimated the cost to be comparable with BLDS for
negative pressure baghouses. The petitioner also noted that the EPA's
supplemental proposal did not require continuous baghouse monitoring
for baghouses used to control fugitive emissions. However, the
petitioner stated that the baghouses used to control fugitive emissions
at their facility also control emissions from the furnace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the petition from Felman, and after gathering,
reviewing, and evaluating additional information, the EPA is not
proposing any changes to the requirement in the rule that baghouses be
equipped with BLDS. The EPA continues to believe it is appropriate to
require BLDS to monitor PM emissions from all furnace baghouses.
However, we are seeking comments on this BLDS requirement and on the
additional information we are adding to the record, as described in the
following paragraph.
    We are providing additional supporting information on the use of
BLDSs on positive pressure baghouses to the record. This includes
technical articles 4 5 on the installation and operation of
BLDS on positive pressure baghouses, and correspondence with
manufacturers and installers with experience installing BLDS on
positive pressure baghouses (see the Positive Pressure Baghouse Bag
Leak Detection Information Memorandum which is available in the docket
for this action). In addition, we have corresponded with facilities
that have installed and operated BLDS on their positive pressure
baghouses (see the Positive Pressure Baghouse Bag Leak Detection
Information Memorandum which is available in the docket for this
action). Based on this information, we have found no technical or
economic basis for removing the BLDS requirement from the final rule.
The monitoring requirement for furnace baghouses is intended to ensure
continuous compliance with the PM standards in the final rule, which
are surrogate standards for metal HAP emitted from the furnaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Iron and Steel Technology, Practical Application of Broken
Bag Detector Technology for Compliance and Maintenance: Under the
Steelmaking Electric Arc Furnace New Source Performance Standards
and the Iron and Foundry NESHAP, April 2005.
    \5\ Babcock & Wilcox, Fabric Filter Leak Detector Setup and Use,
August 2014. Technical Paper BR-1920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned previously, we are seeking comments on the BLDS
requirement along with data and other information to support such
comments. If a commenter disagrees with our assessment regarding
feasibility of BLDS on specific types of baghouses, we encourage such
commenters to provide a detailed technical explanation and information
to support such comments. Furthermore, in this case, we would also
request the commenter to provide detailed suggestions as to what
alternative monitoring actions could be implemented (instead of BLDS)
to ensure continuous compliance with the PM standards.

IV. Impacts of This Action

A. Economic Impacts

    The EPA does not expect any significant economic impacts as a
result of this rule reconsideration. The rule provisions that are being
reconsidered in this action were already included in the Economic
Impact Analysis for the final rule. Changes to the final rule as a
result of this reconsideration, if any, would likely result in lower
economic costs and impacts rather than higher costs and impacts.

B. Environmental Impacts

    The EPA does not expect any significant environmental impacts as a
result of the reconsideration of the three rule provisions identified
in this action, especially since the EPA is not proposing any changes
to these provisions. The issues being reconsidered are monitoring and
compliance testing issues and, therefore, should not have any effect on
the estimated emissions or emission reductions from what we estimated
in the final rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0676. This proposal document provides
reconsideration of three issues raised by petitioners on the final
rule, but does not make revisions to the requirements in the final
rule. Therefore, this action does not change the information collection
requirements previously finalized and, as a result, does not impose any
additional burden on industry.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not

impose any requirements on small entities. The agency has determined
that neither of the companies affected by this proposed reconsideration
document is considered to be a small entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. There are no ferroalloys production facilities
that are owned or operated by tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The health risk assessments completed for the final rule are
presented in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys Source
Category in Support of the 2015 Final Rule document, which is available
in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0281), and are
discussed in section V.G of the preamble for the final rule (80 FR
37366).

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. In the final rule for
this source category, the EPA decided to use ASTM D7520-13, Standard
Test Method for Determining the Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor
Ambient Atmosphere, for measuring opacity from the shop buildings. This
standard is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 and is available
from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
See http://www.astm.org/. For this proposed reconsideration action, the
EPA has agreed to reconsider the use of ASTM D7520-13 as the only
method to be used to measure opacity from the shop buildings.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59FR 7629, February 16, 1994)
because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment. This action only includes reconsideration of
certain issues of the final rule that will not affect the emission
standards that were finalized on June 30, 2015.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 30, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-16450 Filed 7-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 65 (Thursday, April 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16865-16867]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06787]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80358; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Listing Standards for
Acquisition Companies To Modify the Initial and Continued Distribution
Requirements

March 31, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on March 20, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 amend its listing standards for
Acquisition Companies (``ACs'') to modify the initial and continued
distribution requirements. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its initial and continued
distribution requirements for Acquisition Companies (or ``ACs'') listed
under Section 102.06 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the
``Manual'').
    An AC (typically known in the marketplace as a special purpose
acquisition company or ``SPAC'') is a special purpose company formed
for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business
combination with one or more operating businesses or assets. The
securities sold by the AC in its initial public offering are typically
units, consisting of one share of common stock and one or more warrants
(or a fraction of a warrant) to purchase common stock, that are
separable at some point after the IPO. Management generally is granted
a percentage of the AC's equity and may be required to purchase
additional shares in a private placement at the time of the AC's IPO.
    Section 102.06 requires that an AC meet the distribution
requirements of Section 102.01A at the time of initial listing. Under
Section 102.01A, companies listing in connection with their IPO must
have 400 holders of round lots (i.e., 100 shares) and 1.1 million
publicly held shares. Companies listing in connection with a transfer
from another exchange or a quotation listing must have 1.1 million
publicly held shares at the time of initial listing on the Exchange and
    (i) 400 round lot holders;
    (ii) 2,200 total stockholders together with average monthly trading
volume of 100,000 shares (for the most recent six months); or
    (iii) 500 total stockholders together with average monthly trading
volume of one million shares (for the most recent twelve months).
    The Exchange proposes to modify the distribution requirements for
ACs. As proposed, the distribution requirements for ACs would be
included in Section 102.06 rather than incorporated by reference to
Section 102.01A. Under the proposed amendment, ACs would have to have
at least 300 round lot holders when listing in conjunction with an IPO
(rather than 400 round lot holders as is the case currently). ACs
transferring from other exchanges or listing in connection with a
quotation listing would be allowed to list on the basis of 1.1 million
publicly held shares and 300 round lot holders (rather than 400 round
lot holders as is the case currently). The Exchange is proposing to
move to Section 102.06, but not alter, the other distribution criteria
for transfers and quotation listings.
    In addition, the Exchange is proposing to make minor clarifying
revisions to Section 102.06. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
move a sentence detailing the minimum price per share for an AC at the
time of initial listing from the end of a paragraph to the beginning of
the same paragraph. Further, the Exchange proposes to delete an
incorrect reference to footnote (A) after the aggregate market value
requirement because footnote (A) only refers to the publicly-held
shares requirement.
    Consistent with these changes to the initial listing requirements,
the Exchange proposes to amend the continued listing standards
applicable to ACs set forth in Section 802.01B of the Manual. Under
Section 802.01B, ACs are currently deemed to be below continued listing
standards if: (i) Their total number of stockholders is less than 400;
(ii) the number of total stockholders is less than 1,200 and the
average monthly trading volume is less than 100,000 shares (for the
most recent 12 months); or (iii) the number of publicly-held shares is
less than 600,000. Consistent with the proposed amendments to the
initial listing standards, the Exchange proposes to provide that ACs
will be deemed to be below continued listing standards if they have
fewer than 300 total stockholders (rather than the 400 total
stockholders currently required).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ACs will also continue to be deemed to be below continued
listing standards if (i) the number of total stockholders is less
than 1,200 and the average monthly trading volume is less than
100,000 shares (for the most recent 12 months) or (ii) the number of
publicly-held shares is less than 600,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed modification in the
distribution requirements for ACs is appropriate because of the unique
characteristics of the Acquisition Company structure. Specifically,
pending the completion of a business combination, each share of an AC
represents a right to a pro rata share of the AC's assets held in
trust, AC shares typically have a trading price very close to their
liquidation value and the liquidity and market efficiency concerns
relevant to listed operating companies do not arise to the same degree.
As such, there is less of a necessity to ensure that there are a large
number of shareholders of an AC to create an active market that
generates appropriate pricing. The Exchange also notes that SPACs have
been listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market for a number of years subject
to initial and continued shareholder requirements identical to those
proposed by the Exchange \5\ and that the proposed amendments will
enable the Exchange to compete more effectively for SPAC listings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Nasdaq Marketplace Rules 5505(a)(3) and 5550(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment does not affect
the status of NYSE listed securities under Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1(a)
(the ``Penny Stock Rule''),\6\ as the amended standards satisfy the
requirements of Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1(a)(2).\7\ While the amended
requirements do not include an explicit requirement that newly-listed
ACs have at least $5 million in stockholders' equity as required by
Rule 3a51-1(a)(2)(i)(A)(1),\8\ the requirement that the AC must place
at least 80% of its offering proceeds in trust upon consummation of its
IPO ensures that all ACs will meet this requirement upon initial
listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.a51-1(a).[sic]
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.a51-1(a)(2).[sic]
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.a51-1(a)(2)(i)(A)(1)[sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \10\ of the Act, in particular in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to its
distribution requirements for ACs are consistent with the protection of
investors because AC shares typically have a trading price very close
to their liquidation value. The Exchange's distribution standards are
important because the existence a significant number of holders can be
an indicia of a liquid trading market, which supports an appropriate
level of price discovery. As AC shares typically trade close to their
liquidation value, price discovery is less important than it is with
operating companies and therefore there

is a reduced reliance on distribution requirements to assure
appropriate price discovery. In addition, a number of ACs have listed
on Nasdaq Capital Market subject to identical distribution requirements
to those proposed by the Exchange and there is no evidence that they
have proven unfit for exchange trading. It is also important to note
that any AC that remains listed after completing a business combination
will be required to meet the NYSE's initial listing requirement of 400
round lot holders at the time of consummation of the transaction.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Section 802.01B of the Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed amended distribution requirements for the
listing of ACs would be lower than those for other listing applicants,
the Exchange does not believe that this difference is unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange believes this to be the case because
market value-based listing standards are largely adopted to ensure
adequate trading liquidity and, consequently, efficient market pricing
of a company's securities. As an investment in an AC prior to its
business combination represents a right to a pro rata share of the AC's
assets held in trust, AC shares typically have a trading price very
close to their liquidation value and the liquidity and market
efficiency concerns relevant to listed operating companies do not arise
to the same degree. As such, the Exchange does not believe it is
unfairly discriminatory to apply different distribution requirements to
ACs than to other listing applicants.

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. The proposed rule change is
designed to enable the Exchange to better compete with Nasdaq Capital
Market by adopting distribution requirements that a greater number of
ACs will be able to meet at the time of their IPOs. As such, it is
intended to promote competition for the listing of ACs.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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 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 the 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-NYSE-2017-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-11. 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 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-NYSE-2017-11 and should be
submitted on or before April 27, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-06787 Filed 4-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81925-81926]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33313]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-29-000]

Freeport LNG Development, L.P.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on December 9, 2011, Freeport LNG Development,
L.P. (Freeport LNG), filed an application pursuant to Section 3(a) of
the Natural Gas Act and Parts 153 and 380 of the Commission's
Regulations, requesting authorization to modify the certificated LNG
facilities located on Quintana Island, Texas. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Freeport LNG seeks Commission authorization to modify the Phase II
facilities which were certificated by the Commission Order dated
September 26, 2006 in Docket No. CP05-361-000. Freeport LNG proposes
the following: (1) Reorientation of the marine berthing dock, (2)
elimination of one of the four authorized LNG unloading arms and, (3)
reduction of the diameter of the two LNG transfer pipelines from 32-
inch to 26-inch. Also, Freeport LNG proposes to construct a new
approximately 7,000 foot-long access road system to facilitate access
to the Phase II dock. Freeport LNG estimates to place the Phase II
facilities, as modified, in service by January 2016.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Lisa
M. Tonery, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, New
York 10103. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to
the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed
comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10).
A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list
maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies
of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A
party must submit original and 7 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper, see, 18 CFR 385.2001
(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the
``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filings.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 11, 2011.

    Dated: December 21, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-33313 Filed 12-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P