[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 15012]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04998]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-34-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Request for
Extension of Time

    Take notice that on February 28, 2023, Southern Natural Gas
Company, L.L.C (SNG) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) grant an extension of time, until April 4,
2023, to complete its North System 2022 Project. SNG received a prior
notice authorization for the North System 2022 Project on March 5, 2022
which authorized: (1) the construction of approximately 2.2 miles of 8-
inch-diameter pipeline (Cordova Connector Line) in Walker County,
Alabama; (2) the modification of existing facilities along the SNG
system in Walker, Morgan, Calhoun, Jefferson, and Tuscaloosa counties,
Alabama; and (3) the re-wheeling the existing Compressor Unit #1 at
SNG's Providence Compressor Station in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. The
commission's prior notice regulations require SNG to complete the
construction of the North System 2022 Project and make it available for
service within one year from issuance, or by March 4, 2023.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.207(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SNG's request for an extension of time, SNG stated that as the
construction of the Project was nearing completion, SNG determined that
for operational safety a Remote Terminal Unit needed to be relocated to
provide a 25-foot hazardous area radius with additional equipment at
its Cordova Start site. Due to this scope addition and rainy condition
SNG requests an extension of time in which to complete the Project from
the one-year date of March 4, 2023, to the new projected completion
date of April 4, 2023.
    This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment
period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on SNG's request for an
extension of time may do so. No reply comments or answers will be
considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party to
the proceedings for this request, you should, on or before the comment
date stated below, file 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 Natural Gas Act
(18 CFR 157.10).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Only motions to intervene from entities that were party to
the underlying proceeding will be accepted. Algonquin Gas
Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 39 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on
requests for extensions of time to complete construction for Natural
Gas Act facilities when such requests are contested before order
issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,\3\ the
Commission will aim to issue an order acting on the request within 45
days.\4\ The Commission will address all arguments relating to whether
the applicant has demonstrated there is good cause to grant the
extension.\5\ The Commission will not consider arguments that re-
litigate the issuance of the Certificate Order, including whether the
Commission properly found the project to be in the public convenience
and necessity and whether the Commission's environmental analysis for
the certificate complied with the National Environmental Policy Act.\6\
At the time a pipeline requests an extension of time, orders on
certificates of public convenience and necessity are final and the
Commission will not re-litigate their issuance.\7\ The OEP Director, or
his or her designee, will act on those extension requests that are
uncontested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Contested proceedings are those where an intervenor disputes
any material issue of the filing. 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1) (2020).
    \4\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
    \5\ Id. P 40.
    \6\ Similarly, the Commission will not re-litigate the issuance
of an NGA section 3 authorization, including whether a proposed
project is not inconsistent with the public interest and whether the
Commission's environmental analysis for the permit order complied
with NEPA.
    \7\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning COVID-19, issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original copy of the protest or intervention by U.S. mail to
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions by any other courier
in docketed proceedings should be delivered to, Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 21, 2023.

    Dated: March 6, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04998 Filed 3-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6355-6358]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27761]

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 /
Notices

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87781]

Order Designating Certain Jurisdictions as ``Listed
Jurisdictions'' for Purposes of Applying the Security-Based Swap Dealer
De Minimis Exception of Rule 3a71-3(d) Under the Exchange Act to
Certain Cross-Border Security-Based Swap Transactions

I. Introduction

    Rule 3a71-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Exchange Act'') in part addresses the cross-border application of the
``security-based swap dealer'' definition, including the cross-border
application of the de minimis exception to that definition.\1\ Under
the rule, non-U.S. persons that engage in security-based swap dealing
activity are required to count--against the thresholds associated with
the de minimis exception--their dealing transactions with non-U.S.
counterparties if those dealing transactions were ``arranged,
negotiated, or executed'' using U.S. personnel.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``security-based swap dealer'' is defined in
Exchange Act Section 3(a)(71) and further defined by Exchange Act
Rules 3a71-1 through 3a71-5. Section 3(a)(71)(D) provides that the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or the
``Commission'') shall promulgate regulations to establish factors
with respect to the making of any determination to exempt a
security-based swap dealer that engages in a de minimis quantity of
security-based swap dealing. Persons whose dealing activities exceed
the de minimis thresholds set by the Commission will be required to
register as security-based swap dealers.
     Regulation of security-based swap dealers is a key component of
the security-based swap market oversight that was granted to the
Commission by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'').
    \2\ See Exchange Act Rule 3a71-3(b)(1)(iii)(C). The ``arranged,
negotiated, or executed'' counting rule advances a number of
important regulatory interests, in part by helping to protect
against the potential that market participants would use booking
practices to engage in an unregistered security-based swap dealing
business in the United States. The use of those ``arranged,
negotiated, or executed'' criteria further reflect the activity
focus of the ``security-based swap dealer'' definition, as well as
considerations regarding competitive disparities, market
fragmentation and public transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By separate action, the Commission has amended Rule 3a71-3 by
adding new paragraph (d) to incorporate a conditional exception from
the ``arranged, negotiated, or executed'' counting requirement.\3\ That
conditional exception is intended to address certain operational and
market concerns that otherwise could arise were transactions to be
counted against the applicable de minimis thresholds requirement solely
because a transaction between two non-U.S. counterparties results from
activity by U.S. personnel.\4\ The Rule 3a71-3(d) exception is subject
to a number of conditions designed to help protect the important
interests that underpin the ``arranged, negotiated, or executed''
counting requirement. Those include, inter alia, the ``listed
jurisdiction'' condition that is the subject of this Order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule Amendments and Guidance Addressing Cross-Border
Application of Certain Security-Based Swap Requirements, Exchange
Act Release No. 87780 (Dec. 18, 2019) (``Cross-Border Amendments
Adopting Release''). That release also addressed a number of
additional topics in connection with the cross-border application of
security-based swap dealer requirements.
    \4\ Those included concerns that non-U.S. dealers would avoid
using U.S. personnel, and potentially would relocate U.S. personnel,
as well as concerns that application of the counting requirement
would be burdensome and would result in market fragmentation and
lower liquidity levels. The exception also addressed concerns that
the counting requirement could lead financial groups to have to
register multiple entities, and concerns regarding disparate
approaches from those followed by the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission. See Part II of the Cross-Border Amendments Adopting
Release.
    \5\ See paragraph (d)(1) to Rule 3a71-3 for the conditions to
the conditional exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. ``Listed Jurisdiction'' Condition to the Exception

A. The ``Listed Jurisdiction'' Condition

    To take advantage of the Rule 3a71-3(d) exception, the non-U.S.
person must be subject to the margin and capital requirements of a
``listed jurisdiction'' when engaging in transactions subject to the
exception from the ``arranged, negotiated, or executed'' counting
requirement.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See paragraph (d)(1)(v) to Rule 3a71-3. The term ``listed
jurisdiction'' is defined as ``any jurisdiction that the Commission
by order has designated as a listed jurisdiction'' for purposes of
the exception. See paragraph (a)(12) to Rule 3a71-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has explained that the ``listed jurisdiction''
condition is intended to deter dealers from attempting to use the
exception to avoid Title VII ``by simply booking their transactions to
entities in jurisdictions that do not effectively require security-
based swap dealers or comparable entities to meet certain financial
responsibility standards.'' \7\ Otherwise, the exception could
``provide a competitive advantage to non-U.S. persons that conduct
security-based swap dealing activity in the United States without being
subject to sufficient financial responsibility standards.'' \8\ The
Commission also expressed the view that the ``listed jurisdiction''
condition is consistent with the view that applying capital and margin
requirements to transactions between two non-U.S. persons that have
been arranged, negotiated, or executed in the United States can help
mitigate the potential for financial contagion to spread to U.S. market
participants and to the U.S. financial system more generally.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Part II.C.5.b of the Cross-Border Amendments Adopting
Release.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Designation of ``Listed Jurisdictions''

    The exception provides that the Commission conditionally or
unconditionally may determine ``listed jurisdictions'' by order, in
response to applications or upon the Commission's own initiative.\10\
The Commission by order, after notice and opportunity for comment, may
modify or withdraw a listed jurisdiction determination if it determines
that continued listed jurisdiction status no longer would be in the
public interest based on a number of factors.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See paragraph (d)(2) to Rule 3a71-3. Applications may be
made by a party or group of parties that potentially would seek to
rely on the exception, or by any foreign financial regulatory
authority or authorities supervising such a party or its security-
based swap activities. See paragraph (d)(2)(i) to Rule 3a71-3.
Exchange Act Rule 0-13 sets forth the procedures for filing ``listed
jurisdiction'' applications.
    \11\ See paragraph (d)(2)(iii) to Rule 3a71-3. In light of the
importance of the Commission being able to access information
outside the United States regarding the transactions at issue, the
determination to modify or withdraw listed jurisdiction status may
be based on a jurisdiction's laws or regulations that have had the
effect of preventing the Commission or its representatives on
request to promptly access information or documents regarding the
activities of the non-U.S. persons relying on the exception. See
paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B) to Rule 3a71-3. Withdrawal or modification
further may be based on any other factor the Commission determines
to be relevant. See paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(C) to Rule 3a71-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When evaluating a foreign jurisdiction's potential status as a
``listed jurisdiction,'' the Commission may consider factors relevant
for purposes of assessing whether such an order would be in the public
interest. These may include the ``[a]pplicable margin and capital
requirements of the foreign financial regulatory system.'' \12\ These
also may include the ``effectiveness of the supervisory compliance
program administered by, and the enforcement authority exercised by,
the foreign financial regulatory authority in connection with such
requirements, including the application of those requirements in
connection

with an entity's cross-border business.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) to Rule 3a71-3. In addition, in
assessing a jurisdiction's applicable margin and capital
requirements, the Commission would expect to consider whether the
margin and capital requirements at issue would apply to entities who
transact in security-based swaps and limit a designation
accordingly. See Part II.C.5.b of the Cross-Border Amendments
Adopting Release.
    \13\ See paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) to Rule 3a71-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting the exception, the Commission rejected a commenter view
that all G-20 jurisdictions should be deemed to be ``listed
jurisdictions.'' \14\ While the Commission recognizes that reforms
initiated by the G-20 can be relevant for assessing listed jurisdiction
status, the implementation of capital and margin requirements, as well
as associated supervision or enforcement practices, has the potential
to vary significantly across G-20 jurisdictions. Also, many G-20
jurisdictions do not have substantial swap or security-based swap
markets, and thus may not necessarily have the incentives or resources
needed to promote the effective oversight of those markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Part II.C.5.b of the Cross-Border Amendments Adopting
Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also distinguished the evaluation of ``listed
jurisdictions'' from the Commission's consideration of whether
substituted compliance is appropriate in connection with foreign
capital and margin requirements.\15\ Although ``listed jurisdiction''
determinations may raise issues that are analogous to those that would
accompany applications for substituted compliance, the determinations
are made in materially distinct contexts. The Commission accordingly
may reach different conclusions when considering substituted compliance
than it does when considering listed jurisdiction status for the same
jurisdiction.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Part II.C.5.b of the Cross-Border Amendments Adopting
Release.
    \16\ For example, in designating a jurisdiction as a ``listed
jurisdiction'' for purposes of the exception, the Commission would
not assess whether the foreign margin and capital regime is
comparable to the applicable requirements under the Exchange Act.
Cf. Exchange Act Rule 3a71-6(a)(2)(i) (in a substituted compliance
determination the requirements of the foreign regulatory system must
be comparable). In addition, unlike the context of substituted
compliance, the entities at issue would not be registered with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Designation of Specific ``Listed Jurisdictions''

    For the reasons set forth below, the Commission has determined that
it is in the public interest to designate the following jurisdictions
as ``listed jurisdictions'' for purposes of the exception: Australia,
Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United
Kingdom (the ``Initial Listed Jurisdictions'').\17\ Only non-U.S.
persons that are subject to the margin and capital requirements
applicable to entities that transact in security-based swaps of an
Initial Listed Jurisdiction may rely on the listed jurisdiction
designations that are the subject of this Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In proposing the conditional exception to the ``arranged,
negotiated, or executed'' counting requirement, the Commission
solicited comment regarding whether listed jurisdiction status would
be appropriate for those jurisdictions, along with Hong Kong. See
Proposed Rule Amendments and Guidance Addressing Cross-Border
Application of Certain Security-Based Swap Requirements, Exchange
Act Release No. 85823 (May 10, 2019), 84 FR 24206, 24226 (May 24,
2019)(``Cross-Border Proposing Release''). As noted above, one
commenter suggested that all G-20 jurisdictions should be deemed to
be listed jurisdictions--a view that the Commission does not share.
See note 14, supra, and accompanying text. No other commenters
directly addressed whether listed jurisdiction status was
appropriate for any of the named jurisdictions. The Commission notes
that The Hong Kong Monetary Authority has proposed heightened
capital requirements to address the risks presented by non-centrally
cleared derivatives that follow the G-20 recommendations but has not
yet implemented those requirements. As such the Commission has not
designated Hong Kong at this time. In accordance with Rule 3a71-
3(d)(2)(i), the Commission will consider applications for orders for
listed jurisdiction designation from a party or group of parties
that would potentially seek to rely on the Rule 3a71-3(d) exception
or by any foreign regulatory authority supervising such a party or
its security-based swap activities.
    On the basis of DTCC Derivatives Repository Limited Trade
Information Warehouse (``TIW'') transactions and positions data on
single-name credit swaps, the Commission believes that entities
currently transacting in security-based swaps in the Initial Listed
Jurisdictions are highly likely to be engaged in security-based swap
transactions that they would otherwise be required to count toward
the de minimis thresholds. For this purpose, the analysis of the
current state of the security-based swap market is based on data
obtained from the TIW, especially data regarding the activity of
market participants in the single-name CDS market during the period
from 2008 to 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Implementation of Financial Responsibility Reforms

    The Commission's action in part reflects consideration of financial
responsibility regulation in the Initial Limited Jurisdictions, as well
as the steps that those jurisdictions have taken to implement financial
responsibility reforms. To offset the greater risk to security-based
swap dealers from non-cleared security-based swaps, the Dodd-Frank Act
mandated financial responsibility reform through capital and margin
requirements that would help ensure the safety and soundness of
security-based swap dealers and be appropriate for the risk associated
with non-cleared security-based swaps.\18\ In 2009, the G-20 made
recommendations for financial responsibility reforms intended in part
to reduce systemic risk attributable to over-the-counter (``OTC'')
derivatives, including a recommendation that non-centrally cleared
derivatives contracts should be subject to higher capital
requirements.\19\ As noted below, each of the Initial Listed
Jurisdictions has adopted heightened capital requirements that address
the risks presented by OTC derivatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Exchange Act Section 15F(e)(3).
    \19\ See G-20, Leaders Statement: Pittsburgh Summit (Sept. 24-
25, 2009) (``G-20 2009 Statement''), available at
www.g20.utoronto.ca/2009/2009communique0925.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2011, the G-20 recommended that margin requirements on non-
centrally cleared derivatives be added to the reforms.\20\ As noted
below, each of the Initial Listed Jurisdictions has implemented margin
requirements that address the counterparty risks presented by these
derivatives products. While recognizing that the capital and margin
rules and regulations of the Initial Listed Jurisdictions are not the
same as those of the Commission,\21\ the Commission believes that those
jurisdictions' rules and regulations apply sufficient financial
responsibility requirements on the relevant entities to support
designation as ``listed jurisdictions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See G-20, Cannes Summit Final Declaration (Nov. 4, 2011),
available at www.g20.utoronto.ca/2011/2011-cannes-declaration-
111104-en.html.
    \21\ Earlier this year, the Commission adopted capital, margin,
and segregation requirements for security-based swap dealers and
major security-based swap participants. See Capital, Margin, and
Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major
Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital and Segregation
Requirements for Broker-Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 86175
(Jun. 21, 2019), 84 FR 43872 (Aug. 22, 2019) (``Capital, Margin and
Segregation Adopting Release''). The objective of the new capital
requirements is to ensure that entities maintain sufficient liquid
assets to satisfy liabilities promptly and to provide a cushion of
liquid assets in excess of liabilities to cover potential market,
credit and other risks. Capital, Margin and Segregation Adopting
Release, 84 FR at 43947. The G-20 capital framework serves to
improve the OTC derivatives market through higher capital
requirements for non-centrally cleared contracts. See G-20 2009
Statement. Further, the Capital, Margin and Segregation Adopting
Release adopted final margin rules for non-centrally cleared
derivatives that address counterparty risks arising from these
transactions. See Exchange Act Rule 18a-3; see also Capital, Margin
and Segregation Adopting Release, 84 FR at 43910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Australia
    The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (``APRA'') has
adopted capital requirements for ``authorized deposit-taking
institutions'' designed to address the unique risks of OTC
derivatives.\22\ Further, the APRA has adopted margin requirements to
address the counterparty risks of non-centrally cleared derivatives. To
do this, among other things, APRA's margin regime incorporates
variation and initial margin

calculations and methodologies and additional risk mitigation
requirements.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Measures adopted by the APRA to address these risks
include, among other things, the SA-CCR approach and capital
requirements for bank exposures to central counterparties consistent
with the G-20 framework. See APRA, Prudential Standard APS 180,
Capital Adequacy: Standardized Approach to Credit Risk (July 2019).
    \23\ The margin requirements adopted by the APRA are based on
the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (``BCBS'') and
International Organization of Securities Organizations (``IOSCO'')
standards on margining for non-centrally cleared derivatives. See
APRA, Prudential Standard CPS 226, Margining and Risk Mitigation for
Non-Centrally Cleared Derivatives (October 2019) (``CPS 226'').
Consistent with the G-20 framework, the regulatory objectives of CPS
226 are to improve prudential safety, reduce systemic risk and
promote central clearing. See CPS 226 Explanatory Statement, Page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Canada
    Canada's Office of the Superintendent of the Financial Institutions
(``OSFI'') has adopted capital requirements for federally regulated
financial institutions that reflect heightened capital for non-
centrally cleared derivatives.\24\ In addition, OSFI has adopted margin
requirements that address the counterparty risks of non-centrally
cleared derivatives and which, among other things, establish minimum
standards for variation and initial margin and collateral requirements
for non-centrally cleared derivative transactions undertaken by
federally regulated financial institutions.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions,
Guideline: Capital Adequacy Requirements (October 2018) (``CAR
Guideline''). OSFI's CAR Guideline provides a framework for
assessing the capital adequacy of federally regulated institutions
and includes, among other things, the implementation of the SA-CCR
methodology consistent with the G-20 framework. The CAR Guideline is
updated periodically to ensure that capital requirements continue to
reflect underlying risks and developments in the financial industry.
See CAR Guideline.
    \25\ See Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions,
Guideline E-22: Margin Requirements for Non-centrally Cleared
Derivatives (October 2016) (``Guideline E-22'').
    For the purposes of the OSFI Guidelines, federally regulated
financial institutions refer to ``banks, foreign bank branches, bank
holding companies, trust and loan companies, cooperative credit
associations, cooperate retail associations, life insurance
companies, property and casualty insurance companies and insurance
holding companies.'' See Footnote 1 of Guideline E-22. The
provincial Canadian securities regulators have not yet adopted
margin and collateral requirements for non-centrally cleared
derivatives but continue to monitor international developments as
they consider recommendations of the Canadian Securities
Administrators based on the G-20 framework. See Canadian Securities
Administrators Staff Notice 95-301 Margin and Collateral
Requirements for Non-Centrally Cleared Derivatives (Aug. 22, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. France/Germany/United Kingdom \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The United Kingdom has published its OTC derivatives regime
that will come into force on the day it leaves the European Union
(``EU''), which follows the existing body of applicable EU
derivatives law. See Draft Over the Counter Derivatives, Central
Counterparties and Trade Repositories (Amendment, etc., and
Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2012, the European Commission (``EC'') adopted the European
Market Infrastructure Regulation (``EMIR'') in response to the G-20
leaders' statements on reform of the OTC derivatives market. Pursuant
to EMIR, the EC adopted and has since revised capital requirements for
financial institutions which are intended to address the risks of the
OTC derivatives market and that reflect heightened capital for non-
centrally cleared derivatives.\27\ In addition, the EC has issued
margin standards which set forth risk mitigation techniques for non-
centrally cleared derivatives, including variation and initial margin
calculations and methodologies, with the objective of reducing
counterparty credit risk and mitigating systematic risk.\28\ The
capital and margin standards are found in EC regulations which are
directly applicable to all EU member states without any further
implementing measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Addressing the risks of non-centrally cleared derivatives,
the EU capital requirements are more risk sensitive than previous
methods and include, among other things, the SA-CCR, consistent with
the BCBS-IOSCO standard. Regulation (EU) 2019/876 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of May 20, 2019 Amending Regulation
(EU) No. 575/2013 as regards the leverage ratio, the net stable
funding ratio, requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities,
counterparty credit risk, market risk, exposures to central
counterparties, exposures to collective investment undertakings,
large exposures, reporting and disclosure requirements, and
Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (``CRR2''). In addition, the EC issued a
directive related to supervisory functions of the EU member states
as they relate to CRR2. See Directive (EU) 2019/878 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 amending Directive
2013/36/EU. A directive is a legal act of the European Union that
requires member states to achieve a particular result without
dictating the means of achieving that result. Directives are
distinguished from regulations which are self-executing and do not
require any implementing measures. As a regulation, CRR2 will be
directly applicable to all EU member states without any implementing
measures. The Commission notes that, while CRR2 has been adopted, it
will not be in force until June 28, 2021; however, this date is
consistent with the compliance dates of the applicable U.S.
security-based swap market rules adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act.
The related supervisory directive requires action by individual
member states to implement.
    \28\ Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No. 2016/2251 of
October 5, 2016 Supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of July 4, 2012 on OTC
Derivatives, Central Counterparties and Trade Repositories with
Regard to Regulatory Technical Standards for Risk-Mitigation
Techniques for OTC Derivate Contracts Not Cleared by a Central Party
(as corrected by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/323 of
January 20, 2017 and Regulation (EU) 2019/834 of May 20, 2019)
(``RTS''). The RTS supplements the requirements of EMIR with more
detailed direction with respect to margin requirements and, as a
regulation, is directly applicable in all countries that are members
of the EU. See RTS, Explanatory Memorandum at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Japan
    The Japan Financial Services Agency (``JFSA'') has implemented
specific financial responsibility reforms that include capital and
margin requirements to address the risks of non-centrally cleared
derivative products.\29\ For example, the JFSA margin requirements
include variation and initial margin calculations and methodologies
that address the counterparty risks of non-centrally cleared
derivatives.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See https://www.fsa.go.jp/en/newsletter/weekly2018/287.html. The JFSA capital rules include the standardized capital
requirements consistent with the BCBS-IOSCO framework, although the
JFSA has allowed certain interim capital requirements to remain in
place as a transitional measure to address cross-border concerns. In
addition, the JFSA promulgated margin requirements and guidelines
under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, No. 25 of 1948.
    \30\ See Cabinet Office Ordinance on Financial Instruments
Business (Cabinet Office Ordinance No. 52 of August 6, 2007),
including supplementary provisions; Comprehensive Guideline for
Supervision of Major Banks, etc., Comprehensive Guidelines for
Supervision of Regional Financial Institutions, Comprehensive
Guidelines for Supervision of Cooperate Financial Institutions,
Comprehensive Guideline for Supervision of Financial Instruments
Business Operators, etc., Comprehensive Guidelines for Supervision
of Insurance Companies, and Comprehensive Guidelines for Supervision
of Trust Companies, etc.; JFSA Public Notification No. 15 of March
31, 2016, JFSA Public Notification No. 16 of March 31, 2016, JFSA
Public Notification No. 17 of March 31, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Singapore
    The Monetary Authority of Singapore (``MAS'') has adopted
heightened capital requirements in response to the G-20 recommendations
for non-centrally cleared derivatives.\31\ Further, the MAS has
implemented a margin regime including variation and initial margin
standards and collateral requirements with regard to non-centrally
cleared derivatives.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ For example, among other things, the MAS capital
requirements incorporate the SA-CCR approach and capital
requirements for bank exposures to central counterparties. MAS
Notice 637 on Risk Based Capital Adequacy Requirements for Banks
Incorporated in Singapore (14 September 2012)(last revised 10 June
2019). The MAS has provided a transitional period during which
compliance with the new standards is voluntary.
    \32\ See MAS Guidelines on Margin Requirements for Non-Centrally
Cleared OTC Derivatives Contracts, Guideline No. SFA 15-G03, Issue
Date: 6 December 2016 (last revised July 26, 2019 to exclude
security-based swaps from the variation margin and initial margin
requirements until February 29, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Switzerland
    As part of its financial responsibility rules reform, the Swiss
Federal Council has implemented heightened capital requirements to
address the risks of

non-centrally cleared derivatives.\33\ In addition, to reduce systemic
risk, the Swiss Federation has adopted standards on margining and risk
mitigation requirements to address the risks associated with non-
centrally cleared derivatives which include variation and initial
margin calculations and methodologies, along with other collateral
requirements.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Swiss Federal Council included, among other things, the
SA-CCR and capital requirements for bank exposures to central
counterparties in its Capital Adequacy Ordinance applicable to banks
and securities dealers. See Swiss Federal Council, 952.03 Ordinance
concerning Capital Adequacy and Risk Diversification for Banks and
Securities Dealers (status as of 9 April 2019). The transition
period for implementation of the SA-CCR has been extended to January
1, 2020 or longer for smaller banks with no or insignificant
derivatives positions.
    \34\ See Federal Act on Financial Market Infrastructures and
Market Conduct in Securities and Derivatives Trading of 19 June 2015
(status as of 1 January 2019) and Ordinance on Financial Market
Infrastructure and Market Conduct in Securities and Derivatives
Trading of 25 November 2015 (status as of 1 January 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Supervisory or Enforcement Practices

    This action further recognizes that, based upon the Commission's
current experience with regulators and authorities in each of the
Initial Listed Jurisdictions, including, for example, cooperative
experiences in matters of supervision or enforcement with the
securities and financial regulators in the Initial Listed Jurisdictions
as well as joint participation in certain international organizations
and bodies,\35\ the Commission does not have reason to believe that the
supervisory or enforcement practices in those jurisdictions would
encourage market participants to restructure and book transactions into
those jurisdictions to take advantage of a regulatory environment that
as a practical matter does not require firms to comply with heightened
capital requirements for OTC derivatives positions.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Staff of the Commission has worked, consulted and
coordinated with foreign regulatory authorities from the Initial
Listed Jurisdictions through participation in numerous bilateral and
multilateral discussions addressing the regulation of OTC
derivatives. In addition, the Commission's staff has been able to
gather information about foreign regulatory reform efforts through
its participation in various international organizations including
the Financial Stability Board (``FSB''), the BCBS, IOSCO, and
committees, task forces and working groups thereof, such as the
FSB's Working Group on OTC Derivatives Regulation and IOSCO's
Working Group on Margining Requirements.
    \36\ The Commission notes that supervision and enforcement of
the EU derivatives regulatory regime is conducted at the member
state level and, therefore, in considering ``listed jurisdiction''
status, the Commission considered the status of derivatives market
supervision and enforcement at the member state level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Location of Firms Likely To Engage in Security-Based Swap Dealing
Activity Using Personnel Located in the United States

    This action also accounts for the Commission's understanding of
which non-U.S. firms are most likely to transact in security-based
swaps using personnel located in the United States in such volume that
designation of that jurisdiction by the Commission as a listed
jurisdiction is warranted. This analysis is relevant both with regard
to whether the foreign jurisdiction has a security-based swaps market
that demonstrates a need for designation as a listed jurisdiction, and
with regard to whether the applicable regulators have an incentive to
effectively oversee the market. In particular, based on available data,
including the volume of single-name credit default swap transactions
referencing U.S. underliers, the Commission believes that dealing
entities in the Initial Listed Jurisdictions are highly likely to be
engaged in security-based swap transactions that they would otherwise
be required to count toward the de minimis thresholds.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See note 17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More generally, the Commission also believes that the security-
based swap markets in the Initial Listed Jurisdictions are sufficiently
developed that, coupled with the initiatives the applicable foreign
financial regulators have taken in response to the G-20 leaders'
statements regarding regulation of OTC derivatives, designation as a
listed jurisdiction would be in the public interest.

IV. Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission concludes that it
is in the public interest to designate the following jurisdictions as
``listed jurisdictions'' for purposes of the conditional exception, set
forth in Exchange Act Rule 3a71-3(d), from having to count certain
transactions involving U.S. activity against the thresholds associated
with the security-based swap dealer de minimis exception. Accordingly,
    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 3a71-3(a)(12)
and 3a71-3(d)(2), that the following jurisdictions are designated as
listed jurisdictions:
    1. Australia;
    2. Canada; \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ With respect to Canada's ``listed jurisdiction''
designation, only federally regulated financial institutions that
are subject to the OSFI requirements may rely on the ``listed
jurisdiction'' condition that is the subject of this Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. France;
    4. Germany;
    5. Japan;
    6. Singapore;
    7. Switzerland; and
    8. United Kingdom.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: December 18, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27761 Filed 2-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31914-31915]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12475]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER12-954-001.
    Applicants: Calpine Mid Merit, LLC.
    Description: Calpine Mid Merit, LLC Refund Report Informational
Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130516-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1258-003.
    Applicants: Land O'Lakes, Inc.
    Description: Inquiry Response to be effective 6/14/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130516-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1277-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Errata to Pending Filing--
OA Schedule 12 Membership List to be effective 3/31/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130516-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1507-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: SA 683--SOCC Services Agreement with MATL LLP to be
effective 7/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130516-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1508-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Unit Power Sales/Designated
Power Purchase Tariff to be effective 12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130517-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1509-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.
    Description: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. Unit Power
Sales/Designated Power Purchase Tariff to be effective 12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130517-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1510-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC.
    Description: Entergy Louisiana, LLC Unit Power Sales/Designated
Power Purchase Tariff to be effective 12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130517-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1511-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Mississippi, Inc. Unit Power Sales/Designated
Power Purchase Tariff to be effective 12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130517-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1512-000.
    Applicants: Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
    Description: Entergy New Orleans, Inc. Unit Power Sales/Designated
Power Purchase Tariff to be effective 12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130517-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1513-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Texas, Inc. Unit Power Sales/Designated Power
Purchase Tariff to be effective 12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130517-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1514-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Public Service Company of Colorado 2013-5-17--341-
PSCo-TSGT Davis Interim CA to be effective 3/4/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130517-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1515-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. 2013-
05-17 RSP ARR to be effective 7/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130517-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1516-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. Rhode Island Engine Genco LLC
Resource Termination Filing.
    Filed Date: 5/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130517-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1517-000.
    Applicants: Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Massachusetts Electric Company Interconnection
Agreement Between MECO and Trigen Revere for NECCO Cogen Plant to be
effective 7/17/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130517-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1518-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Amendments to Schedule 9--
PJM Settlement to be effective 7/17/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130517-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings

must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 17, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12475 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36218-36220]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14876]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0223; FRL-9912-82-Region-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for Georgia:
State Implementation Plan Miscellaneous Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve the portions of revisions to the Georgia State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GA EPD), on September 15, 2008, and August 30,
2010, that incorporate changes to the state rules reflecting the 2006
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter
(PM). EPA approved the remaining portions of Georgia's September 15,
2008, and August 30, 2010, SIP revisions in a previous rulemaking.

DATES: This rule will be effective on July 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0223. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the 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. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta Ward, 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 (404)
562-9140. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. This Action
II. Background
III. Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. This Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the portions of Georgia's
September 15, 2008, and August 30, 2010, SIP revisions related to the
PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS (collectively referred to as
the ``PM NAAQS''). On May 16, 2013, EPA published a direct final rule
approving the portions of Georgia's September 15, 2008, August 30, 2010
(two submittals), and December 15, 2011, SIP submissions, that
incorporate amendments to Georgia Rules 391-3-1-.02(4)(b), (c), (e),
(f), and (g) reflecting the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, lead, and PM in effect at the
time of submittal. See 78 FR 28744.
    EPA published an accompanying proposed approval to the May 16,
2013, direct final rule in the event that EPA received adverse comment
and withdrew the direct final rule. See 78 FR 28776. In the direct
final rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments were received by June
17, 2013, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect, the proposed
rule would remain in effect, and an additional public comment period
would not be instituted.
    On May 17, 2013, EPA received comments from a single commenter
solely on the portions of the rulemaking related to the PM NAAQS;
therefore, EPA withdrew the PM portions of the direct final rule. See
78 FR 41851 (July 12, 2013). The withdrawal of the PM portions did not
affect EPA's May 16, 2013, direct final action on Georgia's SIP
revisions related to the SO2, NO2, ozone, and
lead NAAQS. EPA is now taking action to approve only the portions of
the September 15, 2008, and August 30, 2010, SIP revisions related to
the PM NAAQS. EPA has reviewed the changes to GA EPD's rule reflecting
the PM NAAQS and determined that these changes are consistent with
federal regulations in effect at the time of SIP submission; thus, EPA
is approving these revisions to the Georgia SIP.

II. Background

    EPA approved a Georgia SIP revision on February 9, 2010, that
adopted the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS set at 65 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) and 15 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively. See 75 FR 6309. On October 17,
2006, EPA revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\
and retained the annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15 [mu]g/m\3\.\1\ See
71 FR 61144. Accordingly, Georgia submitted three SIP revisions one
dated September 15, 2008,\2\ and two

dated August 30, 2010,\3\ that, among other things, incorporate changes
to Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(4)(c)--``Particulate Matter''--that update
the rule for consistency with the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 14, 2012, EPA strengthened the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at 35 [mu]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15,
2013).
    \2\ The September 15, 2008 SIP revision includes changes to
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(4)(c) that update the 24-hr
PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. These changes were state
effective on June 25, 2008.
    \3\ The August 20, 2010 SIP revision related to PM2.5
includes changes to Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(4)(c) that align the
significant digits for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS with the
federal standard. These changes were state effective on December 20,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA approved Georgia's SIP revision on December 14, 1992, that
adopted the initial 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and 1987 annual
PM10 NAAQS set at 150 [mu]g/m\3\ and 50 [mu]g/m\3\,
respectively. See 57 FR 58989. On October 17, 2006, EPA retained the
24-hour PM10 NAAQS at 150 [mu]g/m\3\ and revoked the annual
PM10 NAAQS. See 71 FR 61144. Accordingly, in the August 30,
2010, SIP revision, GA EPA incorporated changes to state rule 391-3-
1-.02(4)(c) that update the rule for consistency with the 2006
PM10 NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The August 20, 2010 SIP revision related to PM10
includes changes to Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(4)(c) that repeal the
annual PM10 NAAQS. These changes were state effective on
July 20, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Comments

    On May 17, 2013, EPA received a comment from one member of the
general public. While the comment was generally in support of EPA's
action, EPA withdrew the direct final rule because the comment could be
interpreted as adverse. A summary of the comment and EPA's response is
provided below.
    Comment: The Commenter noted that EPA revised the PM2.5
NAAQS in 2012, and he recommended that ``the particulate matter SIP for
Georgia be conditionally approved, the condition being that a revised
SIP reflecting the new standard be submitted within a reasonable amount
of time as determined by'' EPA.
    Response: Although EPA recently updated the annual PM2.5
NAAQS, the State submitted the SIP revisions prior to the December 14,
2012, promulgation of the new standard, published on January 15, 2013
(see 78 FR 3086). As mentioned above, GA EPD submitted its SIP
revisions to update the PM NAAQS on September 15, 2008, and August 30,
2010, in response to EPA's promulgation of the 2006 PM NAAQS. EPA
believes that it is appropriate to approve Georgia's September 15,
2008, and August 30 2010, SIP revisions as they relate to the PM NAAQS
because they reflect the PM NAAQS in effect at that time, these NAAQS
remain in effect, and the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS was not
promulgated at that time. EPA notes that today's action does not
relieve Georgia of any current or future requirements regarding the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and that EPA is committed to working with
Georgia to update its SIP to reflect the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the portions of Georgia's September 15, 2008, and
August 30, 2010, SIP revisions that relate to the PM NAAQS because they
are consistent with the PM NAAQS in effect at the time of submittal.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the Administrator is required
to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR
52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 25, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 16, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570 is amended by revising the entry for ``391-3-
1-.02(4),'' under Emission Standards, in the table titled ``EPA
APPROVED GEORGIA REGULATIONS'' in paragraph (c), to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA Approved Georgia Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
          State citation               Title/subject      effective     EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(4)...................  Ambient Air             9/13/2011  6/26/2014 [Insert
                                    Standards.                         Federal Register
                                                                       citation].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-14876 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45522-45524]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18680]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-500-000]

Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Presidio Border Crossing
Project Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Presidio Border Crossing
Project involving construction and operation of facilities for the
export of natural gas by Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC (Trans-Pecos) in
Presidio County, Texas. The Commission will use this EA in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public interest.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before August 24, 2015.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on May 28, 2015, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP15-500-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    Trans-Pecos provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?''. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-
asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to
participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP15-500-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Trans-Pecos proposes to construct and operate a new border crossing
at the international boundary between the United States and Mexico in
Presidio County, Texas. The Presidio Border Crossing Project would
consist of the construction of approximately 2,000 feet of FERC-
jurisdictional 42-inch-diameter pipeline, installed beneath the Rio
Grande River near the City of Presidio in Presidio County, Texas. The
new pipeline would have a maximum design export capacity of
approximately 1.3 billion cubic feet per day, in order to transport
natural gas to a new delivery interconnect in the vicinity of the City
of Manuel Ojinaga, State of Chihuahua, Mexico for electric generation
and industrial market needs in Mexico.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.

Non-Jurisdictional Facilities

    The Presidio Border Crossing Project has associated facilities that
would be constructed in support of the project, but do not fall under
the jurisdiction of the FERC. This would include Trans-Pecos'
intrastate pipeline facilities, consisting of 143 miles of new 42-inch-
diameter pipeline, multiple receipt and delivery metering stations, and
other auxiliary facilities extending from Pecos County, Texas and
terminating at the proposed FERC-jurisdictional project facilities in
Presidio County. The intrastate facilities would be subject to the
jurisdiction of the Texas Railroad Commission and would be non-
jurisdictional to the FERC. In the EA, we will provide available
descriptions of the non-jurisdictional facilities and include them
under our analysis of cumulative impacts.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the Presidio Border Crossing Project pipeline would
affect a total of 13.7 acres of land in the United States, which
includes temporary workspace for HDD construction, hydrostatic testing
of the pipeline, and project access. Following construction, Trans-
Pecos would retain 1.3 acres as a 50-foot-wide permanent easement for
operation of the FERC-jurisdictional pipeline, and the remaining
acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of an
Authorization. NEPA also requires us \2\ to discover and address
concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred
to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the
issues to address in the EA. We note that many comments were filed
prior to this notice. We want to assure those commentors that their
concerns will be considered in the scope of our environmental review;
you do not need to resubmit comments. We will consider all filed
comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;

     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. We will also
publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment
period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our
recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to
consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the
instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\4\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    When we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-
500). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: July 23, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18680 Filed 7-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40708-40710]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17646]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0758; Product Identifier 2018-NM-093-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a review of the Airbus A350 structure design principles
database for type definition that revealed that the balancer fitting
part, installed on the tail cone, on a certain frame (FR) has several
corrosion-resistant stainless steel nuts that do not meet the
requirements for protection against corrosion. This proposed AD would
require application of a new additional overcoat sealant and elastic
varnish on the affected nuts and fasteners. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45
80; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0758; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0758;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-093-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2018-0123, dated June 4, 2018 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS
Model A350-941 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following a complete review of the Airbus A350 structure design
principles database for type definition, it was revealed that the
balancer fitting part, installed on the tail cone, lower section of
Frame (FR) 103, has several corrosion resistant stainless steel nuts
installed on elementary aluminium parts, which does not meet the
requirements for protection against corrosion.
    This condition, if not corrected, could reduce the structural
integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus developed production
mod 110319 to improve protection against corrosion, and issued the
SB [Airbus Service Bulletin A350-53-P024] to provide modification
instructions for in-service pre-mod aeroplanes. At the same time the
production mod 110348 is equivalent to in-service solution.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a
modification, adding new additional overcoat sealant and elastic
varnish on the affected nuts and fastener heads.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0758.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletin A350-53-P024, dated April 3,
2018. This service information describes procedures for the application
of a new additional overcoat sealant and elastic varnish on the
affected nuts and fasteners. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................            $500             $670           $4,690
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in
our cost estimate.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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):

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2018-0758; Product Identifier 2018-NM-
093-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 1, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes,
certificated in any category, except those on which Airbus
modification 110319 or Airbus modification 110348 has been embodied
in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a review of the Airbus A350 structure
design principles database for type definition that revealed that
the balancer fitting part, installed on the tail cone, lower section
of frame (FR) 103, has several corrosion-resistant stainless steel
nuts installed on elementary aluminum parts, and this configuration
does not meet the requirements for protection against corrosion. We
are issuing this AD to address this condition, which if not
corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Action

    Within 72 months since the date of issuance of the original
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness, apply additional overcoat
sealant and elastic varnish to the fastener heads and the anchor
nuts of the balancer fitting at FR 103, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-53-P024,
dated April 3, 2018.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0123, dated June 4, 2018,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0758.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen
Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 9, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-17646 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P