[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22666-22671]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09416]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0175; FRL-9926-70-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particulate Standard for the Liberty-Clairton Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to make
a determination of attainment regarding the Liberty-Clairton,
Pennsylvania 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
nonattainment area (hereafter ``Liberty-Clairton Area'' or ``the
Area''). EPA is proposing to determine that the Liberty-Clairton Area
has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS), based upon quality-assured, quality-
controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data for the calendar
years 2012-2014. If EPA finalizes this ``clean data determination,''
the requirement for the Liberty-Clairton Area to submit an attainment
demonstration, reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable
further progress (RFP), and contingency measures related to attainment
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be suspended for so
long as the Area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. If finalized, this determination will not constitute a
redesignation to attainment. This proposed action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0175 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0175, Marilyn Powers, Acting Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0175. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn V[eacute]lez-Rosa, (215) 814-
2038, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Liberty-Clairton

Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This
proposed ``clean data determination'' is based upon quality assured and
certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2012-2014
monitoring period. If EPA finalizes this determination, the requirement
for the Liberty-Clairton Area to submit an attainment demonstration,
RACM, RFP, and contingency measures related to attainment of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS shall be suspended for so long as the
area continues to attain that NAAQS. However, if finalized, this
determination of attainment will not suspend Pennsylvania's other
required statutory obligations including requirements for an emissions
inventory and preconstruction permitting program for the Liberty-
Clairton Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This final
determination will not constitute a redesignation to attainment. The
Liberty-Clairton Area will remain designated nonattainment for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that
the Liberty-Clairton Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation
to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan under section
175A.

II. Background

A. PM2.5 NAAQS History

    On July 16, 1997, EPA established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS
at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) (hereafter referred to
as ``the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS''), based on a 3-year
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (62 FR 38652,
July 18, 1997). At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour standard
of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (hereafter referred to as ``the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS''). See 40 CFR 50.7. The 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS were based on significant evidence and numerous health studies
demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures
to particulate matter.
    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On
January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published its nonattainment area
designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air
quality monitoring data for calendar years 2001-2003. These
designations, effective on April 5, 2005, included the Liberty-Clairton
Area as a nonattainment area for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. The Liberty-Clairton Area is comprised of the following portion
of Allegheny County: the boroughs of Lincoln, Glassport, Liberty, and
Port Vue and the City of Clairton. See 40 CFR 81.339 (Pennsylvania).
The Liberty-Clairton Area is surrounded by, but separate and distinct
from, the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 nonattainment
area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA previously made a determination of attainment for the
Liberty-Clairton Area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 78 FR
63881 (October 25, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 21, 2006, EPA retained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ (hereby ``the 2006 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS'') based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour standard
of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
24-hour concentrations (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006). The revised
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard (hereafter ``the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS'') became effective on December 18, 2006. See 40
CFR 50.13. The more stringent 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is
based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating
that serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to
PM2.5 at this level.
    Many petitioners challenged aspects of EPA's 2006 revisions to the
PM2.5 NAAQS. See American Farm Bureau Federation and
National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir.
2009). As a result of this challenge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded the 2006 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA for further proceedings. The 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS was not affected by the remand and remains in
effect.
    On November 13, 2009, EPA published designations for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688), which became effective on
December 14, 2009. In that action, EPA designated the Liberty-Clairton
Area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
retaining the same geographical boundaries as for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    A nonattainment designation under the CAA triggers additional
planning requirements for states to show attainment of the NAAQS in the
nonattainment areas by a statutory attainment date, as specified in the
CAA. Since 2005, EPA had implemented the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS based on the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of
Part D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 1). On January 4, 2013, in
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA (NRDC v. EPA), the D.C.
Circuit determined that EPA should be implementing its PM2.5
pollution standard under additional CAA requirements than those EPA had
been following in subpart 1 and remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule) (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (2008
NSR PM2.5 Rule).\2\ 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C.
Circuit found that the EPA erred in implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS solely pursuant to subpart 1, without
consideration of the particulate matter specific provisions of subpart
4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule relates to requirements
for the NSR permitting program required by parts C and D of title I
of the CAA. The details and provisions of the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule are not relevant to this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the D.C. Circuit declined to establish a deadline for
EPA's response, EPA intends to respond promptly to the court's remand
and to promulgate new generally applicable implementation regulations
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of
subparts 1 and 4. In the interim, however, states and EPA still need to
proceed with implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS in a timely
and effective fashion in order to meet statutory obligations under the
CAA and to assure the protection of public health intended by those
NAAQS.
    While the regulatory provisions of EPA's 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule do not explicitly apply to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA's underlying statutory interpretation has
been the same for both standards. On March 2, 2012, EPA provided
implementation guidance for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
which reaffirmed and continued the framework and policy approaches of
the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule.\3\ Thus, EPA believes
that the Clean Data Policy provisions within the 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule are also applicable to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 78 FR 49403 (August 14, 2013) (proposed
determination that the Pittsburgh Area attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS which discussed the application of the 1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule's Clean Data Policy provisions to
a determination of attainment for the 2006 standard). In addition,
although the D.C. Circuit

remanded the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule to EPA, the D.C.
Circuit's decision in NRDC v. EPA related to EPA's use of subpart 1 for
CAA Part D requirements instead of subpart 1 and subpart 4, and the
decision did not cast doubt on EPA's interpretation of certain
statutory provisions underlying the Clean Data Policy nor cast any
doubt on EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation in the 1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule. See NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA subsequently withdrew the implementation guidance on
June 6, 2013 subsequent to the D.C. Circuit's decision in NRDC v.
EPA. EPA's June 6, 2013 withdrawal memorandum is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pdfs/implementationguidancewithdrawmemo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statutory provisions in subpart 4 require EPA, among other
things, to classify nonattainment areas for the PM2.5 NAAQS
based on the severity of their pollution problem. Under EPA's prior
approach to implementing the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards
according to subpart 1, EPA was not required to, and thus did not,
identify any classifications for areas designated nonattainment. In
contrast, subpart 4 of the CAA, at section 188, provides that all areas
designated nonattainment are initially classified ``by operation of
law'' as ``Moderate'' nonattainment areas, and they remain classified
as Moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA later reclassifies
them as Serious nonattainment areas or EPA determines that an area has
not attained the PM2.5 NAAQS by the area's applicable
attainment date. On April 25, 2014, EPA finalized a rule identifying
the classification of all PM2.5 areas currently designated
nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as
``Moderate,'' consistent with subpart 4 of the CAA. See 79 FR 31566
(June 2, 2014). Consequently, the Liberty-Clairton Area was classified
as Moderate for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

B. Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour NAAQS

    Under section 188(c)(1) of the CAA, a Moderate nonattainment area
shall attain the PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's
designation to nonattainment. Because the designation of nonattainment
areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on
December 14, 2009, the presumptive sixth year attainment date for
Moderate nonattainment areas would be no later than December 2015.
    To determine attainment with a NAAQS, EPA commonly uses three
calendar years of complete air quality data available for the
nonattainment area. The criteria for determining if an area is
attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are set out in 40 CFR
50.13 and appendix N. In summary, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS is met when the 24-hour design value is less than or equal to 35
[mu]g/m\3\. Three years of valid annual 98th percentile 24-hour average
PM2.5 concentration values are required to produce a valid
24-hour PM2.5 design value. A year meets data completeness
requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days
for each quarter have valid data.

C. EPA's Clean Data Policy

    Under EPA's longstanding Clean Data Policy interpretation, a
determination that a nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS suspends
the state's obligation to submit attainment-related planning
requirements of the CAA for so long as the area continues to attain the
standard.\4\ These include requirements to submit an attainment
demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measures, because the purpose
of these provisions is to help reach attainment, a goal which has
already been achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For an EPA memorandum discussing interpretation that three
years of data showing attainment of a NAAQS suspends requirements to
submit certain attainment plan SIP requirements including those in
section 172 of the CAA, see Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, EPA
Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning Standards, May 10, 1995 (Seitz Memorandum), located at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/clean15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA incorporated its Clean Data Policy interpretation in both its
8-Hour Ozone Implementation Rule in 40 CFR 51.918 and in its 1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule in 40 CFR 51.1004(c). See 72 FR
20585, 20665 (April 25, 2007). While the D.C. Circuit in its January 4,
2013 decision remanded the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule,
the Court did not address the merits of that regulation regarding our
Clean Data Policy in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), nor cast any doubt on EPA's
existing interpretation of the statutory provisions for the Clean Data
Policy. In this section of the proposed rulemaking action, EPA is
addressing the effect of a final determination of attainment under the
Clean Data Policy for the Liberty-Clairton Area, as a moderate
nonattainment area under subpart 4.
1. Background on Clean Data Policy
    Over the past two decades, EPA has consistently applied its ``Clean
Data Policy'' interpretation to attainment-related provisions of
subparts 1, 2 and 4. The Clean Data Policy is the subject of several
EPA memoranda such as the Seitz Memorandum and regulations. In
addition, numerous individual rulemakings published in the Federal
Register have applied the interpretation to a spectrum of NAAQS,
including the 1-hour and 1997 ozone, coarse particulate matter
(PM10), PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO) and lead (Pb)
standards. The D.C. Circuit has upheld the Clean Data Policy
interpretation as embodied in EPA's 1997 8-Hour Ozone Implementation
Rule, 40 CFR 51.918.\5\ NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Other U.S. Courts of Appeals that have considered and reviewed EPA's
Clean Data Policy interpretation have upheld it and the rulemakings
applying EPA's interpretation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th
Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our
Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, N. 04-73032 (9th Cir. June 28,
2005) (memorandum opinion); and Latino Issues Forum, v. EPA, Nos. 06-
75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, March 2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``EPA's Final Rule to implement the 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard-Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule).'' See 70
FR 71612, 71645-46 (November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit decision in NRDC v.
EPA, EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation under subpart 4 is set
forth here, for the purpose of identifying the effects of a
determination of attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
for the Liberty-Clairton Area. EPA has previously articulated its Clean
Data Policy interpretation under subpart 4 in implementing the
PM10 standard. See, e.g., 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010)
(determination of attainment of the PM10 standard in Coso
Junction, California); 71 FR 6352 (February 8, 2006) (Ajo, Arizona
Area); 71 FR 13021 (March 14, 2006) (Yuma, Arizona Area); 71 FR 40023
(July 14, 2006) (Weirton, West Virginia Area); 71 FR 44920 (August 8,
2006) (Rillito, Arizona Area); 71 FR 63642 (October 30, 2006) (San
Joaquin Valley, California Area); 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 2007) (Miami,
Arizona Area).
    EPA has recently articulated as well its Clean Data Policy
interpretation under subpart 4 in implementing the PM2.5
standard, including specifically the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. See 79 FR 25014 (May 2, 2014) (determination of attainment of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area, Pennsylvania) and 78 FR 63881 (October 25, 2013) (determination
of attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in Liberty-
Clairton Area, Pennsylvania). Thus, EPA has established that, under
subpart 4, an attainment determination suspends the obligations to
submit an attainment

demonstration, RACM, RFP contingency measures, and other measures
related to attainment.
2. Application of the Clean Data Policy to Attainment-Related
Provisions of Subpart 4
    EPA initially set forth at length its rationale for applying the
Clean Data Policy to PM10 under subpart 4 in EPA's proposed
and final rulemaking actions determining that the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area attained the PM10 standard. The Ninth
Circuit upheld EPA's final rulemaking, and specifically EPA's Clean
Data Policy, in the context of subpart 4. Latino Issues Forum v. EPA,
supra. Nos. 06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, March
2, 2009. In rejecting the petitioner's challenge to the Clean Data
Policy under subpart 4 for PM10, the Ninth Circuit stated,
``As the EPA explained, if an area is in compliance with
PM10 standards, then further progress for the purpose of
ensuring attainment is not necessary.''
    The general requirements of subpart 1 apply in conjunction with the
more specific requirements of subpart 4, to the extent they are not
superseded or subsumed by the subpart 4 requirements. Subpart 1
contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated
as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4, itself, contains
specific planning and scheduling requirements for PM10
nonattainment areas, and under the Court's January 4, 2013 decision in
NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general
guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making
recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for
SIPs for nonattainment areas. See ``State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990,'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (General Preamble).
In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of subpart 1
and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart 1
requirements were to an extent ``subsumed by, or integrally related to,
the more specific PM10 requirements.'' Id. These subpart 1
requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment
demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency
measures.
    EPA has long interpreted the provisions of subpart 1 (sections 171
and 172) as not requiring the submission of RFP for an area already
attaining the ozone NAAQS.\6\ For an area that is attaining, showing
that the state will make RFP towards attainment ``will, therefore, have
no meaning at that point.'' Id. See also 71 FR 40952 and 71 FR 63642
(proposed and final determination of attainment for San Joaquin
Valley); 75 FR 13710 and 75 FR 27944 (proposed and final determination
of attainment for Coso Junction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the Seitz Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 189(c)(1) of subpart 4 states that:

    Plan revisions demonstrating attainment submitted to the
Administrator for approval under this subpart shall contain
quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until
the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate reasonable
further progress, as defined in section [section 171(1)] of this
title, toward attainment by the applicable date.

    With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes of
part D, RFP ``means such annual incremental reductions in emissions of
the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.'' Thus,
whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2),
the ozone-specific RFP requirements of sections 182(b) and (c), or the
specific RFP requirements for PM10 areas of part D, subpart
4, section 189(c)(1), the stated purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment
by the applicable attainment date.
    Although section 189(c) states that revisions shall contain
milestones which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to
attainment, such milestones are designed to show reasonable further
progress ``toward attainment by the applicable attainment date,'' as
defined by section 171. Thus, it is clear that once the area has
attained the standard, no further milestones are necessary or
meaningful. This interpretation is supported by language in section
189(c)(3), which mandates that a state that fails to achieve a
milestone must submit a plan that assures that the state will achieve
the next milestone or attain the NAAQS if there is no next milestone.
Section 189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve
milestones does not continue after attainment of the NAAQS.
    In the General Preamble, EPA noted with respect to section 189(c)
that the purpose of the milestone requirement ``is `to provide for
emission reductions adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable
attainment date' (H.R. Rep.No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 (1990)).''
(57 FR 13539, April 16, 1992). If an area has in fact attained the
standard, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will have already
been fulfilled.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Thus, EPA believes that it is a distinction without a
difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP requirement as
one to be achieved until an area is ``redesignated attainment,'' as
opposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which
the requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment area RFP
requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), which refer to the
RFP requirements as applying until the ``attainment date,'' since
section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) of the
CAA. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, as with the general
RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific
requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific
requirements may only be required ``for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard
by the applicable date.'' 42 U.S.C. 7501(1). As discussed in the
text of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP requirements, in
light of the definition of RFP in section 171(1), and incorporated
in section 189(c)(1), to be a requirement that no longer applies
once the standard has been attained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the requirements of section 189(c)(2) with respect to
milestones no longer apply so long as an area has attained the
standard. Section 189(c)(2) provides in relevant part that:

    Not later than 90 days after the date on which a milestone
applicable to the area occurs, each State in which all or part of
such area is located shall submit to the Administrator a
demonstration . . . that the milestone has been met.

    Where the area has attained the standard and there are no further
milestones, there is no further requirement to make a submission
showing that such milestones have been met. This is consistent with the
position that EPA took with respect to the general RFP requirement of
section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and also in
the Seitz Memorandum with respect to the requirements of section 182(b)
and (c). In the Seitz Memorandum, EPA also noted that section 182(g),
the milestone requirement of subpart 2, which is analogous to
provisions in section 189(c), is suspended upon a determination that an
area has attained. The Seitz Memorandum, in citing additional
provisions related to attainment demonstration and RFP requirements,
stated:

    Inasmuch as each of these requirements is linked with the
attainment demonstration or RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or
182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the requirement to submit
the underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not
submit the related SIP submission either.

See Seitz Memorandum at 5.

    With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of
section 172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(B) in subpart 4, an analogous
rationale leads to the same result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that
the plan provide for ``a demonstration (including air quality modeling)
that the [SIP] will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment
date . . . '' As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already
monitoring attainment of the standard, EPA believes there is no need
for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures
to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation
of the section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General
Preamble, and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the
Seitz Memorandum. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other
measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking
redesignation to attainment since ``attainment will have been
reached.'' 57 FR 13564.
    Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to
them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements
of section 172(c)(9). EPA has interpreted the contingency measure
requirements of section 172(c)(9) \8\ as no longer applying when an
area has attained the standard because those ``contingency measures are
directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.'' See
57 FR 13564 and Seitz Memorandum, pp. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See section 182(c)(9) for ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas:

shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be
undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or
to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this
part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as
contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further
action by the State or [EPA].

    The contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the
reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements.
Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable further progress
targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not realized by the
attainment date.
     Where an area has already achieved attainment by the attainment
date, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into
attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in
the General Preamble: ``The section 172(c)(9) requirements for
contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the
applicable date.'' See 57 FR 13564. Thus these requirements no longer
apply when an area has attained the standard.
    Both sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require ``provisions to
assure that reasonably available control measures'' (i.e., RACM) are
implemented in a nonattainment area. The General Preamble, (57 FR at
13560, April 16, 1992), states that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) so
that RACM requirements are a ``component'' of an area's attainment
demonstration. Thus, for the same reason the attainment demonstration
no longer applies by its own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer
applies. EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require
only implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute to
reasonable further progress or to attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR
13498. Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no
additional RACM measures are required.\9\ EPA is interpreting section
189(a)(1)(C) consistent with its interpretation of section 172(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA's interpretation that the statute requires
implementation only of RACM measures that would advance attainment
was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745 (5th Cir. 2002)
and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The suspension of the obligations to submit SIP revisions
concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, contingency
measures and other related requirements exists only for as long as the
area continues to monitor attainment of the standard. If EPA
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area has
monitored a violation of the NAAQS, the basis for the requirements
being suspended would no longer exist. In that case, the area would
again be subject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision
or revisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, a
final determination that the area need not submit one of the pertinent
SIP submittals amounts to no more than a suspension of the requirements
for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. Only if and
when EPA redesignates the area to attainment would the area be relieved
of these submission obligations. Attainment determinations under the
Clean Data Policy do not shield an area from obligations unrelated to
attainment in the area, such as provisions to address nonattainment
area permitting requirements, emission inventory requirements, and
pollution transport. See 79 FR 77911 (December 29, 2014) (discussion of
remaining attainment plan SIP requirements in CAA section 172(c) in the
final determination of attainment rulemaking for the Lyons,
Pennsylvania lead nonattainment area).
    For this proposed rulemaking action, EPA has evaluated
PM2.5 air quality data to propose to determine that the
Liberty-Clairton Area is attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Liberty-Clairton
PM[bdi2].[bdi5] Air Quality Data

    The Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) submitted quality-
assured and certified air quality monitoring data into the EPA Air
Quality System (AQS) database for the 2012-2014 monitoring period.
There are two PM2.5 monitors in the Liberty-Clairton Area--
one in Liberty Borough and one in the City of Clairton. Both monitors
had complete data for all quarters in the calendar years 2012 through
2014.
    This proposed determination of attainment for the Liberty-Clairton
Area is based on EPA's evaluation of quality-controlled, quality
assured, certified PM2.5 air quality data for 2012-2014, as
summarized in Table 1.

                                   Table 1--2012-2014 Liberty-Clairton Area Daily PM2.5 Monitoring Data & Completeness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                98th percentile                    2012-2014
          Monitor name               AQS site ID          Location      ------------------------------------------------  Design value    Complete data?
                                                                              2012            2013            2014        ([mu]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty.........................       42-003-0064  Liberty Borough....            42.5            31.1            32.2              35  Yes.
Clairton........................       42-003-3007  City of Clairton...            19.2            17.1            31.2              23  Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown, the design values for both monitors in the Liberty-
Clairton Area are 35 [mu]g/m\3\ or less for the 2012-2014 monitoring
period. Thus, in accordance with EPA's requirements in 40 CFR part 50,
the monitors in the Liberty-Clairton Area are showing attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the 2012-2014 quality-
assured and certified air quality data, the most recent three years of
data for the Area.
    Based on our review of the Liberty-Clairton Area's PM2.5
ambient air monitoring data, EPA proposes to determine that the
Liberty-Clairton Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS during the 2012-2014 monitoring period, in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50. Additional information on air quality data for the Liberty-
Clairton Area can be found in the technical support document (TSD)
prepared for this proposed action.

IV. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to determine, based on the most recent three years
of complete quality-assured, and certified data for 2012-2014 meeting
the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, that the Liberty-
Clairton Area is currently attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. In accordance with our Clean Data Policy, based upon this
proposed determination of attainment, EPA also proposes to determine
that the obligation to submit the following attainment-related planning
requirements for the Liberty-Clairton Area are not applicable for so
long as the Area continues to monitor attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS: Subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment
demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of
section 189(a)(1)(C), the RFP provisions of section 189(c), and related
attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, and contingency measure provisions
requirements of subpart 1, section 172. If in the future, EPA
determines after notice-and-comment rulemaking that the Liberty-
Clairton Area again violates the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
the basis for suspending these requirements would no longer exist. This
proposed rulemaking action, if finalized, would not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3). In addition,
this determination, if finalized, does not relieve the requirement for
Pennsylvania to submit for the Liberty-Clairton Area an emissions
inventory as required by CAA section 172(c)(3) or to have a
nonattainment area permitting program pursuant to CAA sections
172(c)(5) and 173. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 proposed 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 proposed rule, proposing to determine that the
Liberty-Clairton Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, 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 located in the State, and EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments
or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 10, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-09416 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59342-59345]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21022]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1242; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00433-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A330-
800, A330-900, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that an A319
airplane lost the right-hand front windshield in flight. Due to the
design similarity, this condition can also exist or develop on Model
A330 and A340 airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive
detailed inspections (DET) and electrical test measurements (ETM) of
the affected parts and applicable corrective action, and would prohibit
the installation of affected parts under certain conditions, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is proposed for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November
14, 2022.

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 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 material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at
ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1242.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1242; 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 mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1242; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00433-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA,
International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0057, dated March 28, 2022
(EASA AD 2022-0057) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203,
A330-223, A330-223F, A330-243, A330-243F, A330-301, A330-302, A330-303,
A330-321, A330-322, A330-323, A330-341, A330-342, A330-343, A330-743L,
A330-841, A330-941, A340-211, A340-212, A340-213, A340-311, A340-312,
A340-313, A340-541, A340-542, A340-642, and A340-643 airplanes. Model
A330-743L,

A340-542, and A340-643 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and
are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD
therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a Model A319
airplane lost the right-hand front windshield in flight, with
consequent rapid cockpit depressurization, causing damage to cockpit
items/systems and significant increase of flightcrew workload. The
investigations identified several contributing factors, including
manufacturing variability, fretting between windshield components,
water ingress, and electrical braids corrosion, which led to a thermal
shock/overheat, damaging more than one windshield structural ply and
impairing the structural integrity of the windshield. Due to the design
similarity, this condition can also exist or develop on Model A330 and
A340 airplanes. The FAA is proposing this AD to address possible
windshield failure. This condition, if not addressed, could possibly
result in injury to the flightcrew and in-flight depressurization of
the airplane, and would significantly increase pilot workload. See the
MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0057 specifies procedures for repetitive DET and ETM
of the affected parts and applicable corrective actions. Corrective
actions include replacement. EASA AD 2022-0057 also limits the
installation of affected parts under certain conditions.
    This material 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

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after
determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to
exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2022-0057, described previously, except as described under
``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.''

Difference Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    Although EASA AD 2022-0057 requires reporting inspection findings,
this proposed AD would not require any reports. Collecting additional
information will not add to determination of the unsafe condition or
corrective actions.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2022-0057 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2022-0057 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-0057 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2022-
0057. Service information required by EASA AD 2022-0057 for compliance
will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2022-1242 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 131 airplanes
of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $425...........................              $0             $425          $55,675
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,700.         $11,393          $13,093
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected operators.

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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2022-1242; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-
00433-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD)
by November 14, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243 airplanes.
    (2) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -
343 airplanes.
    (4) Model A330-841 airplanes.
    (5) Model A330-941 airplanes.
    (6) Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
    (7) Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
    (8) Model A340-541 airplanes.
    (9) Model A340-642 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 56, Windows.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that a Model A319 airplane lost
the right-hand front windshield in flight. Due to the design
similarity, this condition can also exist or develop on Model A330 and
A340 series airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address possible
windshield failure. This condition, if not addressed, could possibly
result in injury to the flightcrew and in-flight depressurization of
the airplane, and would significantly increase pilot workload.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-
0057, dated March 28, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0057).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0057

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0057 refers to its effective date, this AD
requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2022-0057 refers to a ``defect,
as identified in the SB,'' for purposes of this AD, defects include
manufacturing variability, fretting between windshield components,
water ingress, and electrical braids corrosion.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2022-0057 does not apply to
this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although paragraphs (11) and (12) of EASA AD 2022-0057 and the
service information referenced therein specify to submit certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation 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 responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it to
the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(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 responsible Flight
Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to
obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or 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): Except as required by
paragraph(s) (j)(2) of this AD, 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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For EASA AD 2022-0057, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA AD
on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1242.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999
000; email [email protected]; internet easa.europa.eu. You may find
this material on the EASA website atad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

    Issued on September 23, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-21022 Filed 9-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63448-63453]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25203]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73383; File No. 4-678]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Notice of Filing of Proposed Plan for the Allocation of
Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. and Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC

October 17, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 17d-2 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 14, 2014, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX'') and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (together with MIAX, the ``Parties'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') a plan
for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities, dated October 13,
2014 (``17d-2 Plan'' or the ``Plan''). The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the 17d-2 Plan from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,\3\ among other things, requires every
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') registered as either a national
securities exchange or national securities association to examine for,
and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with its
members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility
pursuant to Section 17(d) or Section 19(g)(2) of the Act.\4\ Without
this relief, the statutory obligation of each individual SRO could
result in a pattern of multiple examinations of broker-dealers that
maintain memberships in more than one SRO (``common members''). Such
regulatory duplication would add unnecessary expenses for common
members and their SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17(d)(1) of the Act \5\ was intended, in part, to eliminate
unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication.\6\ With
respect to

a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission, by rule or
order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive regulatory
reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with applicable
statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other specified
regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \6\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\7\ Rule 17d-1 authorizes the
Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority
(``DEA'') to examine common members for compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO
rules.\8\ When an SRO has been named as a common member's DEA, all
other SROs to which the common member belongs are relieved of the
responsibility to examine the firm for compliance with the applicable
financial responsibility rules. On its face, Rule 17d-1 deals only with
an SRO's obligations to enforce member compliance with financial
responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from
its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own
rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters
other than financial responsibility, including sales practices and
trading activities and practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 (April 20,
1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the
Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\9\ Rule 17d-2 permits SROs
to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities with respect to their common members. Under paragraph
(c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if,
after providing for appropriate notice and comment, it determines that
the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors; to foster cooperation and coordination among
the SROs; to remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a
national market system and a national clearance and settlement system;
and is in conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the
Act. Commission approval of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2
relieves an SRO of those regulatory responsibilities allocated by the
plan to another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 (October 28,
1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Plan

    The proposed 17d-2 Plan is intended to reduce regulatory
duplication for firms that are common members of both MIAX and
FINRA.\10\ Pursuant to the proposed 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume
certain examination and enforcement responsibilities for common members
with respect to certain applicable laws, rules, and regulations. The
text of the Plan delineates the proposed regulatory responsibilities
with respect to the Parties. Included in the proposed Plan is an
exhibit (Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC Rules
Certification for 17d-2 Agreement with FINRA, referred to herein as the
``Certification'') that lists every MIAX rule for which FINRA would
bear responsibility under the Plan for overseeing and enforcing with
respect to MIAX members that are also members of FINRA and the
associated persons therewith (``Dual Members'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The proposed 17d-2 Plan refers to these common members as
``Dual Members.'' See Paragraph 1(c) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, under the 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume examination
and enforcement responsibility relating to compliance by Dual Members
with the rules of MIAX that are substantially similar to the applicable
rules of FINRA,\11\ as well as any provisions of the federal securities
laws and the rules and regulations thereunder delineated in the
Certification (``Common Rules''). In the event that a Dual Member is
the subject of an investigation relating to a transaction on MIAX, the
plan acknowledges that MIAX may, in its discretion, exercise concurrent
jurisdiction and responsibility for such matter.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See paragraph 1(b) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan (defining
Common Rules). See also paragraph 1(f) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan
(defining Regulatory Responsibilities). Paragraph 2 of the Plan
provides that annually, or more frequently as required by changes in
either MIAX rules or FINRA rules, the parties shall review and
update, if necessary, the list of Common Rules. Further, paragraph 3
of the Plan provides that MIAX shall furnish FINRA with a list of
Dual Members, and shall update the list no less frequently than once
each calendar quarter.
    \12\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Plan, MIAX would retain full responsibility for
surveillance, examination and enforcement with respect to trading
activities or practices involving MIAX's own marketplace, including,
without limitation, registration pursuant to its applicable rules of
associated persons (i.e., registration rules that are not Common
Rules); its duties and obligations as a DEA pursuant to Rule 17d-1
under the Act; and any MIAX rules that are not Common Rules.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed 17d-2 Plan is as follows:

AGREEMENT BETWEEN FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY, INC. AND
MIAMI INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, LLC PURSUANT TO RULE 17d-2
UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

    This Agreement, by and between the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') and Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``MIAX''), is made this 13th day of October, 2014 (the
``Agreement''), pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'') and Rule 17d-2 thereunder, which
permits agreements between self-regulatory organizations to allocate
regulatory responsibility to eliminate regulatory duplication. FINRA
and MIAX may be referred to individually as a ``party'' and together as
the ``parties.''
    WHEREAS, FINRA and MIAX desire to reduce duplication in the
examination of their Dual Members (as defined herein) and in the filing
and processing of certain registration and membership records; and
    WHEREAS, FINRA and MIAX desire to execute an agreement covering
such subjects pursuant to the provisions of Rule 17d-2 under the
Exchange Act and to file such agreement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission'') for its approval.
    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
hereinafter, FINRA and MIAX hereby agree as follows:
    1. Definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this Agreement or the
context otherwise requires, the terms used in this Agreement shall have
the same meaning as they have under the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder. As used in this Agreement, the following terms
shall have the following meanings:
    (a) ``MIAX Rules'' or ``FINRA Rules'' shall mean: (i) the rules of
MIAX, or (ii) the rules of FINRA, respectively, as the rules of an
exchange or association are defined in Exchange Act Section 3(a)(27).
    (b) ``Common Rules'' shall mean MIAX Rules that are substantially
similar to the applicable FINRA Rules and certain provisions of the
Exchange Act and SEC rules set forth on Exhibit 1 in that examination
for compliance

with such provisions and rules would not require FINRA to develop one
or more new examination standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in
order to analyze the application of the provision or rule, or a Dual
Member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such provision or
rule.
    (c) ``Dual Members'' shall mean those MIAX members that are also
members of FINRA and the associated persons therewith.
    (d) ``Effective Date'' shall be the date this Agreement is approved
by the Commission.
    (e) ``Enforcement Responsibilities'' shall mean the conduct of
appropriate proceedings, in accordance with FINRA's Code of Procedure
(the Rule 9000 Series) and other applicable FINRA procedural rules, to
determine whether violations of Common Rules have occurred, and if such
violations are deemed to have occurred, the imposition of appropriate
sanctions as specified under FINRA's Code of Procedure and sanctions
guidelines.
    (f) ``Regulatory Responsibilities'' shall mean the examination
responsibilities and Enforcement Responsibilities relating to
compliance by the Dual Members with the Common Rules and the provisions
of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and other
applicable laws, rules and regulations, each as set forth on Exhibit 1
attached hereto.
    2. Regulatory and Enforcement Responsibilities. FINRA shall assume
Regulatory Responsibilities and Enforcement Responsibilities for Dual
Members. Attached as Exhibit 1 to this Agreement and made part hereof,
MIAX furnished FINRA with a current list of Common Rules and certified
to FINRA that such rules that are MIAX Rules are substantially similar
to the corresponding FINRA Rules (the ``Certification''). FINRA hereby
agrees that the rules listed in the Certification are Common Rules as
defined in this Agreement. Each year following the Effective Date of
this Agreement, or more frequently if required by changes in either the
rules of MIAX or FINRA, MIAX shall submit an updated list of Common
Rules to FINRA for review which shall add MIAX Rules not included in
the current list of Common Rules that qualify as Common Rules as
defined in this Agreement; delete MIAX Rules included in the current
list of Common Rules that no longer qualify as Common Rules as defined
in this Agreement; and confirm that the remaining rules on the current
list of Common Rules continue to be MIAX Rules that qualify as Common
Rules as defined in this Agreement. Within 30 days of receipt of such
updated list, FINRA shall confirm in writing whether the rules listed
in any updated list are Common Rules as defined in this Agreement.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, it is explicitly
understood that the term ``Regulatory Responsibilities'' does not
include, and MIAX shall retain full responsibility for (unless
otherwise addressed by separate agreement or rule) (collectively, the
``Retained Responsibilities'') the following:
    (a) surveillance, examination, investigation and enforcement with
respect to trading activities or practices involving MIAX's own
marketplace;
    (b) registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated
persons (i.e., registration rules that are not Common Rules);
    (c) discharge of its duties and obligations as a Designated
Examining Authority pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Exchange Act; and
    (d) any MIAX Rules that are not Common Rules as provided in
paragraph 6.
    3. Dual Members. Prior to the Effective Date, MIAX shall furnish
FINRA with a current list of Dual Members, which shall be updated no
less frequently than once each quarter.
    4. No Charge. There shall be no charge to MIAX by FINRA for
performing the Regulatory Responsibilities and Enforcement
Responsibilities under this Agreement except as hereinafter provided.
FINRA shall provide MIAX with ninety (90) days advance written notice
in the event FINRA decides to impose any charges to MIAX for performing
the Regulatory Responsibilities under this Agreement. If FINRA
determines to impose a charge, MIAX shall have the right at the time of
the imposition of such charge to terminate this Agreement; provided,
however, that FINRA's Regulatory Responsibilities under this Agreement
shall continue until the Commission approves the termination of this
Agreement.
    5. Applicability of Certain Laws, Rules, Regulations or Orders.
Notwithstanding any provision hereof, this Agreement shall be subject
to any statute, or any rule or order of the SEC. To the extent such
statute, rule or order is inconsistent with one or more provisions of
this Agreement, the statute, rule or order shall supersede the
provision(s) hereof to the extent necessary to be properly effectuated
and the provision(s) hereof in that respect shall be null and void.
    6. Notification of Violations. In the event that FINRA becomes
aware of apparent violations of any MIAX Rules, which are not listed as
Common Rules, discovered pursuant to the performance of the Regulatory
Responsibilities assumed hereunder, FINRA shall notify MIAX of those
apparent violations for such response as MIAX deems appropriate. In the
event that MIAX becomes aware of apparent violations of any Common
Rules, discovered pursuant to the performance of the Retained
Responsibilities, MIAX shall notify FINRA of those apparent violations
and such matters shall be handled by FINRA as provided in this
Agreement. Apparent violations of Common Rules shall be processed by,
and enforcement proceedings in respect thereto shall be conducted by
FINRA as provided hereinbefore; provided, however, that in the event a
Dual Member is the subject of an investigation relating to a
transaction on MIAX, MIAX may in its discretion assume concurrent
jurisdiction and responsibility. Each party agrees to make available
promptly all files, records and witnesses necessary to assist the other
in its investigation or proceedings.
    7. Continued Assistance.
    (a) FINRA shall make available to MIAX all information obtained by
FINRA in the performance by it of the Regulatory Responsibilities
hereunder with respect to the Dual Members subject to this Agreement.
In particular, and not in limitation of the foregoing, FINRA shall
furnish MIAX any information it obtains about Dual Members which
reflects adversely on their financial condition. MIAX shall make
available to FINRA any information coming to its attention that
reflects adversely on the financial condition of Dual Members or
indicates possible violations of applicable laws, rules or regulations
by such firms.
    (b) The parties agree that documents or information shared shall be
held in confidence, and used only for the purposes of carrying out
their respective regulatory obligations. Neither party shall assert
regulatory or other privileges as against the other with respect to
documents or information that is required to be shared pursuant to this
Agreement.
    (c) The sharing of documents or information between the parties
pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver as against
third parties of regulatory or other privileges relating to the
discovery of documents or information.
    8. Statutory Disqualifications. When FINRA becomes aware of a
statutory disqualification as defined in the Exchange Act with respect
to a Dual Member, FINRA shall determine

pursuant to Sections 15A(g) and/or Section 6(c) of the Exchange Act the
acceptability or continued applicability of the person to whom such
disqualification applies and keep MIAX advised of its actions in this
regard for such subsequent proceedings as MIAX may initiate.
    9. Customer Complaints. MIAX shall forward to FINRA copies of all
customer complaints involving Dual Members received by MIAX relating to
FINRA's Regulatory Responsibilities under this Agreement. It shall be
FINRA's responsibility to review and take appropriate action in respect
to such complaints.
    10. Advertising. FINRA shall assume responsibility to review the
advertising of Dual Members subject to the Agreement, provided that
such material is filed with FINRA in accordance with FINRA's filing
procedures and is accompanied with any applicable filing fees set forth
in FINRA Rules.
    11. No Restrictions on Regulatory Action. Nothing contained in this
Agreement shall restrict or in any way encumber the right of either
party to conduct its own independent or concurrent investigation,
examination or enforcement proceeding of or against Dual Members, as
either party, in its sole discretion, shall deem appropriate or
necessary.
    12. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by MIAX or FINRA
at any time upon the approval of the Commission after one (1) year's
written notice to the other party (or such shorter time as agreed by
the parties), except as provided in paragraph 4.
    13. Arbitration. In the event of a dispute between the parties as
to the operation of this Agreement, MIAX and FINRA hereby agree that
any such dispute shall be settled by arbitration in Washington, DC in
accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association then
in effect, or such other procedures as the parties may mutually agree
upon. Judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be
entered in any court having jurisdiction. Each party acknowledges that
the timely and complete performance of its obligations pursuant to this
Agreement is critical to the business and operations of the other
party. In the event of a dispute between the parties, the parties shall
continue to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement
in good faith during the resolution of such dispute unless and until
this Agreement is terminated in accordance with its provisions. Nothing
in this Section 13 shall interfere with a party's right to terminate
this Agreement as set forth herein.
    14. Separate Agreement. This Agreement is wholly separate from the
following agreement: (1) the multiparty Agreement made pursuant to Rule
17d-2 of the Exchange Act among BATS Exchange, Inc., BOX Options
Exchange, LLC, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, C2 Options
Exchange, Incorporated, the International Securities Exchange, LLC,
FINRA, MIAX, the New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, the NYSE
Arca, Inc., The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ
OMX PHLX LLC, and MIAX Exchange, LLC involving the allocation of
regulatory responsibilities with respect to common members for
compliance with common rules relating to the conduct by broker-dealers
of accounts for listed options or index warrants entered as approved by
the SEC on July 26, 2013, and as may be amended from time to time; and
(2) the multiparty Agreement made pursuant to Rule 17d-2 of the
Exchange Act among NYSE MKT LLC, BATS Exchange, Inc., BOX Options
Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated,
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, International Securities
Exchange LLC, FINRA, NYSE Arca, Inc., The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC,
NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc., MIAX, and MIAX Exchange, LLC involving the
allocation of regulatory responsibilities with respect to SRO market
surveillance of common members activities with regard to certain common
rules relating to listed options approved by the SEC on July 26, 2013,
and as may be amended from time to time.
    15. Notification of Members. MIAX and FINRA shall notify Dual
Members of this Agreement after the Effective Date by means of a
uniform joint notice.
    16. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended in writing provided
that the changes are approved by both parties. All such amendments must
be filed with and approved by the Commission before they become
effective.
    17. Limitation of Liability. Neither FINRA nor MIAX nor any of
their respective directors, governors, officers or employees shall be
liable to the other party to this Agreement for any liability, loss or
damage resulting from or claimed to have resulted from any delays,
inaccuracies, errors or omissions with respect to the provision of
Regulatory Responsibilities as provided hereby or for the failure to
provide any such responsibility, except with respect to such liability,
loss or damages as shall have been suffered by one or the other of
FINRA or MIAX and caused by the willful misconduct of the other party
or their respective directors, governors, officers or employees. No
warranties, express or implied, are made by FINRA or MIAX with respect
to any of the responsibilities to be performed by each of them
hereunder.
    18. Relief from Responsibility. Pursuant to Sections 17(d)(1)(A)
and 19(g) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17d-2 thereunder, FINRA and MIAX
join in requesting the Commission, upon its approval of this Agreement
or any part thereof, to relieve MIAX of any and all responsibilities
with respect to matters allocated to FINRA pursuant to this Agreement;
provided, however, that this Agreement shall not be effective until the
Effective Date.
    19. Severability. Any term or provision of this Agreement that is
invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such
jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or
unenforceability without rendering invalid or unenforceable the
remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement or affecting the
validity or enforceability of any of the terms or provisions of this
Agreement in any other jurisdiction.
    20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and such
counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has executed or caused this
Agreement to be executed on its behalf by a duly authorized officer as
of the date first written above.

MIAMI INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, LLC.

By:--------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:
Title:

FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY, INC.

By:--------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:
Title:

EXHIBIT 1
Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC Rules Certification for
17d-2 Agreement with FINRA
    Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'') hereby
certifies that the requirements contained in the rules listed below are
identical to, or substantially similar to, the comparable FINRA (NASD)
Rule, Exchange Act provision or SEC rule identified (``Common Rules'').

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      FINRA (NASD) rules, exchange act
            MIAX rules                      provision or SEC rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 301 Just and Equitable         FINRA Rule 2010 Standards of
 Principles of Trade \14\.           Commercial Honor and Principles of
                                     Trade.*
Rule 303 Prevention of the Misuse   Section 15(g) of the Exchange Act.
 of Material Nonpublic Information
 \1\ \15\.
Rule 315 Anti-Money Laundering      FINRA Rule 3310 Anti-Money
 Compliance Program \2\.             Laundering Compliance Program.
Rule 318(a) Manipulation..........  FINRA Rule 2020 Use of Manipulative,
                                     Deceptive or other Fraudulent
                                     Devices.*
Rule 318(b) Manipulation..........  FINRA Rule 6140 Other Trading
                                     Practices.
Rule 319 Forwarding of Proxy and    FINRA Rule 2251 Processing and
 Other Issuer-Related Materials      Forwarding of Proxy and Other
 \16\.                               Issuer-Related Materials.
Rule 320 Trading Ahead of Research  FINRA Rule 5280 Trading Ahead of
 Reports.                            Research Reports.
Rule 800(a), (b) and (d)            FINRA Rule 4511 General
 Maintenance, Retention and          Requirements* and Section 17 of the
 Furnishing of Books, Records and    Exchange Act and the rules
 Other Information \1\ \17\.         thereunder.
Rule 1304 Continuing Education for  FINRA Rule 1250(a)(1)-(4) and (b)
 Registered Persons \18\.            Continuing Education Requirements.
Rule 1321 Transfer of Accounts....  FINRA Rule 11870 Customer Account
                                     Transfer Contracts.
Rule 1325 Telemarketing...........  FINRA Rule 3230 Telemarketing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ FINRA shall only have Regulatory Responsibilities regarding the
  rule and not the interpretations and policies.
\15\ FINRA shall not have Regulatory Responsibilities regarding the rule
  to the extent it requires notification to MIAX.
\16\ FINRA shall not have Regulatory Responsibilities regarding
  subsection (c) of Rule 319.
\17\ FINRA shall not have Regulatory Responsibilities regarding
  maintaining books and records as may be prescribed by MIAX to the
  extent it makes the rule inconsistent with the FINRA or SEC rule.
\18\ FINRA shall not have Regulatory Responsibilities for exercise of
  exemptive or other discretionary authority by MIAX to the extent it
  makes the rule inconsistent with the FINRA rule. In addition, FINRA
  shall only have Regulatory Responsibilities to the extent the category
  of persons subject to MIAX registration is the same as FINRA.

    In addition, the following provisions shall be part of this 17d-2
Agreement:

SEA Rule 200 of Regulation SHO--Definition of ``Short Sale'' and
Marking Requirements and
SEA Rule 203 of Regulation SHO--Borrowing and Delivery Requirements

    * FINRA shall not have Regulatory Responsibilities for these rules
as they pertain to violations of insider trading activities, which is
covered by a separate 17d-2 Agreement by and among BATS Exchange, Inc.,
BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., Chicago
Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.,
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National Stock
Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Amex LLC, and NYSE
Arca Inc., effective December 16, 2011, as may be amended from time to
time.

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

    Pursuant to Section 17(d)(1) of the Act \194\ and Rule 17d-2
thereunder,\15\ after November 13, 2014, the Commission may, by written
notice, declare the plan submitted by MIAX and FINRA, File No. 4-678,
to be effective if the Commission finds that the plan is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors,
to foster cooperation and coordination among self-regulatory
organizations, or to remove impediments to and foster the development
of the national market system and a national system for the clearance
and settlement of securities transactions and in conformity with the
factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    In order to assist the Commission in determining whether to approve
the proposed 17d-2 Plan and to relieve MIAX of the responsibilities
which would be assigned to FINRA, interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number 4-678 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number 4-678. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed plan that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
plan between the Commission and any person, other than those that may
be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business days between
the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the plan also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of MIAX
and FINRA. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-678
and should be submitted on or before November 7, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25203 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 68463]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0024; OMB No. 1660-0022]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Community Rating System (CRS) Program--Application
Worksheets and Commentary.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 086-0-35, Community Rating
System Application Letter of Interest and Quick Check Instructions;
FEMA Form 086-0-35A, Community Annual Recertification; and FEMA Form
086-0-35B, Environmental and Historic Preservation Certifications.
    Abstract: The CRS Application and Certifications are used by
communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program's
(NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to document activities that
communities have undertaken to mitigate against future flood losses.
The CRS Application and Certifications provide a step-by-step process
for communities to follow in their efforts to achieve the maximum
amount of discount on flood insurance premiums. CRS is a voluntary
program where flood insurance costs are reduced in communities that
implement practices, such as building codes and public education
activities, that are recognized as reducing risks of flooding and
promoting the purchase of flood insurance.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,274.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 32,908 hours.
    Estimated Cost: There are no estimated operational, maintenance,
capital or start-up costs associated with this information collection.

    Dated: November 7, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-27271 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-11-P