The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Virginia is the
IMPROVE network. As discussed in section V.B.2. of this notice, there
are currently two IMPROVE sites in Virginia, which serve as the
monitoring sites for Shenandoah National Park and James River Face
Wilderness Area in Virginia.
    IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for
the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the Virginia regional
haze submittal. In the submittal, Virginia states its intention to rely
on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring
requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional haze
implementation periods. Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network
will be used nearly continuously for preparing the five-year progress
reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis
of the preceding five years of data. The Visibility Information
Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and
the other RPOs to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data
analysis tools. Virginia is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to
maintain the VIEWS or a similar data management system to facilitate
analysis of the IMPROVE data.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, the FLMs perform long-term
limited monitoring that provides additional insight into progress
toward regional haze goals. Also, VADEQ operates a comprehensive
PM2.5 network of filter-based Federal reference method
monitors, continuous mass monitors, and filter-based speciated
monitors.

F. Consultation With States and FLMs

1. Consultation With Other States
    In December 2006 and in May 2007, the State Air Directors from the
VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose
of the meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states
invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide
additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses
showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of
the Class I areas

in the VISTAS region. VADEQ has evaluated the impact of sources on
Class I areas in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area
is located is responsible for determining which sources, both inside
and outside of that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress
controls. Because many of these states had not yet defined their
criteria for identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress,
VADEQ applied its AOI methodology to identify sources in the
Commonwealth that have emissions units with impacts large enough to
potentially warrant further evaluation and analysis. The Commonwealth
identified five emissions units in Virginia with a contribution of one
percent or more to the visibility impairment at Class I areas in
neighboring states.
    Regarding the impact of sources outside of the Commonwealth on the
Class I areas in Virginia, VADEQ sent letters to Maryland, North
Carolina, and West Virginia pertaining to emissions units within these
states that the Commonwealth believes contributed one percent or higher
to visibility impairment in the Virginia Class I areas. Virginia
identified three facilities in Maryland (Westvaco/Luke Plant, Eastalco
Aluminum, and Mirant Mid-Atlantic), one facility in North Carolina
(Duke Energy Dan River Steam Station), and four facilities in West
Virginia (Capital Cement Corporation, Dominion-Mount Storm, Monogahela-
Harrison, and Appalachian Power-John E. Amos) as meeting its
SO2 AOI contribution threshold. VADEQ opted not to request
any additional emissions reductions for reasonable progress from North
Carolina during the first implementation period. Responses from the
neighboring states can be found in Virginia's Appendix J of the October
4, 2010 submittal. Any controls resulting from those will provide
additional emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement,
which gives further assurances that Virginia will achieve its RPGs.
Therefore, to be conservative, Virginia opted not to rely on any
additional emissions reductions from sources located outside the
Commonwealth's boundaries beyond those already identified in Virginia's
regional haze SIP submittal and as discussed in section V.C.1. (Federal
and state controls in place by 2018) of this action.
    Virginia received letters from the MANE-VU RPO States of New Jersey
and New Hampshire in the Spring of 2007, stating that they wish to have
further consultation with Virginia about visibility impairment to Class
I areas in those states. MANE-VU met with VISTAS states on August 20,
2007 in Atlanta, Georgia and presented their ``asks'' which are the
RPGs for the MANE-VU Class I Areas. As part of its ``asks,'' the MANE-
VU states identified 167 EGU stacks that impact their Class I areas the
most requested states to implement a 90 percent control efficiency for
SO2 on those stacks. The MANE-VU states identified 10 EGU
stacks in Virginia as a part of the 167 EGU stacks. It also requested a
control strategy to provide a 28 percent reduction in SO2
emissions from sources other than EGUs that would be equivalent to
MANE-VU's proposed low sulfur fuel oil strategy. Of the Virginia EGUs
identified by MANE-VU, 82 percent of those sources have existing
SO2 controls or will have SO2 controls by 2018 or
sooner.
    VISTAS modeling showed that no Virginia stack contributes more than
1 percent or more to the calculated visibility impairment to the
Brigantine Class I area in contrast to the MANE-VU modeling. Virginia's
non-EGUs are predicted to emit 57,790 tons of SO2 in 2018.
MANE-VU requested a 28 percent reduction in these emissions, or
approximately 16,181 tons. Two EGUs in Virginia not on the MANE-VU
listing of 167 stacks already have enforceable conditions in place that
will provide reductions of 16,900 tons of SO2 satisfying the
non-EGU reductions requested by MANE-VU. VADEQ believes that these
emissions reductions satisfy MANE-VU's request.
    EPA finds that Virginia has adequately addressed the consultation
requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented its consultation
with other states in its SIP submittal. See Appendix J of Virginia's
October 4, 2010 submittal for state letters and the Commonwealth's
responses and Appendix D for specific emission inventories.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
    Through the VISTAS RPO, Virginia and the nine other member states
worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the
regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. VADEQ also provided a draft
plan dated October 1, 2007, to the FLMs (and EPA) for review. Appendix
J of the Virginia regional haze SIP submittal includes the comment
letters from the FLMs, which indicate that the FLMs appear to be
generally supportive of the Commonwealth's regional haze SIP, and were
pleased with the technical information summarized in the regional haze
SIP narrative. The FLM comments mainly suggested that Virginia insert
language to further expand and/or clarify certain information. For
example, the FLMs requested that VADEQ discuss the linkage between the
LTS and the Commonwealth's NSR/PSD program in the SIP narrative.
Additionally, the FLMs asked VADEQ to reiterate statements in the
appendices regarding the conclusions of interstate consultation
discussions in the SIP narrative. The FLMs also suggested that emission
inventory data from 2002 in the SIP narrative be put with the
projection data for 2009 and 2018 to aid the reader with understanding
the anticipated effects of Virginia's LTS. To address the requirement
for continuing consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4), VADEQ made a commitment in the SIP to ongoing
consultation with the FLMs on regional haze issues throughout
implementation of its plan, including annual discussions. VADEQ also
affirms in the SIP that FLM consultation is required for those sources
subject to the Commonwealth's NSR regulations.

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    As also summarized in section V.D. of this action, consistent with
40 CFR 51.308(g), VADEQ affirmed its commitment to submitting a
progress report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years
following this initial submittal of the Virginia regional haze SIP. The
report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the
mandatory Class I areas located within Virginia and in each mandatory
Class I area located outside Virginia that may be affected by emissions
from within Virginia. Virginia also offered recommendations for several
technical improvements that, as funding allows, can support the
Commonwealth's next LTS. These recommendations are discussed in detail
in the Virginia submittal in Appendix K. If another state's regional
haze SIP identifies that Virginia's SIP needs to be supplemented or
modified, and if, after appropriate consultation Virginia agrees,
today's action may be revisited, or additional information and/or
changes will be addressed in the five-year progress report SIP
revision.

VI. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative

burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts * * * . '' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

VII. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of
the revisions to the Virginia SIP submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia on July 17, 2008, March 6, 2009, January 14, 2010, October 4,
2010, November 19, 2010, and May 6, 2011, as meeting some of the
applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and
169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308, as described previously in
this action. The limited disapproval is only in regard to the SIP
revisions' reliance on CAIR as an alternative to BART for
SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs and as a part of
its long-term strategy. EPA has proposed in a separate notice a FIP
that would correct this deficiency in Virginia's regional haze SIP by
indicating that the Transport Rule is the alternative to this portion
of the BART requirement. EPA is also proposing to find that the
revisions submitted by Virginia meet the applicable visibility related
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) including, but not limited to
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry
into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric
Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for

informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and
12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.''
``Policies that have Federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with
state and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.

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

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires Federal agencies to
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation.
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to
this action. Today's limited approval and limited disapproval does not
require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this Virginia Regional Haze proposed action. In reviewing
SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices,
based on the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, it 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

     Dated: January 17, 2012.
W. C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-1510 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64051-64053]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22191]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 181 / Monday, September 19, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5591; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-193-AD;
Amendment 39-18651; AD 2016-19-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-15-07 for
certain Airbus Model A320-111 airplanes and Model A320-200 series
airplanes. AD 2005-15-07 required installing insulator and cable ties
to the electrical cables of the S routes at the gaps in the raceway in
the wing trailing edge and the wing tip and wing root areas. This new
AD requires additional modifications in the trailing edges of both
wings. This new AD also removes airplanes from the applicability. This
AD was prompted by reports of wire chafing in the left-hand wing
trailing edge. We are issuing this AD to prevent wire chafing in the
trailing edge of the wings, which could result in a short circuit in
the vicinity of the fuel tanks, consequently resulting in a potential
source of ignition in a fuel tank vapor space and consequent fuel tank
explosion.

DATES: This AD is effective October 24, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 24,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5591.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5591; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-
647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2005-15-07, Amendment 39-14196 (70 FR 43024,
July 26, 2005) (``AD 2005-15-07''). AD 2005-15-07 applied to certain
Airbus Model A320-111 airplanes and Model A320-200 series airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2016 (81 FR
23199). The NPRM was prompted by reports of wire chafing in the left-
hand wing trailing edge. The NPRM proposed to continue to require
installing insulator and cable ties to the electrical cables of the S
routes at the gaps in the raceway in the wing trailing edge and the
wing tip and wing root areas. The NPRM proposed to require additional
modifications in the trailing edges of both wings. The NPRM also
proposed to remove airplanes from the applicability. We are issuing
this AD to prevent wire chafing in the trailing edge of the wings,
which could result in a short circuit in the vicinity of the fuel
tanks, consequently resulting in a potential source of ignition in a
fuel tank vapor space and consequent fuel tank explosion.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0198, dated September 5, 2014 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by an accident * * *, the FAA published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88 [(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001)], and the
Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/
25/12.
    Prompted by that regulation, the results of an Airbus review of
the A320 type design identified, on certain aeroplanes, a possible
ignition source in fuel tank vapour space(s). That condition, if not
corrected, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss
of the aeroplane.
    It was, therefore, decided to modify the cable routes of the
wing trailing edge, aft of the rear spar and wing tip of those
aeroplanes, to be applied in service in accordance with the
instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-24-1062 Revision
05. Following that decision, DGAC France issued AD F-2004-173 (EASA
approval number 2004-10570) to require that modification.
    After that AD was issued, it was found that additional work,
introduced by Airbus SB A320-24-1062 Revision 05, was not included
as part of the normal accomplishment instructions, which meant that
the additional work might not be accomplished. Consequently, EASA
issued AD 2008-0051, retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD F-
2004-173 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2005-15-07], which was
superseded, and required the accomplishment of the additional work
in accordance with the instructions of Airbus SB A320-24-1062
Revision 06. EASA AD 2008-0051 was revised to reduce the
Applicability and to add a clarification to paragraph (2).
    After EASA AD 2008-0051R1 was issued, some operators reported
wire chafing in the left hand wing trailing edge. Investigation

established that the wire chafing, initiated at raceway gaps, was
either due to maintenance action(s), or to structure vibrations.
    Prompted by these findings, Airbus developed two modifications
to prevent any further wire chafing by introducing an additional
protection at raceway gaps and a new cable standard in the trailing
edges of both wings.
    Airbus published SB A320-92-1049 and SB A320-92-1052 to make
these modifications available for in-service application. At the
time of incorporation of Airbus SB A320-24-1062, these two
modifications were considered recommended only.
    EASA recently determined that this condition, if not corrected,
could lead to a short circuit on 115 volts in the vicinity of fuel
tanks, consequently creating another risk of ignition source in a
fuel tank vapour space.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2008-0051R1, which is superseded, and
requires modifications to install the additional anti-chafing
protection and the new cable standard.

    This AD also removes Model A320-214, -232, and -233 airplanes from
the applicability because those airplane models have been modified in
production or in service. This AD also removes Model A320-111 airplanes
from the applicability because those airplanes are no longer on the
U.S. type certificate data sheet (there are no more A320-111 airplanes
in service in the U.S. and none in storage). You may examine the MCAI
in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5591.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletins A320-92-1049, Revision 01,
dated November 28, 2011; A320-92-1052, dated December 5, 2007; and
A320-24-1062, Revision 07, dated November 28, 2011.
    Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1049, Revision 01, dated November
28, 2011, describes procedures for installing the additional anti-
chafing protection.
    Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1052, dated December 5, 2007,
describes procedures for replacing the current electrical cable with
the new standard one.
    Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 07, dated November
28, 2011, describes procedures for installing insulator and cable ties
to the electrical cables of the S routes at the gaps in the raceway in
the wing trailing edge and the wing tip and wing root areas.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 47 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2005-15-07, and retained in this AD take
about 35 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD
2005-15-07 is $2,975 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take about 76 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $13,000 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $914,620, or $19,460 per product.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2005-15-07, Amendment 39-14196 (70 FR 43024, July 26, 2005), and adding
the following new AD:

2016-19-02 Airbus: Amendment 39-18651; Docket No. FAA-2016-5591;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-193-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 24, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2005-15-07, Amendment 39-14196 (70 FR 43024,
July 26, 2005) (``AD 2005-15-07'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231
airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial
numbers except those on which Airbus Modification 22626 has been
embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical
Power; and Code 92.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of wire chafing in the left-hand
wing trailing edge. We are issuing this AD to prevent wire chafing
in the trailing edge of the wings, which could result in a short
circuit in the vicinity of the fuel tanks, consequently resulting in
a potential source of ignition in a fuel tank vapor space and
consequent fuel tank explosion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Modification, With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2005-15-07, with revised service information. Within 60 months after
August 30, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-15-07), install
insulator and cable ties to the electrical cables of the S routes at
the gaps in the raceway in the wing trailing edge and the wing tip
and wing root areas, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-24-1062, Revision 05, dated June 27, 2002; or the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1062,
Revision 07, dated November 28, 2011. As of the effective date of
this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 07,
dated November 28, 2011, may be used.

(h) New Requirement of This AD: Modification of Trailing Edges

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the
trailing edges of both wings by accomplishing the actions specified
in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Install the additional anti-chafing protection in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-92-1049, Revision 01, dated November 28, 2011.
    (2) Replace the current electrical cable with the new standard
one in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-92-1052, dated December 5, 2007. During the
replacement, ensure that the anti-chafing protection specified in
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1049, Revision 01, dated November
28, 2011, as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, remains in
place.

(i) New Additional Modification

    For airplanes on which the installation specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 05, dated June 27, 2002, has
been done: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD,
install insulators and cable ties, in accordance with
``Modification--Additional Work (Introduced at Revision No. 06)'' of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-
1062, Revision 07, dated November 28, 2011.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-24-1062, Revision 06, dated June 26, 2007, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-
1049, dated July 23, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in
this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0198, dated September 5,
2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5591.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(4) and (m)(5) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 24, 2016.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 07, dated
November 28, 2011.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1049, Revision 01, dated
November 28, 2011.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1052, dated December 5,
2007. (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 6, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-22191 Filed 9-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7604-7607]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2925]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63832; File No. SR-NSX-2011-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Expand Use of Self Trade Prevention Order Modifiers

February 3, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 28, 2011, National Stock Exchange, Inc. filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed
rule change as constituting a non-controversial rule change under Rule
19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX[supreg]'' or the ``Exchange'')
proposes to allow the Self Trade Prevention order modifier to be used
in conjunction with Zero Display Reserve Orders.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nsx.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed

any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C
below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Self Trade Prevention (``STP'') modifier under NSX Rule
11.11(c)(1) allows an ETP Holder to submit orders that may avoid
trading against other orders of the same ETP Holder. Currently, Rule
11.11(c)(1)(D) excludes the use of the STP Modifier with Zero Display
Reserve Orders (as defined in Rule 11.11(c)(2)(A)). In the instant rule
change, the Exchange proposes to allow the use of the STP modifier with
Zero Display Reserve Orders. The proposed changes are more fully
discussed below.
Background
    As more fully discussed in the rule filing pursuant to which this
order modifier was introduced,\4\ the ``Self Trade Prevention''
modifier is instructions designed to prevent two orders with the same
designated Unique Identifier (as defined below) from executing against
each other. The ETP Holder elects at the time an STP modified order is
submitted whether the new order, an existing order (which must also
have been submitted with an STP modifier) or both orders will be
cancelled (or rejected, as applicable) instead of otherwise
interacting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61781 (March 25, 2010),
75 FR 16540 (April 1, 2010) (SR-NSX-2010-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three STP modifiers can be set at one of three identification
levels: the market participant level (pursuant to the ``MPID''), the
FIX session level (pursuant to ``FIX Session ID'') or an ETP Holder's
user level (pursuant to the ``Party ID'') (any such identifier, a
``Unique Identifier'').\5\ The STP instruction on the incoming order
controls the interaction between two orders marked with STP modifiers
from the same Unique Identifier. As further described in the rule
filing pursuant to which the STP modifier became available,\6\ the
three STP modifiers are ``STP Reject Newest (``STPN'')'', STP Cancel
Oldest (``STPO''), and STP Cancel Both (``STPB'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Each ETP Holder is issued a unique MPID identifier that
allows the Exchange to determine the ETP Holder for each order and/
or execution. The FIX Session ID is unique to each physical
connection between the Exchange and an ETP Holder. The Party ID
identifies a unique user of an ETP Holder.
    \6\ See supra, footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An incoming order marked with the STPN modifier will not execute
against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier
originating from the same Unique Identifier. The incoming order marked
with the STPN modifier will be rejected. The resting order marked with
an STP modifier, which otherwise would have interacted with the
incoming order from the same Unique Identifier, will remain on the NSX
Book. An incoming order marked with the STPO modifier will not execute
against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier
originating from the same Unique Identifier. The resting order marked
with the STP modifier, which otherwise would have interacted with the
incoming order by the same Unique Identifier, will be cancelled. The
incoming order marked with the STPO modifier will remain on the NSX
Book. An incoming order marked with the STPB modifier will not execute
against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier
originating from the same Unique Identifier. The entire size of both
orders will be rejected or cancelled, as applicable.
    STP modifiers are intended to prevent interaction between the same
Unique Identifier. STP modifiers must be present on both the buy and
the sell order in order to prevent a trade from occurring and to effect
a cancel and/or reject instruction.
Use of STP Modifiers With Zero Display Reserve Orders
    The instant rule change proposes to delete paragraph (D) of NSX
Rule 11.11(c)(1), which currently prohibits the use of the STP Modifier
in connection with Zero Display Reserve Orders. At the time of the
implementation of Rule 11.11(c)(1), Zero Display Reserve Orders were
made unavailable in connection with the use of the STP modifier because
of technical challenges regarding identification of the ``old'' versus
the ``new'' Zero Display Reserve Order for STP purposes under certain
circumstances. Since that time, the Exchange has modified the system to
recognize, for purposes of the STP modifier and consistent with all
other order combinations, the original timestamp of a Zero Display
Reserve Order as definitive for purposes of identifying the ``old''
versus ``new'' order in the context of STP modifiers.
    The following are examples of how the STP modifier operates in
connection with various types of Zero Display Reserve Orders.\7\ Each
example assumes the national best bid/offer is 20.00/20.10 and that ETP
Holder A's STP modifiers pertain to the same Unique Identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Other examples of how orders with the STP modifier operate
are contained in the Exchange's rule filing proposing approval of
the modifier. See supra, footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1: Interaction of Two Zero Display Reserve Orders
    ETP Holder A enters a Zero Display Reserve Order to buy 500 shares
@ 20.05 with an STP--Cancel Old (``STPO'') modifier. Thereafter, ETP
Holder A enters a Zero Display Reserve Order to sell 500 shares @
20.05, also with an STPO modifier.
    Example 1 Result: The first order is cancelled because the STP
instruction on the incoming order controls the interaction between two
orders marked with STP modifiers from the same Unique Identifier. The
second order to sell 500 @ 20.05 will remain on the book.
Example 2: Interaction of a Zero Display Reserve Order (Pegged to
Primary) and a Limit Order
    ETP Holder A enters a Zero Display Reserve Order to sell, pegged to
track the national best offer (``Pegged to Primary'') under Rule
11.11(c)(2)(A) (which order will track the best offer), with an STPO
modifier. Subsequently, ETP Holder A enters a limit order to buy for
20.05 with a STPO modifier. Thereafter, the market moves and the best
offer becomes 20.05.
    Example 2 Result: The first order is cancelled. The second order to
buy for 20.05 will remain on the book.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Absent operation of the STP modifier, entry of the second
order would have caused the Zero Display Reserve Order to `flip'
(i.e., change from liquidity provider to a liquidity taker) and
interact with the limit order bid; however, since both are STP
orders of the same ETP Holder with the same Unique Identifiers, the
two orders will not execute. Rather, the Zero Display Reserve Order,
as the ``old'' (resting) order based on its earlier timestamp, will
be cancelled back to the client consistent with the instructions of
the new STP modified order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 3: Interaction of a Zero Display Reserve Order and a Zero
Display Reserve Order (Midpoint Peg/Post Only)
    ETP Holder A enters a Zero Display Reserve Order to buy 500 shares
@ 20.09, with an STPO modifier. Thereafter, ETP Holder A enters a Zero
Display Reserve Order (Midpoint Peg) under Rule 11.11(c)(2)(A) (which
will track the midpoint), Post Only, to sell 500 shares, with an STPO
modifier.
    Example 3 Result: The Zero Display Reserve Order (Midpoint Peg/Post
Only) will post to the book. The first order, the Zero Display Reserve
Order to buy, will

be cancelled back to the client \9\ consistent with the STPO
instructions on the second order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Absent operation of the STP modifier, the first order will
flip and execute against the second order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 4: Interaction of a Zero Display Reserve Order and a Zero
Display Reserve Order (Market Peg/Post Only)
    ETP Holder A enters a Zero Display Reserve Order to buy 500 shares
@ 20.00, with an STPO modifier. Thereafter, ETP Holder A enters a Zero
Display Reserve Order (Market Peg) under Rule 11.11(c)(2)(A) (which
will track the bid), Post Only, to sell 500 shares, with an STPO
modifier.
    Example 4 Result: The Zero Display Reserve Order (Market Peg/Post
Only) will post to the book. The first order, the Zero Display Reserve
Order to buy, will be cancelled back to the client \10\ consistent with
the STPO instructions on the second order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Absent operation of the STP modifier, the first order will
flip and execute against the second order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Discussion
    The Exchange believes that expanding the STP functionality to Zero
Display Reserve Orders will allow ETP Holders to better manage order
flow and prevent undesirable executions with themselves or the
potential for (or the appearance of) ``wash sales'' that may occur as a
result of the velocity of trading in today's high speed marketplace.
Many ETP Holders have multiple connections into the Exchange due to
capacity and speed related demands. Orders routed by the same ETP
Holder via different connections or in different capacities may, in
certain circumstances, trade against each other. The availability of
STP modifiers for use in conjunction with Zero Display Reserve Orders
provide ETP Holders the opportunity to prevent these potentially
undesirable trades occurring under the same Unique Identifier on both
the buy and sell side of the execution.
    The Exchange notes that the STP modifiers do not alleviate, or
otherwise exempt, broker-dealers from their best execution obligations.
Broker-dealers using the STP modifiers on agency orders will be
obligated to execute those agency orders at the same price, or a better
price than they would have received had the orders been executed on the
Exchange. Finally, the Exchange notes that expanding the STP modifier
to use with Zero Display Reserve Orders will streamline certain
regulatory functions by reducing inadvertent self-trade executions that
would otherwise be captured by Exchange generated wash trading
surveillance reports when orders are executed under the same Unique
Identifier. The Exchange has developed a surveillance program to
identify the use of the STP modifier on agency orders, in connection
with Zero Display Reserve Orders and otherwise, and to surveil such
orders for potential misuse. For these reasons, the Exchange believes
the use of STP modifiers with the Zero Display Reserve Order offers ETP
Holders enhanced order processing functionality that may prevent
potentially undesirable executions without negatively impacting broker-
dealer best execution obligations.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \12\ in particular in that
it is designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change advances these objectives by making available to ETP
Holders that use Zero Display Reserve Orders an order modifier that is
currently in use elsewhere within the national market system \13\ and
by allowing firms to better manage order flow and prevent undesirable
executions against themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \13\ See BATS Rule 11.9(f)(1), (2) and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSX-2011-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2011-01. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\16\ all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NSX-2011-01 and should be submitted on or before March
3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2925 Filed 2-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32617-32621]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12779]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918; FRL-9387-7]
RIN 2070-AB27

Proposed Modification of Significant New Uses of 1-Propene,
2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), EPA is proposing to amend the significant new use rule (SNUR)
for the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-
tetrafluoro-, which was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P-
07-601. This action would amend the SNUR to allow the manufacture and
processing for certain uses without requiring a significant new use
notice (SNUN). EPA is proposing this amendment based on review of newly
submitted exposure and toxicity data.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. ATTN:
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2008-918. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be 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 regulations.gov or email. The
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 regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the 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 docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Jim
Alwood, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8974; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
import, process, or use the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene,
2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro- (PMN P-07-601). Potentially affected entities may
include, but are not limited to:
     Manufacturers, importers, or processors of the subject
chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical
manufacturers and petroleum refineries.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Sec.  721.5. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.

    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    In the Federal Register of October 27, 2010 (75 FR 65987) (FRL-
8846-8), EPA published a final SNUR (codified at Sec.  721.10182) for
the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-,
(PMN P-07-601; CAS No. 754-12-1; which is also identified by the trade
name HFO-1234yf), in accordance with the procedures at Sec.  721.170. A
SNUR requires persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process the
chemical substance for an activity designated as a significant new use
to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.
    EPA is proposing to amend the scope of the SNUR as detailed in this
unit. In addition, EPA is proposing to clarify the language in the
regulatory text to more clearly communicate that the manufacture and
processing for use as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning
systems in new passenger cars and vehicles as reported in the original
PMN is not subject to the notification requirement. The docket includes
information considered by the Agency in developing the final rule and
the new information considered when proposing the modification to this
rule.
PMN Number P-07-601
    Chemical name: 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-.
    CAS number: 754-12-1.
    Federal Register publication date and reference: October 27, 2010
(75 FR 65987).
    Basis for modification of the SNUR: In the final SNUR, EPA
explained that it sought additional information to review use by
consumers attempting to recharge air conditioning systems in vehicles
originally charged with the refrigerant. Specifically, EPA sought an
acute rabbit inhalation toxicity study to better characterize health
effects from a single exposure and sought additional information on
techniques or equipment to minimize exposure to consumers and data that
quantifies exposures for durations shorter than the 30-minute time-
weighted average (TWA) presented in the exposure study conducted by the
PMN submitter. In response, the PMN submitter conducted an acute
inhalation toxicity study with rabbits on the PMN substance. The
submitted results demonstrated no toxicity in the one-hour exposure of
rabbits to 0, 50,000, and 100,000 parts per million (ppm) of the PMN
substance. The human equivalent concentration of the 100,000 ppm
exposure in rabbits is 190,000 ppm and was utilized for a risk
assessment. In addition, potential after-market manufacturers and the
PMN submitter also provided additional information on the previously
submitted exposure study that was conducted quantifying the exposures
for durations shorter than 30 minutes and data on exposures from use of
certain specified fittings. The test conditions demonstrated a highest
30-minute TWA exposure of 1,789 ppm. Based on the newly submitted data,
EPA calculated the ratio of the level of exposure in rabbits that did
not cause any effects with the highest measured TWA exposure. The
calculated ratio is 106, which EPA considers protective of human
health. The detailed risk assessment is contained in the public docket.
Based on this new assessment, EPA proposes to find that use of the PMN
substance by consumers to recharge air conditioning systems in vehicles
originally charged with the refrigerant by the motor vehicle original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) no longer meets the concern criteria at
Sec.  721.170(b). Based on this proposed finding, EPA is proposing to
modify the SNUR by eliminating the requirement to submit a notice prior
to the manufacture and processing for the specified consumer use of the
PMN substance.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to clarify the language in the
regulatory text to more clearly communicate that manufacture and
processing for use as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning
systems in new passenger cars and vehicles as reported in the original
PMN is not a significant new use. The current regulatory text
identifies the significant new use by reference to 40 CFR 721.80(j),
which refers to any ``use other than'' a use described in the
premanufacture notice and then uses a parenthetical to more
specifically identify the significant new use, beginning with ``use
other than.'' However, using the language ``use other than'' when
referring to a regulatory provision which begins with ``use other
than'' can be confusing. As a result, EPA is proposing to clarify the
regulatory text by simply identifying the significant new use as use
other than as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning systems
in new passenger cars and vehicles (i.e., as defined in 40 CFR 82.32
(c) and (d). The docket established for this proposed amendment to the
SNUR is available under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918.
    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10182.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to
determine that a use of a chemical substance is a ``significant new
use.'' EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all
relevant factors, including the TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors, listed in
Unit III. of this document. Once EPA determines that a use of a
chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B)
and 40 CFR part 721 requires persons to submit a significant new use
notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture
(including import) or process the chemical substance for that use.
Persons who must report are described in Sec.  [emsp14]721.5.
    EPA may respond to SNUNs by, among other things, issuing or
modifying a TSCA section 5(e) consent order and/or amending the SNUR
promulgated under TSCA section 5(a)(2). Amendment of the SNUR will
often be necessary to allow persons other than the SNUN submitter to
engage in the newly authorized use(s), because even after a person
submits a SNUN and the review period expires, other persons still must
submit a SNUN before engaging in the significant new use.

III. Significant New Use Determination

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use
of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after
consideration of all relevant factors, including:
     The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a
chemical substance.
     The extent to which a use changes the type or form of
exposure to human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
     The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and
duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical
substance.
     The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a
chemical substance.

    In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2),
the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
    To determine that consumer use in the recharge of motor vehicle air
conditioning systems originally charged with the PMN substance by the
motor vehicle OEM is not a significant new use of the chemical
substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-(PMN P-07-601),
EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical
substance, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated
with this chemical use, taking into consideration the four bulleted
TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Rule

    During review of PMN P-07-601, the chemical substance identified as
1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-, EPA determined that one or more of the
criteria of concern established at Sec.  721.170 were met and
regulation under section 5(a)(2) of TSCA was warranted. The basis for
such findings is outlined in Unit II. of this document and in the
Federal Register document of June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26102). Based on
these findings, a SNUR was promulgated pursuant to Sec.
[emsp14]721.170.
    After the review of new test data and information subsequent to
issuance of the SNUR (see Unit II.), and consideration of the factors
included in TSCA section 5(a)(2) (see Unit III.), EPA proposes to find
that the concern criteria in Sec.  721.170(b), are no longer met for
the consumer use in the recharge of motor vehicle air conditioning
systems originally charged with the PMN substance by the motor vehicle
OEM.

V. Economic Analysis

    EPA evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements
for potential manufacturers, importers, and processors of the chemical
substances during the development of the direct final rule. The
Agency's complete Economic Analysis is available in the docket under
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918. This proposal will not add to
the costs identified in that analysis as it would, if finalized,
relieve an existing notification requirement for certain manufacturers
and processors.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule would modify a SNUR for a chemical substance
that is the subject of a PMN. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable. This listing of the OMB
control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies
the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5
CFR part 1320.
    This proposed rule would, if finalized, relieve an existing
notification requirement for certain manufacturers and processors. The
information collection requirements related to this action have already
been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012
(EPA ICR No. 574). This action would not impose any burden requiring
additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the
Agency under the existing SNUR, the annual burden is estimated to
average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate
includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data
sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and
submit the required SNUN.
    Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and
any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including
through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director,
Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information
(2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control
number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to
this address.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to section 605(b) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that
promulgation of a SNUR does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities where the following are true:
    1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small
entities in response to the SNUR.
    2. The SNUN submitted by any small entity would not cost
significantly more than $8,300.
    A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this
rule.
    This rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012
certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit V. and
EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification),
EPA believes that the following are true:
     A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by
small entities in response to the SNUR amendment.
     Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity
significantly more than $8,300. Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR
amendment would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs,
State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these
rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reason to believe that any
State, local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this proposed
rule. As such, EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not
impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise
have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of
sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).

E. Executive Order 13132

    This action would not have a substantial direct effect on States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

F. Executive Order 13175

    This proposed rule would not have Tribal implications because it is
not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This
proposed rule would not significantly nor uniquely affect the
communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor would it involve or
impose any requirements that

affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order
13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this
proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and
this action does not address environmental health or safety risks
disproportionately affecting children.

H. Executive Order 13211

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because this action is not expected to affect energy supply,
distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    In addition, since this action does not involve any technical
standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

J. Executive Order 12898

    This action does not entail special considerations of environmental
justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR7629, February 16, 1994).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 22, 2013.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 721 be amended as
follows:

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

0
2. In Sec.  [emsp14]721.10182, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i)
to read as follows:

Sec.  721.10182  1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-.

    (a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified as 1-propene,
2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro- (PMN P- 07-601; CAS No. 754-12-1) is subject to
reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) * * *
    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. A significant
new use is use other than as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air
conditioning systems in new passenger cars and vehicles (i.e., as
defined in 40 CFR 82.32 (c) and (d)); Sec.  [emsp14]721.80(m)
(commercial use other than in passenger cars and vehicles in which the
charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN
substance was done by the motor vehicle original equipment manufacturer
(OEM); Sec.  [emsp14]721.80(o) (use in consumer products other than
products used to recharge the motor vehicle air conditioning systems in
passenger cars and vehicles in which the charging of motor vehicle air
conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the motor
vehicle OEM).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-12779 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 34460-34462]
[DOCID:fr22jn07-53]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8330-3]

Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a
proposed settlement agreement, to address a lawsuit filed by
Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra
Club (hereinafter ``Petitioners''): Environmental Defense et al. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 06-1164 (DC Cir.). On or about May
9, 2006, Petitioners filed a complaint challenging EPA's Transportation
Conformity Hot-Spot Final Rule, alleging that the rule failed to
satisfy the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity criteria, that it
permitted EPA to issue particulate matter (PM) hot-spot guidance
without following required procedures, and that it withdrew a motor
vehicle emissions factor model for use in PM hot-spot analysis without
following required procedures. Under the terms of the proposed
settlement agreement, Petitioners agree to dismiss the claim relating
to issuance of PM hot-spot guidance once EPA provides public notice of
and an opportunity to comment on such guidance.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by July 23, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2007-0505, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susmita Dubey, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    EPA first issued regulations in 1993 to implement the
transportation conformity requirement in Section 176(c) of the Clean
Air Act. The regulations included a specific requirement that
transportation projects be analyzed for local emissions impacts (the
``hot-spot'' analysis) in addition to required regional emissions
analyses. At that time, the hot-spot requirements applied to carbon
monoxide and particulate matter less than ten micrometers in diameter
(PM10). 58 FR 62188 (November 24, 1993).
    In March 2006, EPA amended the conformity regulations to apply the
hot-spot analysis requirements to fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). 71 FR 12468 (March 10, 2006) (the ``2006 hot-spot
rule''). That regulation extended to PM2.5 the pre-existing
provisions that required quantitative PM hot-spot analyses for certain
transportation projects only after EPA issues guidance for such
analyses and then announces that the quantitative analysis requirement
is in effect. 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1) and (b)(4). Until such time,
PM10 and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses are to be done
for such projects through a qualitative analysis. 40 CFR 93.123(b)(2).
EPA stated in the preamble to the 2006 hot-spot rule that appropriate
tools and guidance are needed to ensure credible and meaningful
quantitative PM2.5 and PM10 hot-spot analyses. 71
FR 12498. Guidance for PM quantitative hot-spot analyses would be
available in the future. 71 FR 12502.
    Several environmental organizations challenged the 2006 hot-spot
rule. Petitioners alleged that: (1) The regulation does not require
that hot-spot analyses satisfy all of the requirements in Section
176(c) of the Act for demonstrating conformity, (2) the regulation
allows EPA to issue quantitative PM modeling guidance without notice-
and-comment rulemaking, in violation of the Administrative Procedure
Act, and (3) EPA had previously approved its current motor vehicle
emissions factor model (MOBILE6.2) for use in PM hot-spot analyses and
improperly withdrew that approval in the 2006 hot-spot rule.
    Petitioners and EPA negotiated a settlement of the second claim
described above. The settlement agreement would require EPA to provide
public notice and an opportunity for public comment on its draft
guidance for quantitative hot-spot modeling for PM2.5 and
PM10. EPA would publish a notice in the Federal Register
announcing the availability of the draft guidance, provide the EPA web
page at which the guidance will be available, and allow at least 30
days for the public to comment on the draft guidance. EPA would also
agree to make available to the public any information it relied on in
developing the draft guidance. Finally, EPA would publish a notice in
the Federal Register announcing the final guidance and explaining when
the quantitative PM hot-spot modeling requirement will be in effect.
Following execution of the settlement agreement, the second claim
described above would be severed from the rest of the litigation,
placed in a separate docket, and held in abeyance until such time as
EPA has completed its obligations under the agreement. At such time,
the new docket would be dismissed.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to
the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as
parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed
settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations
that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate,
or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the
Department of Justice determines, based on any comment which may be
submitted, that consent to the settlement agreement should be
withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How Can I Get A Copy of the Settlement Agreement?

    Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2007-0505, which contains a copy of the
settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for
public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or

view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change, unless

the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket

materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA

electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and

included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: June 15, 2007.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E7-12165 Filed 6-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P