[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60216-60219]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25180]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76018; File No. SR-EDGX-2015-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 11.15, Clearly Erroneous Executions

September 29, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 21, 2015, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.15, Clearly
Erroneous Executions, in order to conform to the rules of BATS
Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') and BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See BYX and BZX Rule 11.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    In early 2014, the Exchange and its affiliate, EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA'') received approval to effect a merger (the ``Merger'') of the
Exchange's parent company, Direct Edge Holdings LLC, with BATS Global
Markets, Inc., the parent of BZX and the BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.
(``BYX'', together with BZX, EDGA and EDGX, the ``BGM Affiliated
Exchanges'').\4\ In the context of the Merger, the BGM Affiliated
Exchanges are working to align their rules, retaining only intended
differences between the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. Thus, the Exchange
proposes to restructure and amend Rule 11.15, Clearly Erroneous
Executions, in order to conform to the corresponding rules of BYX and
BZX and provide a consistent rule set across each of the BGM Affiliated
Exchanges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71449 (January 30,
2014), 79 FR 6961 (February 5, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2013-43; SR-EDGA-2013-
34).
    \5\ The Exchange notes that EDGA intends to file an identical
proposal with the Commission to restructure and amend its Rule
11.15, Clearly Erroneous Executions, to conform to BYX and BZX Rules
11.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
changes to Exchange Rule 11.15 to provide for uniform treatment: (1) Of
clearly erroneous \6\ execution reviews in multi-stock events involving
twenty or

more securities; and (2) in the event transactions occur that result in
the issuance of an individual stock trading pause by the primary
listing market and subsequent transactions that occur before the
trading pause is in effect on the Exchange.\7\ The Exchange also
adopted additional changes to Rule 11.15 that reduced the ability of
the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set forth in Rule
11.15,\8\ and in 2013, adopted a provision designed to address the
operation of the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility
Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the ``Limit Up-
Limit Down Plan'' or the ``Plan'').\9\ In 2014, the Exchange adopted
two additional provisions providing that: (i) A series of transactions
in a particular security on one or more trading days may be viewed as
one event if all such transactions were effected based on the same
fundamentally incorrect or grossly misinterpreted issuance information
resulting in a severe valuation error for all such transactions (the
``Multi-Day Event''); and (ii) in the event of any disruption or
malfunction in the operation of the electronic communications and
trading facilities of an Exchange, another SRO, or responsible single
plan processor in connection with the transmittal or receipt of a
trading halt, an Officer, acting on his or her own motion, shall
nullify any transaction that occurs after a trading halt has been
declared by the primary listing market for a security and before such
trading halt has officially ended according to the primary listing
market.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The terms of a transaction executed on the Exchange are
``clearly erroneous'' when there is an obvious error in any term,
such as price, number of shares or other unit of trading, or
identification of the security. A transaction made in clearly
erroneous error and cancelled by both parties or determined by the
Exchange to be clearly erroneous will be removed from the
Consolidated Tape. See Exchange Rule 11.15(a).
    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62886 (Sept. 10, 2010),
75 FR 56613 (Sept. 16, 2010) (SR-EDGX-2010-03).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68814 (Feb. 1,
2013), 78 FR 9086 (Feb. 7, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-06); see also
Exchange Rule 11.15(i).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72434 (June 19,
2014), 79 FR 36110 (June 25, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2014-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes the below changes to conform Rule 11.15 to
BYX and BZX Rules 11.17. None of these changes are designed to amend
the Exchange's current review process for clearly erroneous executions.
Rather, they are proposed in order to implement identical rules with
regard to clearly erroneous executions across each of the BGM
Affiliated Exchanges.\11\ The proposed changes to Rule 11.15 are as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that BYX and BZX are to file rule
changes with the Commission to propose a series of changes to their
Rules 11.17, Clearly Erroneous Executions, to conform with other
provisions of EDGA and EDGX Rule 11.15 to ensure each of the BGM
Affiliated Exchange have identical rule text with regard to the
review and handling of clearly erroneous executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amend the last sentence of the introductory paragraph to
include the word ``replaced''.
     Replace references to ``Officer'' with ``Official'' in
paragraphs (b), (b)(1), (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(2)(D), and
(e)(2)(F).
     Replace the term ``Regular Market Session'' with ``Regular
Trading Hours'' in paragraphs (c)(1), (e)(1), and (g).
     Amend paragraph (b)(1) to: (i) Clarify that requests for
review must be received by the Exchange within thirty (30) minutes of
the execution time; (ii) replace the word ``Section'' with
``paragraph'' and encase ``30'' in parentheses as well as insert the
word ``thirty'' immediately before ``(30)'' in the second sentence;
(iii) specify in the fourth sentence that if requested, each party
shall provide any supporting written information as may be reasonably
requested by the Official to aid resolution of the matter and remove
the phrase ``any supporting written information.''
     Amend paragraph (b)(2) to encase both ``30'' and ``60'' in
parentheses as well as insert the word ``thirty'' immediately before
``(30)'' and the word ``sixty'' immediately before ``(60)''.
     Amend paragraph (c)(1) to: (i) Delete the word ``the''
before the word ``Regular'' and add the word ``during'' before the
phrase ``the Pre-Opening and . . . '' in the first sentence; (ii)
remove the ``s'' from the word ``occur'' within the parenthetical in
the third sentence; and (iii) insert the word ``paragraph'' before
``(c)(2)'' in the fourth sentence.
     Amend the first sentence of paragraph (c)(3) to: (i)
Remove the ``s'' from the word ``system''; (ii) replace ``IPO'' with
the term ``initial public offering''; and (iii) remove ``'s'' from the
word ``tape''.
     Amend paragraph (d) to: (i) Replace the term ``at its''
with ``in his or her''; (ii) replace the word ``subsection'' with
``paragraph''; and (ii) encase both ``30'' and ``60'' in parentheses as
well as insert the word ``thirty'' immediately before ``(30)''.
     Reformat and renumber paragraph (d)(1)(A) as (d)(1) and
(d)(1)(B) as (d)(2).
     Amend renumbered and reformatted paragraph (d)(1) to: (i)
Not capitalize the word ``Paragraph''; (ii) replace the word
``Section'' with ``Rule''; and (iii) delete ``, or''.
     Amend renumbered and reformatted paragraph (d)(2) to: (i)
Not capitalize the word ``Paragraph''; (ii) replace the words ``the
Section'' with ``this Rule''; and (iii) replace ``11.15'' with the word
``paragraph'' before the reference to (c)(3).
     Amend paragraph (e)(1) to encase ``30'' in parentheses as
well as insert the word ``thirty'' immediately before ``(30)'' in the
third sentence.
     Amend paragraph (e)(2)(B) to rephrase the term ``ten (10)
Member representatives'' with ``ten (10) representatives of Members''.
     Renumber paragraph (e)(3) as (e)(2)(C) and amend the
paragraph to: (i) Specify that a request for review on appeal must be
made, not only via email, but also in writing or other electronic means
specified from time to time by the Exchange in a circular distributed
to Members; and (ii) replace ``3:00 ET'' with ``3:00 p.m. Eastern
Time'' in the third sentence.
     Renumber paragraph (e)(4) as (e)(2)(D).
     Renumber paragraph (e)(5) as (e)(2)(E) and: (i) Replace
reference to ``Rule 11.15(e)(1)'' with ``paragraph (e)(1) above''; and
(ii) add a sentence stating that in instances where the Exchange, on
behalf of a Member, requests a determination by another market center
that a transaction is clearly erroneous, the Exchange will pass any
resulting charges through to the relevant Member.
     Renumber paragraph (e)(6) as (e)(2)(F).
     Within paragraph (f), amend: (i) The first sentence to
replace the word ``the'' with ``an'' before the ``Officer'' and delete
the word ``such'' before ``other senior level employee designee''; (ii)
the second sentence to remove the ``s'' from the ``paragraphs'' before
reference to paragraph (c)(1)-(3); (iii) the third sentence to delete
the word ``such'' before ``other senior level employee designee''; (iv)
amend the fourth sentence to delete the term ``such other '' before
``senior level employee designee'', replace the term ``Regular Session
Trading'' with ``Regular Trading Hours'', and add the word ``trading''
before ``day''; and (v) amend the last sentence to clarify that notice
shall be provided by the Exchange, replace the word ``Member'' with
``party'', remove the ``s'' from the ``paragraphs'' and delete
reference to paragraph (e)(3) and (4) as those paragraph are now
included in (e)(2).
     Amend paragraph (g) to: (i) Retitle it as ``Officer Acting
On Own Motion''; (ii) delete the term ``such other '' before ``senior
level employee designee'' and replace the term ``its'' with ``his or
her'' in the first sentence; (iii) delete the word ``such'' before
``other senior level employee designee'' in the fourth sentence; and
(iv) remove the ``s'' from the ``paragraphs'' and delete reference to
paragraph (e)(3) and (4) as those

paragraphs are now included in (e)(2) in the last sentence.
     Within paragraph (h), amend: (i) The first sentence to
replace the term ``initial public offering'' with ``IPO''; (ii) the
third and fourth sentences to delete the word ``such'' before ``other
senior level employee designee''; (iii) the sixth sentence to delete
the word ``such'' before ``other senior level employee designee'',
replace the term ``Regular Session Trading'' with ``Regular Trading
Hours'', and add the word ``trading'' before ``day''; and (v) amend the
last sentence to replace the term ``subsection'' with ``paragraph'' and
delete reference to paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) as those paragraphs are
now included in (e)(2).
    Amend the last sentence in paragraphs (j) and (k) to delete
reference to paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) as those paragraphs are now
included in (e)(2).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\
Specifically, the proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\13\ because it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. None of these
changes are designed to amend the Exchange's current review process for
clearly erroneous executions. Rather, as mentioned above, the proposed
rule changes, combined with the planned filing for the BYX, BZX, and
EDGA, would allow the BGM Affiliated Exchanges to provide a consistent
set of rules as it relates to clearly erroneous executions. Consistent
rules, in turn, will simplify the regulatory requirements for Members
of the Exchange that are also participants on EDGA, BYZ and/or BZX. The
proposed rule change would provide greater harmonization between rules
of similar purpose on the BGM Affiliated Exchanges, resulting in
greater uniformity and less burdensome and more efficient regulatory
compliance and understanding of Exchange Rules. As such, the proposed
rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system. Similarly, the Exchange also believes that,
by harmonizing the rules across each BGM Affiliated Exchange, the
proposal will enhance the Exchange's ability to fairly and efficiently
regulate its Members, meaning that the proposed rule change is
equitable and will promote fairness in the market place. Finally, the
Exchange believes that the non-substantive changes discussed above will
contribute to the protection of investors and the public interest by
helping to avoid confusion with respect to Exchange Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the act. To the contrary, allowing the
Exchange to implement substantively identical rules across each of the
BGM Affiliated Exchanges regarding clearly erroneous executions does
not present any competitive issues, but rather is designed to provide
greater harmonization among Exchange, BZX, BYX, and EDGA rules of
similar purpose. The proposed rule change should, therefore, result in
less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance as well as a
better understanding of Exchange Rules for common members of the BGM
Affiliated Exchanges.

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\15\ The proposed rule change effects a change that
(A) does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (B) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (C) by its terms, does not become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest; provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2015-42 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2015-42. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such 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-EDGX-2015-42, and should be submitted on or before
October 26, 2015.

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

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25180 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60586-60587]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19058]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 100 and 165

[USCG-2023-0250]

2023 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, and
Special Local Regulations

AGENCY:  Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of expired temporary rules issued.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notification of substantive rules
issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but
expired before they could be published in the Federal Register. This
document lists temporary safety zones, security zones, and special
local regulations, all of limited duration and for which timely
publication in the Federal Register was not possible. This document
also announces notifications of enforcement for existing reoccurring
regulations that we issued but were unable to be published before the
enforcement period ended.

DATES: This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules and
notifications of enforcement that became effective, primarily between
January 2023 and March 2023, unless otherwise indicated, and were
terminated before they could be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed
online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this document contact
Yeoman First Class Glenn Grayer, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains
of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and
security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District
Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain
local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or
environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described
by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in
motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to
vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are
issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas
and other marine events.
    Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be
precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs
without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however,
often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press
releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by
Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the
rule. Timely publication of notifications of enforcement of reoccurring
regulations may be precluded when the event occurs with short notice or
other agency procedural restraints.
    Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the
end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the
contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local
regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation
regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement
action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal
Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation
without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard
periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security
zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas and
drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in
this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal
Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if
sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect
or terminated. In some of our reoccurring regulations, we say we will
publish a notice of enforcement as one of the means of notifying the
public. We use this notification to announce those notifications of
enforcement that we issued and will post them to their dockets.
    The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily
during the period between January 2023 and March 2023 unless otherwise
indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and
search by the docket number indicated in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Enforcement
               Docket No.                     Type of regulation               Location                date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG-2022-0991..........................  Safety Zones (Parts 147     Port Detroit Zone.........      12/31/2022
                                           and 165).
USCG-2022-1008..........................  Safety Zones (Parts 147     Corpus Christi, TX........        1/4/2023
                                           and 165).
USCG-2022-1003..........................  Security Zones (Part 165).  Cincinnati, OH............        1/4/2023
USCG-2023-0060..........................  Safety Zones (Parts 147     U.S. EEZ offshore of             1/12/2023
                                           and 165).                   Jacksonville, Daytona,
                                                                       and Cape Canaveral, FL.
USCG-2023-0066..........................  Safety Zones (Parts 147     Corpus Christi, TX........       1/13/2023
                                           and 165).
USCG-2023-0069..........................  Security Zones (Part 165).  Amelia Island, FL.........       1/22/2023
USCG-2023-0103..........................  Security Zones (Part 165).  Baltimore, MD.............       1/30/2023
USCG-2023-0088..........................  Safety Zones (Parts 147     Pensacola, FL.............       1/30/2023
                                           and 165).
USCG-2023-0107..........................  Safety Zones (Parts 147     Corpus Christi, TX........       1/30/2023
                                           and 165).
USCG-2023-0090..........................  Safety Zones (Parts 147     Corpus Christi, TX........        2/1/2023
                                           and 165).
USCG-2023-0140..........................  Security Zones (Part 165).  Tampa, FL.................        2/9/2023
USCG-2022-1006..........................  Special Local Regulations   Bradenton, FL.............       2/11/2023
                                           (Part 100).
USCG-2023-0071..........................  Safety Zones (Parts 147     South Padre Island, TX....       2/11/2023
                                           and 165).
USCG-2023-0190..........................  Safety Zones (Parts 147     Charleston, SC............        3/2/2023
                                           and 165).
USCG-2023-0016..........................  Security Zones (Part 165).  Miami Beach, FL...........        3/8/2023
USCG-2023-0208..........................  Security Zones (Part 165).  San Diego, CA.............       3/13/2023

USCG-2023-0221..........................  Safety Zones (Parts 147     Miami, FL.................       3/17/2023
                                           and 165).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Cunningham,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, United States
Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2023-19058 Filed 9-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44241-44244]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15928]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0143; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-113-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for all Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-
622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R variant F airplanes. The NPRM
proposed to require repetitive detailed inspections of the lower frame
fittings, related investigative actions, and corrective actions if
necessary. The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks in the frame base
fittings connecting the frame lower positions to the center wing box.
This action revises the NPRM by replacing the proposed requirements
with new repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the lower
frame fittings of the frame foot, and replacement with a new frame foot
if cracking is found. This action also provides optional terminating
action for the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this
supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to detect and correct cracking of the lower
frame fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the airplane. Since these actions impose an additional burden over
those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to
allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this SNPRM by August 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 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
425-227-1221.

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-2014-
0143; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, 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:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0143;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-113-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300 B4-
603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R
variant F airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
March 19, 2014 (79 FR 15266) (``the NPRM'').
    The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks in the frame base
fittings connecting the frame lower positions to the center wing box.
The NPRM proposed to require repetitive detailed inspections of the
lower frame fittings, related investigative actions, and corrective
actions if necessary.

Actions Since NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that repairs to
address cracking in the frame foot area found during accomplishment of
the detailed inspection of the lower frame fittings specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-53-6111, Revision 05, including Appendix 01,
dated January 28, 2013, are not adequate to prevent further cracking.
The European Aviation Safety Agency, which is the Technical Agent for
the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness
Directive 2015-0217, dated October 30, 2015 (referred to after this as
the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-620,
B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R variant F
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300-53-
6111 (EASA AD 2012-0103), addressing detailed visual inspections of
the lower frame fittings between Frame (FR) 41 and FR46, a crack was
detected on one A300-600 aeroplane in the area 2 of the foot of FR46
at junction radius level.
    This frame, previously repaired due to a crack finding in the
frame foot area 1, was not due to be inspected before reaching the
post-repair inspection threshold, i.e. 45,400 flight cycles since
repair embodiment.
    Further investigation determined that the repairs specified in
Airbus SB A300-53-6111 were of limited effect to prevent cracking in
the frame foot area 2.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the fuselage of all aeroplanes operated up
to the extended service goal (ESG).
    As a temporary action and until an improvement of the existing
repairs was made available, EASA issued AD 2012-0229 [AD * * *] to
require a one-time detailed inspection (DET) of the frame feet that
were repaired in accordance with Airbus SB

A300-53-6111, and the reporting of findings to Airbus.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, a detailed study was performed
resulting in the development of a new inspection programme.
    Consequently, Airbus cancelled SB A300-53-6111 and replaced it
with SB A300-53-6177, introducing repetitive DET of the lower frame
fittings between FR41 and FR46 for the entire fleet. In addition to
this new inspection programme, Airbus designed a new frame foot
which can be installed on aeroplanes through Airbus SB A300-53-6176.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD supersedes EASA
AD 2012-0103, not retaining its requirements, and instead requires
the new inspection programme for the lower frame fittings. This
[EASA] AD also introduces an optional terminating action for the
repetitive inspections required by the [EASA] AD.

    Corrective actions include replacing any cracked lower frame
fittings with a new frame foot. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating FAA-2014-0143.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6177, dated May 20,
2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive
detailed inspections for cracking of the lower frame fittings between
FR41 and FR46. Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6176,
dated May 20, 2015. The service information describes procedures for
replacing all lower frame feet between frame FR41 and FR46 with new,
improved frame feet. 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.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this proposed AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Revise Method Used To Determine Compliance Times

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that the compliance times in
the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be revised to be less complex. UPS stated
that the proposed compliance times contain a method known as ``Average
Flight Time'' (AFT) which results in a variable flight hour limit and
adds an unnecessary complexity to the threshold table and subsequent
inspection actions. UPS added that use of the AFT method, along with a
lack of standard procedures for implementing the AFT method would
create uncertainty for operators and inspectors trying to determine the
correct compliance time. UPS stated that a defined threshold and
repetitive inspection interval would adequately provide for timely
detection of possible damage.
    We disagree with the commenter's request to revise the compliance
times in this proposed AD. The compliance times in this proposed AD
correspond with those in the MCAI AD, which refers to Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6177, dated May 20, 2015. In Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-53-6177, dated May 20, 2015, the inspection thresholds and
intervals are based on the accumulation of both flight cycles and
flight hours, and are listed in tables appropriately grouping airplanes
with average flight time utilization above 1.5 hours, and airplanes
with average flight time utilization at or below 1.5 hours. We have
determined these compliance times acceptable for this proposed AD.
    However, we do acknowledge that a fixed compliance time for a fleet
could be easier for operators to schedule and record compliance.
Therefore, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this proposed
AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) if a proposal is submitted that is supported by
technical data that includes fatigue and damage tolerance analysis. We
have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.

Request To Remove Reporting Requirement

    FedEx objected to the reporting requirement in the proposed AD (in
the NPRM).
    We infer that FedEx wants the reporting requirement removed. We
disagree that the reporting requirement should be removed from this
proposed AD. We have determined that reporting the inspection findings
will enable the manufacturer to obtain better insight into the extent
of the cracking. We have made no change to this proposed AD in this
regard.

Request To Remove Requirement To Refer to This AD in Repair Approvals

    UPS requested that we revise the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to
remove the requirement to include the AD reference in repair approvals.
UPS noted its concerns that the NPRM will increase requests for
approval of alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) and result in
delays to other services and actions addressed by the FAA on a daily
basis.
    We agree with the commenter's request to remove from this proposed
AD the requirement that repair approvals must specifically refer to
this AD. Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service
information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact
the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the
Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective
actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-
approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved
by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are
considered to be FAA-approved.
    In the proposed AD (in the NPRM) we proposed to prevent the use of
repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe
condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State
of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this
FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance
and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are
specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In
addition, we proposed to change the phrase ``its delegated agent'' to
include ``the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with a State of Design
Authority's design organization approval (DOA)'' to refer to a DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for the AD.
    In its comments to the proposed AD (in the NPRM), UPS stated the
following: ``The proposed wording, being specific to repairs,
eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages or other approved
EASA documents are acceptable for approving minor deviations
(corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of a[n AD] mandated
Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements.

However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR
39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an AMOC to the AD-
required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and
retitled it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now
clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective
actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a
method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    The ``Contacting the Manufacturer'' paragraph also clarifies that,
if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the AD Implementation
Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with
ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions
that are ``Required for Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with
manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine
that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be
approved as an AMOC.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on
this SNPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this SNPRM affects 123 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate that it would take about 541 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this SNPRM, and 1 work-hour per
product for reporting. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures,
we estimate the cost of this SNPRM on U.S. operators to be $5,666,610,
or $46,070 per product.
    We estimate that the optional terminating modification would take
about 529 work-hours and require parts costing $131,500, for a cost of
$176,465.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has
been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and
includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting
associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the
accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should
be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC
20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0143; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
113-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 22, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-
605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R variant F airplanes;
certificated in any category; all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the frame base
fittings connecting the frame lower positions to the center wing
box. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the
lower frame fittings, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections and Replacement If Necessary

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6177, dated May
20, 2015, except where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6177, dated
May 20, 2015, specifies a compliance time ``from issuance of
Revision 04 of Service Bulletin A300-53-6111,'' this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection for cracking of the
lower frame fittings between frame (FR) 41 and FR46 of the frame
foot, and if any crack is found, before further flight, replace with
a new frame foot, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6177, dated May 20, 2015. Repeat
the inspection thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-
6177, dated May 20, 2015.

(h) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2)
of this AD: Submit a report of the findings (both positive and
negative) of each inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
Send the report to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online
Application on Airbus World (https://w3.airbus.com).
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(i) Optional Terminating Action

    Replacement of all lower frame feet between FR41 and FR46, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6176, dated May 20, 2015, terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) 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: Dan Rodina,
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: 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.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0217, dated October 30,
2015, 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-2014-0143.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 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. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 23, 2016.
Dorr M. Anderson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-15928 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32334-32335]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14913]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2018-38]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; 3GLP, Inc.
dba Precision Flight Devices

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before August 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0325
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments,

without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

Lirio Liu,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0325.
    Petitioner: 3GLP, Inc. dba Precision Flight Devices.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Part 21, subpart H; part 27;
45.23(b); 45.27(a); 61.113; 91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2); 91.9(c); 91.103;
91.109(a); 91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) & (b); 91.405(a);
91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (2); 91.417(a) & (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is requesting relief
to commercially operate a CW-30, hybrid fixed wing and vertical takeoff
and land multi-copter, unmanned aircraft (UA) that weighs more than 55
pounds (lbs.). The proposed operation would allow the petitioner to
conduct aerial data collection to include remote sensing and measuring
by an instrument or combination of instruments aboard the UA.
Specifically, Precision Flight Devices intends to operate the UA at
less than 30 miles per hour with a maximum takeoff weight of 75 lbs.
The operations would be conducted within visual line of sight over a
15.56 square mile area situated at and around Kiana and Nulato
airfields (8 square miles per airport) in Western Alaska. The
collection of UA high resolution data and images may require operations
as close as 200 feet from non-participating persons.

[FR Doc. 2018-14913 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55697-55698]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-0494]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0009, Oil
Record Book for Ships. Before submitting this ICR to OMB, the Coast
Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 11,
2011.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG-2011-
0494], please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (DMF) (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand deliver: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, a copy is available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7101, Washington, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office
of Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden

on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the
Collection, and other important information describing the Collections.
There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve
the ICR referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2011-0494], and must be received by October 11,
2011. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2011-0494], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an e-mail address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2011-0494'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in
an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and will address them
accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0494'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the West Building Ground
Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: [1625-0009].

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy Act statement
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (76 FR 35228, June 16,
2011) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no
comments.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Oil Record Book for Ships.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0009.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Summary: The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) and the
International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973,
as modified by the 1978 Protocol relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78),
require that information about oil cargo or fuel operations be entered
into an Oil Record Book (CG-4602A). The requirement is contained in 33
CFR 151.25.
    Need: This information is used to verify sightings of actual
violations of the APPS to determine the level of compliance with MARPOL
73/78 and as a means of reinforcing the discharge provisions.
    Forms: CG-4602A.
    Respondents: Operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 19,425
hours to 20,221 hours a year.

    Dated: August 31, 2011.
C.A. Mathieu,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-22916 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


the status of CSAPR and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous
parties seeking a stay of CSAPR pending judicial review. In that order,
the Court stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions for review
of that rule in EME Homer City (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases).
The Court also indicated that EPA was expected to continue to
administer CAIR in the interim until judicial review of CSAPR was
completed.
    As discussed above, on August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued the
decision in EME Homer City to vacate and remand CSAPR and ordered EPA
to continue administrating CAIR ``pending . . . development of a valid
replacement.'' EME Homer City at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all
petitions for rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and other parties have
filed petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 24,
2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitions for certiorari.
Nonetheless, EPA intends to continue to act in accordance with the EME
Homer City opinion until the U.S Supreme Court issues its decision.
    In light of these unique circumstances and for the reasons
explained below, to the extent that attainment and maintenance is due
to emission reductions associated with CAIR, EPA is here determining
that those reductions are sufficiently permanent and enforceable for
purposes of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and 175A.
    As directed by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR remains in place and
enforceable until EPA promulgates a valid replacement rule to
substitute for CAIR. As noted above, the Chicago area PM2.5
redesignation request and maintenance plan relies on the emission
reductions from CAIR. Illinois adopted CAIR emission control rules in
2007 and required compliance with these rules in two phases, one with
compliance required by 2009, and the final phase with compliance
required by 2015. CAIR was, thus, in place and getting emission
reductions when the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area was monitoring
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard during the
2008-2011 period.
    To the extent that Illinois is relying on CAIR in its maintenance
plan to support continued attainment into the future, the recent
directive from the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City ensures that the
emission reductions associated with CAIR will be permanent and
enforceable for the necessary time period. EPA has been ordered by the
Court to develop a new rule to address interstate transport to replace
CSAPR and the opinion makes clear that after promulgating that new rule
EPA must provide states an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to
implement that rule. Thus, CAIR will remain in place until EPA has
promulgated a final rule through a notice-and- comment rulemaking
process, states have had an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs in
response to it, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine if they can be
approved, and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, including promulgating
FIPs if appropriate. The Court's clear instruction to EPA is that it
must continue to administer CAIR until a valid replacement exists, and
thus EPA believes that CAIR emission reductions many be relied upon
until the necessary actions are taken by EPA and states to administer
CAIR's replacement. Furthermore, the Court's instruction provides an
additional backstop: by definition, any rule that replaces CAIR and
meets the Court's direction would require upwind states to have SIPs
that eliminate any significant contributions to downwind nonattainment
and prevent interference with maintenance in downwind areas.
    Moreover, in vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to continue
administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the consequences
of vacating CAIR ``might be more severe now in light of the reliance
interests accumulated over the intervening four years.'' EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated reliance interests include the
interests of states that reasonably assumed they could rely on
reductions associated with CAIR which brought certain nonattainment
areas into attainment with the NAAQS. If EPA were prevented from
relying on reductions associated with CAIR in redesignation actions,
states would be forced to impose additional, redundant reductions on
top of those achieved by CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the type
of irrational result the Court sought to avoid by ordering EPA to
continue administering CAIR. For these reasons also, EPA believes it is
appropriate to allow states to rely on CAIR, and the existing emissions
reductions achieved by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and enforceable
for regulatory purposes, such as redesignations. Following promulgation
of the replacement rule for CSAPR, EPA will review existing SIPs as
appropriate to identify whether there are any issues that need to be
addressed.
b. Maintenance Plan Precursor Evaluation Resulting From Court Decisions
    In this proposal EPA is also considering the impact of the D.C.
Circuit Court's decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), on the maintenance plan required under
sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA. EPA believes that the
only additional consideration related to the maintenance plan
requirements that results from the D.C. Circuit Court's decision is
that of assessing the potential role of VOC and ammonia in
demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. Based on
documentation provided by the state and supporting information, EPA
believes that the maintenance plan for the Chicago area

need not include any additional emission reductions of VOC or ammonia
in order to provide for continued maintenance of the standard.
    Emissions inventories used in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
(EPA-452/R-12-005, December 2012) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
show that VOC and ammonia emissions in the Chicago area are projected
to decrease by 59,126 TPY and 583 TPY, respectively between 2007 and
2020. See table 11 below. While the RIA emissions inventories are only
projected out to 2020, there is no reason to believe that these
downward trends would not continue through 2025. Given that the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area is already attaining the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard, even with the current levels of VOC
and ammonia emissions in the Chicago area, the downward trends in VOC
and ammonia would be consistent with continued attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard. Even if ammonia emissions were to
increase unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025, the overall emission
reductions projected in SO2, NOX, primary
PM2.5, and VOC would be sufficient to offset the increase in
annual PM2.5 concentrations resulting from the increase in
ammonia emissions. For these reasons, EPA believes that local ammonia
(and VOC) emissions will not increase to the extent that they will
cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard during the maintenance period.

 Table 11--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and Ammonia Emissions Totals by Source Sector (TPY) for the Chicago Area Based on RIA Emissions Estimates for
                                                                  the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                           Ammonia
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Source sector                                                         Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2007            2020          2007-2020         2007            2020          2007-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fires...................................................             442             442               0              31              31               0
Area....................................................         109,052         107,202          -1,850           8,865           9,135             270
Non-Road Mobile.........................................          46,784          25,007         -21,777              58              71              13
On-Road Mobile..........................................          53,688          19,133         -34,555           2,525           1,363          -1,162
Point...................................................          16,101          15,157            -944             332             628             296
    Totals..............................................         226,067         166,941         -59,126          11,811          11,228            -583
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Has Illinois adopted acceptable MVEBs for the PM2.5
maintenance period?

1. How are MVEBs developed and what are the MVEBs for the Chicago area?
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans and
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) must be evaluated for
conformity with SIPs. Consequently, Illinois's PM2.5
redesignation request and maintenance plan provide MVEBs, conformance
with which will assure that motor vehicle emissions are at or below
levels that can be expected to provide for attainment and maintenance
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. Illinois' redesignation
request includes mobile source emission budgets for NOX and
primary PM2.5 for 2008 and 2025. Table 12 shows the 2008 and
2025 MVEBs and 2025 ``safety margins'' (see discussion below) for the
Chicago area. Table 12 also shows the estimated 2008 and 2025 mobile
source emissions for the Chicago area. Illinois did not provide MVEBs
for SO2 because it concluded, consistent with EPA's
presumptions regarding this PM2.5 precursor, that emissions
of this pollutant from motor vehicles are not significant contributors
to the Chicago area's PM2.5 air quality problem.

                                       Table 12--2008 and 2025 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Chicago Area
                                                                          [TPY]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Estimated emissions                Safety margin              Motor vehicle emission
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------             budgets
                          Year                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                           Primary PM2.5        NOX        Primary PM2.5        NOX        Primary PM2.5        NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008....................................................           5,100         127,951              --              --           5,100         127,951
2025....................................................           2,067          38,456             310           5,768           2,377          44,224
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 12 shows substantial decreases in on-road mobile source
NOX and primary PM2.5 emissions from 2008 to
2025. These emission reductions are expected because newer vehicles
subject to more stringent emission standards are continually replacing
older, higher emitting vehicles. EPA is proposing to approve the 2008
and 2025 MVEBs for the Chicago area into the SIP because, based on our
review of the submitted PM2.5 maintenance plan, we have
determined that the maintenance plan and MVEBs meet EPA's criteria
found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) for determining that MVEBs are adequate
for use in transportation conformity determinations and are approvable
because, when considered together with the submitted maintenance plan's
projected emissions, they provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area.
2. What are safety margins?
    As noted in table 12, Illinois has included safety margins in the
2025 MVEBs. A safety margin is the amount by which the total projected
emissions from all sources of a given pollutant are less than the total
emissions which would satisfy the applicable requirement for reasonable
further progress, attainment, or maintenance or a portion thereof (40
CFR 93.124(a)). The safety margins selected by IEPA would provide for a
15 percent increase in mobile source emissions for 2025 above projected
levels of these emissions. These safety margins are acceptable under
EPA's transportation conformity requirements because they would not
cause the total emissions in

the Chicago area to exceed the attainment year levels.

F. Are the 2002 base year PM2.5-related emissions
inventories for the Chicago area approvable under section 172(c)(3) of
the CAA?

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of emissions for
nonattainment areas. For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, states
have typically submitted primary PM2.5, SO2, and
NOX emission inventories covering one of the years of the
three-year period used to determine the nonattainment status of an
area. For the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, the annual
PM2.5 concentrations for the years of 2001-2003 were used to
establish the nonattainment status of areas. Illinois chose to submit
PM2.5 emissions for 2002 for purposes of meeting the
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Illinois documented these
emissions and submitted this documentation to EPA in June 2006.
1. EPA's Base Year Emissions Inventory SIP Policy
    EPA's SIP policy for base year emissions inventories for the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard is specified in three policy
statements. EPA's main SIP requirements for a base year
PM2.5-related emissions inventory are specified in section
II.K of EPA's April 25, 2007 implementation rule for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard (72 FR 20586, 20647). This rule requires the
base year emissions inventory to be approved by the EPA as a SIP
element (72 FR 20647), and requires the emissions inventory to cover
the emissions of NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia, and
primary PM2.5 (72 FR 20648). The coverage of
PM2.5 precursor emissions and emissions of primary
PM2.5 (primary PM2.5 is also a precursor for
secondary PM2.5 formation through atmospheric reactions) is
required under 40 CFR part 51 subpart A and 40 CFR 51.1008 (72 FR
20648). Detailed emissions inventory guidance for PM2.5 (and
other pollutants) is contained in EPA's ``Emissions Inventory Guidance
for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations'' (August 2005,
EPA-454/R-05-001). Finally, a November 18, 2002 policy memorandum
titled ``2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone,
PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs'' recommends that the
PM2.5-based emissions inventory be developed for a base year
of 2002. It is noted that IEPA has generally followed all of these
guidelines in the development of the base year emissions inventory for
the PM2.5 SIP.
2. 2002 Base Year PM2.5-Related Emission Inventories for the
Chicago Area
    Illinois documented the 2002 primary PM2.5,
NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia, and CO emissions in a
June 2006 document titled ``Illinois Base Year Particulate Matter and
Haze Inventory for 2002.'' This document covers emissions for the
entire state of Illinois, and summarizes the emissions by source type
and major source category for the PM2.5 nonattainment areas
of Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis.
    Emissions data for point, area, on-road mobile, off-road mobile,
and biogenic emission sources were developed for the 2002 emissions
inventories by the IEPA. The primary sources of data for point sources
were AERs submitted by individual source facilities and source permit
files. The June 2006 emissions document covers in detail the derivation
of emissions for each source type identified as a point source. Table
3-1 (page 34) of Illinois' June 2006 document includes the point source
emission totals by county for each of the PM2.5
nonattainment areas. The Chicago area point source emission totals are
summarized in table 13 below.
    Area source emissions were generally derived by multiplying source
category-specific emission factors by certain indicator levels of
source activity (source surrogates), such as county populations,
employment estimates, and commodity sales estimates. The emission
estimation techniques for each source category are thoroughly
documented in the June 2006 document. The June 2006 document estimates
the county-specific emissions by pollutant and by source type.
    As discussed above, IEPA used EPA's NONROAD model to estimate 2002
off-road mobile source emissions for all non-road mobile source types
except: (1) Railroad locomotives; (2) aircraft operations (including
aircraft auxiliary power units, landings, takeoffs, and other aircraft
operating modes); and, (3) commercial marine vessels. For the three
source types not covered by NONROAD modeling, Illinois obtained source
activity data and emissions from the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium, who contracted with several consultants to derive emissions
specific to the Chicago, Metro-East St. Louis and remaining areas in
the state of Illinois.
    IEPA used emission factors generated from EPA's MOBILE6 computer
model and VMT and vehicle speeds by roadway facility type (or
functional class), freeway, arterial, etc., supplied by the local
planning agency (Chicago Area Transportation Study and IDOT for the
Chicago area) to estimate 2002 on-road mobile source emissions. IEPA
also used vehicle age and type distribution data supplied by IDOT. The
vehicle activity information was derived for each county to allow the
determination of emissions by county. IEPA summed up VMT and vehicle
emissions for each month of 2002 to determine annual on-road mobile
source emissions by county. All MOBILE6 inputs and VMT levels were
thoroughly documented. In addition to on-road emissions, IEPA also
calculated stage II refueling (refueling of vehicles) emissions for the
Chicago area.
    Table 13 (taken from Table B-1 in Appendix B of IEPA's June 2006
document shows the 2002 primary PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursor emissions totals by major source category for the Chicago
area.

 Table 13--2002 Fine Particulate and Precursor Emissions for the Chicago Area (TPY) Documented in Illinois' June
                                       2006 PM2.5 Emissions Documentation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Soure type                 Ammonia           NOX        Primary PM2.5        SO2             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................          143.70       54,049.62        2,766.61      121,597.92       21,190.70
Area Sources....................        3,708.77       32,302.14       22,356.04        3,290.25       89,090.21
On-Road Mobile Sources..........        5,986.95      167,619.73        3,070.58        3,850.04       59,599.97
Off-Road Mobile Sources.........           46.29       87,426.24        4,834.30        3,742.62       53,272.30
    Totals......................        9,885.71      341,397.73       33,027.53      132,480.83      223,153.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After IEPA compiled the June 2006 document, IEPA revised the 2002
on-road mobile source emissions using EPA's MOVES mobile source
emissions model. The derivation of the 2008 on-road mobile source
emissions using MOVES is documented in the August 17, 2011, draft of
IEPA's maintenance plan for the Chicago area. In this same document,
IEPA indicates that the 2002 base year on-road mobile source emissions
were recalculated using the same techniques. The 2002 emissions
(including the MOVES-based on-road mobile source emissions) for the
Chicago area are summarized in tables 3, 4, and 5 above.
    We find that the state has thoroughly documented the 2002 emissions
for primary PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the
Chicago area. We also find that Illinois has used acceptable techniques
and supporting information to derive these emissions. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve Illinois' 2002 base year emissions inventory for
the Chicago area for purposes of meeting the emission inventory
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these actions merely propose to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law and the CAA. For that reason, these
proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because a determination of attainment is an action that affects the
status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on
tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air
quality standards in tribal lands.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: July 22, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-18948 Filed 8-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P