[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 47 (Monday, March 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13405-13407]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03032]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 47 / Monday, March 13, 2017 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9572; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-151-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-08-
02 for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-600R series
airplanes. AD 2014-08-02 requires modifying the profile of stringer
run-outs of both wings, including a high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection of the fastener holes for defects, and repairs if necessary.
Since we issued AD 2014-08-02, further analysis in the context of
widespread fatigue damage (WFD) concluded that a shorter compliance
time is necessary to meet specified requirements to address WFD. This
proposed AD would retain the actions required by AD 2014-08-02 and
would revise the compliance times. We are proposing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--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-2016-
9572; 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
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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-2016-9572;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-151-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

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural
design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage
is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as
a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels.
Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent
frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage
cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with
normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will
grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the
airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is
associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with
similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD
will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated
long enough without any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that design
approval holders (DAHs) establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the
engineering data that support the structural maintenance program.
Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its
LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.

    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    On April 2, 2014, we issued AD 2014-08-02, Amendment 39-17826 (79
FR 21392, April 16, 2014) (``AD 2014-08-02''), for certain Airbus Model
A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-600R series airplanes. AD 2014-08-02 was
prompted by reports of cracks found in certain bottom wing skin
stringers during full-scale fatigue testing and in service. AD 2014-08-
02 requires modifying the profile of stringer run-outs of both wings,
including a high frequency eddy current inspection of the fastener
holes for defects, and repairs if necessary. We issued AD 2014-08-02 to
prevent cracking in the bottom wing skin stringers, which could result
in reduced structural integrity of the wings.
    Since we issued AD 2014-08-02, further analysis in the context of
WFD concluded that a shorter compliance time is necessary to meet
specified requirements to address WFD.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0174, dated August 30, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-600R series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During full-scale fatigue testing, cracks were detected in the
bottom wing skin stringers at Rib 14. In addition, operators have
also reported finding cracks in the same area on in-service
aeroplanes.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could impair the
structural integrity of the wings.
    Additional analysis results showed that the improved design of
the stringer run-out was necessary for aeroplanes operating beyond
the Extended Service Goal 1.
    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin
(SB) A300-57-6046 Revision 01 to provide modification instructions,
and EASA issued AD 2013-0008 (later revised) [which corresponds to
FAA AD 2014-08-02], to require the removal of the stringer end run-
out plate at stringer 19 on the bottom wing skin and a re-profiling
modification of the stringers 10, 11, 12, 17 and 19.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, further analysis in the context
of Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD), concluded that a threshold
reduction is necessary to meet the WFD requirements. Consequently,
Airbus revised SB A300-57-6046 accordingly (now at Revision 03).
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2013-0008R1, which is superseded, but
reduces the modification threshold, and introduces a pre-mod High
Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspection.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9572.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 03,
including Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015. The service information
describes procedures to modify the profile of stringer run-outs of both
wings, including a HFEC inspection of the fastener holes for defects,
and repairs. It also describes new compliance times for completing the
modifications. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 29 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The actions required by AD 2014-08-02, and retained in this
proposed AD, take about 63 work-hours per product, at an average labor
rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $2,360 per
product. Based on these figures (accounting for updated work-hour and
parts cost estimates), the estimated cost of this proposed AD on U.S.
operators is $7,715 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for any on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might
need this repair.

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-08-02, Amendment 39-17826 (79 FR 21392, April 16, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-9572; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-
151-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 27, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-08-02, Amendment 39-17826 (79 FR 21392,
April 16, 2014) (``AD 2014-08-02'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300-B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and
B4-622 airplanes, and Model A300-B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes,
certificated in any category, except airplanes on which Airbus
Modification 10324 or 10325 has been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the wing skin stringers are subject to
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent
cracking in the bottom wing skin stringers, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the wings.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Modification of Rib 14, With Revised Compliance Time and
Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2014-08-02, with revised compliance time and service information. At
the time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD,
whichever occurs earlier, modify the profile of stringer run-outs at
rib 14 of both wings, including a high frequency eddy current
inspection of the fastener holes for defects and all applicable
repairs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 02, dated June 21,
2013; or Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015;
except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable
repairs before further flight. As of the effective date of this AD,
only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 03, including
Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015, may be used.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 42,500 total flight cycles, or
within 2,000 flight cycles after May 21, 2014 (the effective date of
AD 2014-08-02), whichever occurs later.
    (2) Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles, or
within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

(h) Retained Exception to the Service Information, With Revised Service
Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2014-08-02, with revised service information.
    (1) Where Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6046,
Revision 02, dated June 21, 2013, specifies to contact Airbus for
repair instructions, this AD requires contacting the Manager, ANM-
116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or
the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent)
for repair instructions and doing those repairs before further
flight.
    (2) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 03,
including Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015, specifies to contact
Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish
corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph
(i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 01, dated
April 18, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, dated January 18,
1994, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 02, dated
June 21, 2013, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2014-08-02.

(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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: If any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0174, dated August 30,
2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9572.
    (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 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 January 12, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-03032 Filed 3-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41362-41365]
[DOCID:fr17au09-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 544

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0050]
RIN 2127-AK46

Insurer Reporting Requirements; List of Insurers Required To File
Reports

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend Appendices A, B and C of 49
CFR Part 544, Insurer Reporting Requirements. The appendices list those
passenger motor vehicle insurers that are required to file reports on
their motor vehicle theft loss experiences. An insurer included in any
of these appendices would be required to file three copies of its
report for the 2006 calendar year before October 25, 2009. If the
passenger motor vehicle insurers remain listed, they must submit
reports by each subsequent October 25. We are proposing to add and
remove several insurers from relevant appendices.

DATES: Comments must be submitted not later than October 16, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-
2009-0050 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our 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 DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to the street address listed above. The Internet
access to the docket will be at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, by electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ms. Ballard's telephone number is (202) 366-
0846. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33112, Insurer reports and information, NHTSA
requires certain passenger motor vehicle insurers to file an annual
report with the agency. Each insurer's report includes information
about thefts and recoveries of motor vehicles, the rating rules used by
the insurer to establish premiums for comprehensive coverage, the
actions taken by the insurer to reduce such premiums, and the actions
taken by the insurer to reduce or deter theft. Under the agency's
regulation, 49 CFR Part 544, the following insurers are subject to the
reporting requirements:
    (1) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose total
premiums account for 1 percent or more of the total premiums of motor
vehicle insurance issued within the United States;
    (2) issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose premiums
account for 10 percent or more of total premiums written within any one
state; and
    (3) rental and leasing companies with a fleet of 20 or more
vehicles not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of
motor vehicles, other than any governmental entity.
    Pursuant to its statutory exemption authority, the agency exempted
certain passenger motor vehicle insurers from the reporting
requirements.

A. Small Insurers of Passenger Motor Vehicles

    Section 33112(f)(2) provides that the agency shall exempt small
insurers of passenger motor vehicles if NHTSA finds that such
exemptions will not significantly affect the validity or usefulness of
the information in the reports, either nationally or on a state-by-
state basis. The term ``small insurer'' is defined, in Section
33112(f)(1)(A) and (B), as an insurer whose premiums for motor vehicle
insurance issued directly or through an affiliate, including pooling
arrangements established under state law or regulation for the issuance
of motor vehicle insurance, account for less than 1 percent of the
total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by
insurers within the United States. However, that section also
stipulates that if an insurance company satisfies this definition of a
``small insurer,'' but accounts for 10 percent or more of the total
premiums for all motor vehicle insurance issued in a particular state,
the insurer must report about its operations in that state.
    In the final rule establishing the insurer reports requirement (52
FR 59; January 2, 1987), 49 CFR Part 544, NHTSA exercised its exemption
authority by listing in Appendix A each insurer that must report
because it had at least 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance
premiums nationally. Listing the insurers subject to reporting, instead
of each insurer exempted from reporting because it had less than 1
percent of the premiums nationally, is administratively simpler since
the former group is much smaller than the latter. In Appendix B, NHTSA
lists those insurers required to report for particular states because
each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle
premiums in those states. In the January 1987 final rule, the agency
stated that it would update Appendices A and B annually. NHTSA updates
the appendices based on data voluntarily provided by insurance

companies to A.M. Best.\1\ A.M. Best publishes in its State/Line Report
each spring. The agency uses the data to determine the insurers' market
shares nationally and in each state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A.M. Best Company is a well-recognized source of insurance
company ratings and information. 49 U.S.C. 33112(i) authorizes NHTSA
to consult with public and private organizations as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Insured Rental and Leasing Companies

    In addition, upon making certain determinations, NHTSA grants
exemptions to self-insurers, i.e., any person who has a fleet of 20 or
more motor vehicles (other than any governmental entity) used for
rental or lease whose vehicles are not covered by theft insurance
policies issued by insurers of passenger motor vehicles, 49 U.S.C.
33112(b)(1) and (f). Under 49 U.S.C. 33112(e)(1) and (2), NHTSA may
exempt a self-insurer from reporting, if the agency determines:
    (1) The cost of preparing and furnishing such reports is excessive
in relation to the size of the business of the insurer; and 33112(e)(1)
and (2),
    (2) the insurer's report will not significantly contribute to
carrying out the purposes of Chapter 331.
    In a final rule published June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25606), the agency
granted a class exemption to all companies that rent or lease fewer
than 50,000 vehicles, because it believed that the largest companies'
reports sufficiently represent the theft experience of rental and
leasing companies. NHTSA concluded that smaller rental and leasing
companies' reports do not significantly contribute to carrying out
NHTSA's statutory obligations and that exempting such companies will
relieve an unnecessary burden on them. As a result of the June 1990
final rule, the agency added Appendix C, consisting of an annually
updated list of the self-insurers subject to Part 544. Following the
same approach as in Appendix A, NHTSA included, in Appendix C, each of
the self-insurers subject to reporting instead of the self-insurers
which are exempted.
    NHTSA updates Appendix C based primarily on information from
Automotive Fleet Magazine and Auto Rental News.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Automotive Fleet Magazine and Auto Rental News are
publications that provide information on the size of fleets and
market share of rental and leasing companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. When a Listed Insurer Must File a Report

    Under Part 544, as long as an insurer is listed, it must file
reports on or before October 25 of each year. Thus, any insurer listed
in the appendices must file a report before October 25, and by each
succeeding October 25, absent an amendment removing the insurer's name
from the appendices.

II. Proposal

1. Insurers of Passenger Motor Vehicles

    Appendix A lists insurers that must report because each had 1
percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums on a national basis.
The list was last amended in a final rule published on August 18, 2008
(73 FR 48151). Based on the 2006 calendar year data market shares from
A. M. Best, NHTSA proposes to remove Auto Club Southern California
Group and add Auto Club Enterprise Insurance Group to Appendix A.
    Each of the 19 insurers listed in Appendix A are required to file a
report before October 25, 2009, setting forth the information required
by Part 544 for each State in which it did business in the 2006
calendar year. As long as these 19 insurers remain listed, they will be
required to submit reports by each subsequent October 25 for the
calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.
    Appendix B lists insurers required to report for particular States
for calendar year 2006, because each insurer had a 10 percent or
greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those States. Based
on the 2006 calendar year data for market shares from A.M. Best, we
propose to remove Farm Bureau of Idaho from Appendix B.
    The eight remaining insurers listed in Appendix B are required to
report on their calendar year 2006 activities in every State where they
had a 10 percent or greater market share. These reports must be filed
by October 25, 2009, and set forth the information required by Part
544. As long as these eight insurers remain listed, they would be
required to submit reports on or before each subsequent October 25 for
the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.

2. Rental and Leasing Companies

    Appendix C lists rental and leasing companies required to file
reports. Subsequent to publishing the August 18, 2008 final rule (see
73 FR 48151), the agency was informed by Emkay, Inc., (Emkay) that it
was a motor vehicle leasing company offering financial, fleet
management and consulting services pertaining to operating a fleet of
motor vehicles and does not provide insurance policies for its
customers to purchase. However, Emkay further stated that it does
include as a condition of its lease agreement that its lessees purchase
and maintain its own motor vehicle insurance coverage. Emkay also
submitted a copy of its lease agreement showing that insurance was
required as a condition of the lease. Therefore, NHTSA proposes to
remove Emkay, Inc. from the list of insurers required to meet the
reporting requirements.
    Each of the remaining six companies (including franchisees and
licensees) listed in Appendix C are required to file reports for
calendar year 2006 no later than October 25, 2009, and set forth the
information required by Part 544. As long as those six companies remain
listed, they would be required to submit reports before each subsequent
October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years
before.

III. Regulatory Impacts

1. Costs and Other Impacts

    This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this proposed rule and determined
that the action is not ``significant'' within the meaning of the
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This
proposed rule implements the agency's policy of ensuring that all
insurance companies that are statutorily eligible for exemption from
the insurer reporting requirements are in fact exempted from those
requirements. Only those companies that are not statutorily eligible
for an exemption are required to file reports.
    NHTSA does not believe that this proposed rule, reflecting current
data, affects the impacts described in the final regulatory evaluation
prepared for the final rule establishing Part 544 (52 FR 59; January 2,
1987). Accordingly, a separate regulatory evaluation has not been
prepared for this rulemaking action. Using the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Consumer Price Index for 2008 (see http://www.bls.gov/cpi),
the cost estimates in the 1987 final regulatory evaluation were
adjusted for inflation. The agency estimates that the cost of
compliance is $107,650 for any insurer added to Appendix A, $43,060 for
any insurer added to Appendix B, and $12,423 for any insurer added to
Appendix C. If this proposed rule is made final, for Appendix A, the
agency would propose to remove one company and add one company; for
Appendix B, the agency would propose to remove one company; and for
Appendix C, the agency would propose to remove one company. The agency
estimates that the net effect of this proposal, if made final, would be
a cost decrease of

approximately $55,483 to insurers as a group.
    Interested persons may wish to examine the 1987 final regulatory
evaluation. Copies of that evaluation were placed in Docket No. T86-01;
Notice 2. Any interested person may obtain a copy of this evaluation by
writing to NHTSA, Technical Reference Division, 1201 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., East Building, Ground Floor, Room E12-100, Washington, DC 20590,
or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule were
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This collection of information is assigned OMB Control Number 2127-0547
(``Insurer Reporting Requirements'').

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The agency also considered the effects of this rulemaking under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I certify that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The rationale for the
certification is that none of the companies proposed for Appendices A,
B, or C are construed to be a small entity within the definition of the
RFA. ``Small insurer'' is defined, in part under 49 U.S.C. 33112, as
any insurer whose premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance
account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of
motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States, or
any insurer whose premiums within any State, account for less than 10
percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance
issued by insurers within the State. This notice would exempt all
insurers meeting those criteria. Any insurer too large to meet those
criteria is not a small entity. In addition, in this rulemaking, the
agency proposes to exempt all ``self-insured rental and leasing
companies'' that have fleets of fewer than 50,000 vehicles. Any self-
insured rental and leasing company too large to meet that criterion is
not a small entity.

4. Federalism

    This action has been analyzed according to the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

5. Environmental Impacts

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NHTSA has
considered the environmental impacts of this proposed rule and
determined that it would not have a significant impact on the quality
of the human environment.

6. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading, at the beginning, of this
document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

7. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the proposal clearly stated?
     Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon
that is not clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the proposal easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, you can forward them
to me several ways:
    a. Mail: Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel
Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
(West Building), Washington, DC 20590;
    b. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
    c. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

IV. Comments

Submission of Comments

1. How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Proposed Rule?

    In developing our rules, NHTSA tries to address the concerns of all
our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We
invite you to provide views on our proposal, new data, a discussion of
the effects of this proposal on you, or other relevant information. We
welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule. Your comments
will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
     Explain your views and reasoning clearly.
     Provide solid technical and cost data to support your
views.
     If you estimate potential costs, explain how you derived
the estimate.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
     Offer specific alternatives.
     Include the name, date, and docket number with your
comments.

2. How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not exceed 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We
established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments
concisely. You may attach necessary documents to your comments. We have
no limit on the attachments' length.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at
http:www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.

3. How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you, upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will mail the postcard.

4. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a confidentiality
claim, you should submit three copies of your complete submission,
including the information you claim as confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be

confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
addressing the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).

5. Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

6. How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above, in the same location. You may also see the comments on
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, log onto the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

V. Conclusion

    Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to amend Appendices A and
C of 49 CFR Part 544, Insurer Reporting Requirements. We are also
amending Sec.  544.5 to revise the example given the recent update to
the reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 544

    Crime insurance, Insurance, Insurance companies, Motor vehicles,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 544 is proposed to
be amended as follows:

PART 544--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 544 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 33112; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    2. Paragraph (a) of Sec.  544.5 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  544.5  General requirements for reports.

    (a) Each insurer to which this part applies shall submit a report
annually before October 25, beginning on October 25, 1986. This report
shall contain the information required by Sec.  544.6 of this part for
the calendar year 3 years previous to the year in which the report is
filed (e.g., the report due by October 25, 2009 will contain the
required information for the 2006 calendar year).
* * * * *
    3. Appendix A to Part 544 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix A--Insurers of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies Subject to the
Reporting Requirements in Each State in Which They Do Business

Allstate Insurance Group
American Family Insurance Group
American International Group
Auto Club Enterprise Insurance Group \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Indicates a newly listed company, which must file a report
beginning with the report due October 25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auto-Owners Insurance Group
Erie Insurance Group
Berkshire Hathaway/GEICO Corporation Group
California State Auto Group
Hartford Insurance Group
Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies
Metropolitan Life Auto & Home Group
Mercury General Group
Nationwide Group
Progressive Group
Safeco Insurance Companies
State Farm Group
Travelers Companies
USAA Group
Farmers Insurance Group

    4. Appendix B to Part 544 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix B--Issuers of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies Subject to the
Reporting Requirements Only in Designated States

Alfa Insurance Group (Alabama)
Auto Club (Michigan)
Commerce Group, Inc. (Massachusetts)
Kentucky Farm Bureau Group (Kentucky)
New Jersey Manufacturers Group (New Jersey)
Safety Group (Massachusetts)
Southern Farm Bureau Group (Arkansas, Mississippi)
Tennessee Farmers Companies (Tennessee)

    5. Appendix C to Part 544 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix C--Motor Vehicle Rental and Leasing Companies (Including
Licensees and Franchisees) Subject to the Reporting Requirements of
Part 544

Cendant Car Rental
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group
Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Hertz Rent-A-Car Division (subsidiary of The Hertz Corporation)
U-Haul International, Inc. (Subsidiary of AMERCO)
Vanguard Car Rental USA

    Issued on: August 11, 2009.
Julie Abraham,
Director, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-19587 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2955-2957]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01039]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0566: FRL-9973- 21--Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; ID, Crop Residue Burning; Revision to Ozone
Requirement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the portions of Idaho's State Implementation Plan
(SIP) related to agricultural crop residue burning. The Director of the
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted the
revisions to EPA on September 22, 2017. IDEQ supplemented the original
submission with photochemical modeling analyses on October 23, 2017.
The revisions change the ambient ozone concentration level at which
IDEQ may approve a permittee's request to burn. EPA is proposing to
approve the revisions because they satisfy the requirements of the
Clean Air Act. This action is being taken under section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 21,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2017-0566, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Ruddick, Air Planning Unit,
Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents:

I. Background
    A. Idaho's Crop Residue Burning Program
    B. Idaho's Proposed SIP Revision
    C. 2015 Ozone NAAQS Background
II. EPA's Review of Idaho's Submittal
    A. Summary of Idaho's Demonstration
    B. Clean Air Act Sec.  110(l) Requirements
III. EPA's Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Idaho's Crop Residue Burning Program

    Idaho's regulations at Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA)
<IP_ADDRESS>7 through 624 contain the federally-approved State
Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions regulating open burning of crop
residue in Idaho. These rules were approved by EPA on August 1, 2008,
(73 FR 44915) and were submitted to EPA in response to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Safe Air for Everyone v. USEPA,
475 F.3d 1096, amended 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir 2007). More information
regarding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and the
federally-approved requirements for crop residue burning can be found
in EPA's proposed and final actions on the state's 2008 SIP submittal.
73 FR 23155 (April 29, 2008) and 73 FR 44915 (August 1, 2008).
    In 2013, EPA approved revisions related to Idaho's open burning and
crop residue burning requirements that established a streamlined
permitting process for spot burns, baled agricultural residue burns,
and propane flaming. The revisions also made minor changes to the
existing crop residue burning rules to update cross references and
clarify certain administrative information. More information regarding
the revisions EPA approved in 2013 can be found in EPA's proposed and
final actions on the state's 2011 SIP submittal. 78 FR 2359 (January
11, 2013) and 78 FR 16790 (March 19, 2013).
    Idaho's federally-approved crop residue burning rules at IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>7 currently provide that the open burning of crop residue on
fields where the crops were grown is an allowable form of open burning
if conducted in accordance with the provisions at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>8
through 624. In brief, these rules require that a person desiring to
burn crop residue must register at least thirty days in advance of the
date of the proposed burn, pay a fee at least seven days prior to the
burn, contact the IDEQ for initial approval at least 12 hours prior to
the burn, obtain final approval from the IDEQ the morning of the burn,
and submit a post-burn report to the IDEQ. In addition, all persons
intending to dispose of crop residue through burning must abide by all
of the general provisions in IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>2 which covers such items
as training requirements, reporting requirements, and certain
limitations on burning.
    The criteria according to which IDEQ may approve a request to burn
crop residue are delineated in IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>1. Importantly, the
federally approved version currently in Idaho's SIP requires that IDEQ,
before approving a permittee's request to burn, determine that ambient
air quality levels do not exceed seventy-five percent of any NAAQS
concentration level on the day when the burning will occur and are not
projected to exceed such level over the next 24 hours. In addition,
IDEQ must determine that ambient air quality levels have not reached,
and are not forecasted to reach and persist at, eighty percent of the
one-hour action criteria for particulate matter under IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>6.\1\ Thus, IDEQ will not approve a burn if these levels are
expected to be exceeded as a result of the burn. In determining whether
to approve the burn, IDEQ must also consider the expected emissions
from the proposed burn, the proximity of the proposed burn to other
burns, the moisture content of the fuels, the acreage, crop type and
other fuel characteristics, existing and expected meteorological
conditions, the proximity of the proposed burn to institutions with
sensitive populations, public roadways, and airports, and other
relevant factors. See IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>1.01. IDEQ must also notify the
public as to whether a given day is a burn or no-burn day; the location
and number of acres permitted to be burned; meteorological conditions
and any real time ambient air quality monitoring data, and a toll-free
number to receive request for information. IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The current one-hour action criteria under IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>6 is an average of 80 [micro]g/m\3\ for PM2.5
and an average of 385 ug/m\3\ for PM10.

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

B. Idaho's Proposed SIP Revision

    On September 22, 2017, Idaho submitted a SIP revision request to
EPA. This SIP submittal contains one change to the federally-approved
crop residue burning rules. Specifically, the September 22, 2017, SIP
submittal revises the ozone concentration level at which IDEQ may
authorize (authorization level) agricultural crop residue burning (CRB)
at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>1.01 and Idaho Code 39-114 (codification of Idaho
Senate Bill 1009, Section 3) from seventy-five to ninety percent of the
Ozone NAAQS. This revision does not change the authorization levels for
any other NAAQS and all other CRB requirements remain unchanged.
    IDEQ submitted this revision after concluding that an authorization
level of seventy-five percent of the Ozone NAAQS was problematic
because it prohibited IDEQ from allowing burning on what would
otherwise be a desirable day to burn from a smoke management
perspective--when smoke would rise well into the transport layer and
disperse well. IDEQ asserts burning on days when smoke dispersion is
better will further limit negative impacts on public health.
    In the September 22, 2017, submittal, the IDEQ described the
process for making the rule changes and noted that the changes were
drafted in conjunction with negotiated rulemaking involving persons
having an interest in the development of this rule. IDEQ's negotiated
rulemaking process \2\ did not result in a consensus regarding the SIP
revisions Idaho submitted on September 22, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Idaho's negotiated rulemaking process is described in
Section 67-5220, Idaho Code and IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0 through 819.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. 2015 Ozone NAAQS Background

    On October 1, 2015, EPA signed a notice of final rulemaking that
revised the 8-hour primary and secondary Ozone NAAQS (80 FR 65292;
October 26, 2015). While both standards retain the same general form
and averaging time (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
concentration, averaged over three years \3\), they were lowered from
0.075 parts per million (ppm) to a level of 0.070 ppm.\4\ The revised
2015 Ozone NAAQS provides greater protection of public health and the
environment than the previous 2008 Ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 80 FR 65296; October 26, 2015, for a detailed
explanation of the calculation of the 3-year 8-hour average and 40
CFR part 50, Appendix U.
    \4\ These levels are commonly referred to in parts per billion
(ppb): 75 ppb and 70 ppb, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by section 107(d)(1) of the CAA to designate areas throughout the
United States as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for the
NAAQS. Nonattainment areas include both areas that are violating the
NAAQS, and nearby areas with emissions sources or activities that
contribute to violations in those areas. States with areas designated
nonattainment are required to prepare and submit a plan for attaining
the NAAQS in the area as expeditiously as practicable.
    On November 6, 2017, EPA issued final designations for the 2015
Ozone NAAQS for most areas in the United States. Specifically, we found
that Idaho meets the standard statewide and issued a final designation
of ``attainment/unclassifiable'' for Idaho statewide. This final
designation became effective January 16, 2018.

II. EPA's Review of Idaho's Submittal

A. Summary of Idaho's Demonstration

    Idaho submitted a ``Weight of Evidence'' demonstration containing
multiple analyses of ozone monitoring data; they also submitted
photochemical modeling to demonstrate that the proposed SIP revision
would not interfere with attainment of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. (See
Docket EPA-R10_OAR-2017-0566: 002_state submittals_Weight of Evidence
SIP narrative CRBO3 crop residue burning ozone.pdf and 004_state
submittals_2017ACQ100 final CRB Ozone Modeling SIP amendment Report EPA
submittal.pdf respectively.) Idaho's demonstration uses several
different approaches to evaluate existing ozone monitoring data from
2011 through 2015 to attempt to quantify the impacts of crop residue
burning during that period upon ambient ozone concentrations. Through
this methodology, it attempts to demonstrate that the range of ambient
impacts from historic crop residue burning have not exceeded levels
that would be expected to cause a violation of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.
Idaho's demonstration further provides that the universe of sources
participating in the crop residue burning program is stable and that
ozone precursor emissions under the proposed revised SIP will not
increase even though there is no provision in the SIP which explicitly
limits the scope of CRB either in terms of a limit on acres burned or
emissions generated by the practice. Finally, Idaho supplemented its
``Weight of Evidence'' demonstration with a photochemical modeling
demonstration that evaluated whether increasing the SIP's CRB
authorization level to ninety percent of the Ozone NAAQS concentration
would result in a violation of the NAAQS and concluded that Idaho would
continue to attain the Ozone NAAQS at this higher authorization level.
EPA's analysis of Idaho's demonstration is included in our Technical
Support Document (Docket R10-OAR-2017-0566, 101_Technical Support
Document_ID 2017 CRB Ozone Revision.pdf) and elsewhere in this Notice.

B. Clean Air Act Sec.  110(l) Requirements

    Approvals to revisions of SIPs are subject to the requirements of
CAA Sec.  110(l). Under section 110(l), the Administrator may not
approve a SIP revision ``if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of [the Act].''
    We considered all of the NAAQS pollutants and determined the most
relevant pollutants for this evaluation are PM2.5,
PM10, and ozone. PM and ozone are relevant because the EPA's
recent review of the NAAQS for these pollutants resulted in more
stringent standards (78 FR 3085, January 15, 2013; and 80 FR 65292;
October 26, 2015). There are no nonattainment areas for carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide or lead. AQS data show the
levels for these pollutants are well below the standards.
    Idaho's CRB ozone authorization level SIP revision does not affect
a change in Idaho's Regional Haze SIP (approved November 8, 2012, 77 FR
66929) because it does not change or impose a limit on the quantity of
light impairing pollutants emitted from crop residue burning. Idaho's
5-Year Progress Report, submitted June 28, 2016, demonstrates
visibility improvement at all three of the Class I area monitoring
sites, Craters of the Moon National Monument, Sawtooth Wilderness, and
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Current regional haze plan strategies are
sufficient for Idaho and its neighboring states to meet their
reasonable progress goals.
    Our findings in the 2008 approval (73 FR 23155, April 29, 2008)
that CRB was not the cause of PM nonattainment issues are still valid.
The same reasoning applies to the West Silver Valley nonattainment area
as well. Residential wood combustion in the cold, winter months during
atmospheric inversions is most responsible for elevated particulate
matter in these areas. Prescribed burning in the late autumn and early
spring also contributes substantially. The CRB authorization level and
control measures specific to PM2.5 and PM10 are

not changing under this proposed SIP revision. The revision will not
interfere in attainment or reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement with respect to either PM NAAQS.
    To address 110(l) requirement for ozone, we reviewed Idaho's
``Weight of Evidence'' demonstration submitted September 22, 2017, and
their supplemental modeling analyses submitted October 23, 2017. Based
on our review of Idaho's modeling and monitor data analyses we conclude
that the proposed revision to Idaho's CRB ozone authorization level
will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress with
the 2015 Ozone NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement.
    Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA defines a ``nonattainment area''
as ``any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air
quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.'' If an area
meets either prong of this definition, then the EPA is obligated to
designate the area as ``nonattainment.'' There are no areas designated
as nonattainment for ozone in the state of Idaho (82 FR 54232, November
16, 2017), in part, because we do not believe Idaho is contributing to
violations of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS in other states.

III. EPA's Proposed Action

    We have reviewed Idaho's demonstration that revising the CRB ozone
authorization level from seventy-five percent to ninety percent of the
Ozone NAAQS is still protective of the NAAQS, will not result in an
increase of emissions, and will not interfere with attainment of the
2015 Ozone NAAQS. We believe Idaho adequately justified its conclusions
with respect to each of these. EPA's approval decision is based
primarily on the photochemical modeling with secondary reliance on the
weight of evidence demonstration put forth by Idaho. See Docket R10-
OAR-2017-0566, 101_Technical Support Document_ID 2017 CRB Ozone
Revision.pdf for details on our review of the state submittal. Based on
the information provided by Idaho, as discussed in our Technical
Support Document, we propose to approve Idaho's SIP revision and amend
the authorization level for CRB to 90% of the Ozone NAAQS.
Authorization levels for CRB in Idaho's SIP will remain at 75% for all
other NAAQS.
    Under CAA section 110(k), EPA is proposing to approve revisions to
Idaho's SIP requested in their September 22, 2017, SIP submittal.
Moreover, based on the factors discussed above, we also conclude that
approval of the SIP submittal will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or
any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Idaho regulations for Burn Approval Criteria at IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>1.01 and Idaho Code 39-114, State Effective February 28,
2018, discussed in Section I.B. of the preamble. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the
person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 11, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-01039 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 7336-7338]
[DOCID:fr07fe08-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57250; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to CBOE's Holdback Timer

February 1, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 29, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
the CBOE. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)

of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which rendered the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to amend its rules relating to the usage of its
holdback timer. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
CBOE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.cboe.org/Legal
.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below,
of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On May 16, 2007, the Commission approved CBOE's proposed rule
change, which implemented an additional quote mitigation strategy,
namely, a holdback timer.\5\ In its filing, CBOE stated that it would
utilize a holdback timer that delays quotation updates to OPRA for no
longer than one (1) second, and that it would be used in option classes
trading on the Hybrid Trading System and Hybrid 2.0 Platform.
Subsequently, CBOE implemented a new trading platform, the Hybrid 3.0
Platform, which allows a single quoter to submit an electronic quote
which represents the aggregate Market-Maker quoting interest in a
series in the trading crowd.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 55772 (May 16, 2007), 72
FR 28732 (May 22, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-45).
    \6\ See CBOE Rule 1.1(aaa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE now proposes to clarify that it may utilize the holdback timer
in any option classes traded on CBOE, including option classes traded
on the Hybrid 3.0 Platform. CBOE believes that the holdback timer is an
appropriate and useful tool in mitigating quotations, as it reduces the
number of quotations that CBOE disseminates to OPRA, without negatively
impacting transparency. CBOE also notes that the holdback timer has
been endorsed by the Securities Information and Financial Markets
Association. CBOE is not proposing to change the manner in which the
holdback timer functions, as described in its original rule filing SR-
CBOE-2007-45.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received by the
Exchange.

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\10\ because
the foregoing proposed rule does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30-days after the date of filing.\11\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.\12\ The Exchange has requested that
the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
will allow CBOE to implement the holdback timer in Hybrid 3.0 option
classes immediately, and thus reduce the number of quotations it
disseminates to OPRA. Furthermore, the proposed rule change does not
present any novel regulatory issues as the holdback timer is already
implemented with respect to options classes trading on the Hybrid
Trading System and Hybrid 2.0 Platform. For these reasons, the
Commission designates the proposal to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory organization to give the
Commission 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. CBOE has satisfied the five-day pre-filing requirement.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2008-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2008-11 and should be
submitted on or before February 28, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-2204 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P