[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34040-34041]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15352]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61, 67, 91, and 120

Settlement Policy for Commercial Pilots in Drug and Alcohol
Testing Cases

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement policy.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a procedure for prompt settlement
agreements between the FAA and commercial pilots who have: Received a
verified positive result for a Department of Transportation (DOT)-
required drug test; received a DOT-required alcohol test result of .04
or above alcohol concentration; refused to submit to a DOT-required
drug or alcohol test in violation of FAA regulations; or acted or
attempted to act as a crewmember of an aircraft in commercial
operations in violation of specified FAA regulations under this policy
that proscribe the use, being under the influence or affects, or while
have proscribed levels of alcohol or drugs. The settlement agreement
procedures in this notification are generally available to pilots who,
but for the disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol test result, refusal to
submit to a DOT test, or violation of the specified alcohol- and drug-
related FAA regulations prohibiting acting or attempting to act as a
crewmember, would be qualified for a pilot certificate and who are
first-time violators of these drug or alcohol provisions.

DATES: The enforcement policy is effective October 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Barry, Manager, Policy/Audit/
Evaluation, Enforcement Division, AGC-300, Federal Aviation
Administration. 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A commercial pilot who receives a disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol
test result, refuses a DOT drug or alcohol test, or violates Sec.
91.17(a)(1) through (4) is subject to the revocation of airman
certificates issued under 14 CFR part 61 and airman medical
certificates issued under 14 CFR part 67. Under 14 CFR 61.13(d)(2),
unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person whose pilot,
flight instructor, or ground instructor certificate has been revoked
may not apply for any certificate, rating, or authorization for one
year after the date the FAA issued the revocation order.
    Many commercial pilots who receive a disqualifying DOT drug or
alcohol test result, refuse a DOT drug or alcohol test, or violate
Sec.  91.17(a)(1) through (4) promptly enter into the Human
Intervention Motivation Study (``HIMS'') program, which is a substance
recovery program for such pilots.\1\ If a pilot undergoes evaluation,
and successfully completes appropriate treatment and remains under
comprehensive continuing care in accordance with the HIMS program, the
pilot may become eligible for an authorization for special issuance of
an airman medical certificate (``special issuance'') well before the
completion of an FAA investigation into the matter, initiation of legal
enforcement action based on the investigation, and passage of the time
period specified in 14 CFR 61.13(d)(2).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pilot is not permitted to fly commercially after receiving
a disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol test result or having refused a
DOT drug or alcohol test unless the pilot completes a substance
abuse professional (SAP) evaluation and undergoes referral for
education/treatment and return-to-duty testing. Further, under 14
CFR 61.53(a), a pilot is prohibited from acting as a required flight
crew member when he or she knows, or has reason to know, that he or
she has a disqualifying medical condition, which includes substance
abuse or dependence under 14 CFR part 67.
    \2\ Under 14 CFR 67.401(a), the Federal Air Surgeon has
discretion to grant a special issuance to a pilot who does not meet
the requirement for unrestricted airman medical certification if the
airman can show to the satisfaction of the Federal Air Surgeon that
the duties authorized by the class of medical certificate applied
for can be performed without endangering public safety during the
period in which the authorization would be in force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, following the discovery of a disqualifying DOT drug or
alcohol test result, DOT drug or alcohol test refusal, or violation of
14 CFR 91.17(a)(1) through (4), the FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine,
Drug Abatement Division (``AAM-800'') investigates the apparent
violation, which includes interviews and the collection of evidence,
and develops an enforcement investigative report (``EIR''), which is
subject to AAM-800 management review. If AAM-800 management deems the
EIR sufficient, it transmits the EIR to the Office of the Chief
Counsel's Enforcement Division (``AGC-300'') for additional review to
ensure, among other things, evidentiary sufficiency and compliance with
law and policy. Consistent with FAA policy, AGC-300 issues an order
revoking pilot and airman medical certificates only after the thorough
review necessary to ensure that legal enforcement action involving the
revocation of certificates is appropriate. Although the FAA normally
issues emergency orders of revocation for the types of drug or alcohol
violations discussed in this notification, the FAA necessarily takes
the appropriate amount of time to ensure that the issuance of the order
is reasonable and supportable. Accordingly, the period of time between
the FAA's discovery of a drug or alcohol violation and the issuance of
a certificate action can be lengthy. Further, the additional time
period specified in 14 CFR 61.13(d)(2) adds up to a year after the
issuance of an order of revocation. During the period from the
discovery of the violation to the expiration of the time period
specified in 14 CFR 61.13(d)(2), a pilot may have long successfully
completed recovery steps necessary to be found qualified for a special
issuance.

Policy Statement

    Under the new prompt settlement procedure, the FAA will send
notification to commercial pilots who receive a disqualifying DOT drug
or alcohol test result, refuse a DOT drug or alcohol test, or violate
Sec.  91.17(a)(1) through (4) in commercial operations. The
notification will inform the pilot that he or she may contact AAM-800
within ten days of receipt of the notice to request consideration for a
prompt settlement of the legal enforcement action. The FAA will send
the notification soon after it discovers the violation.
    If the pilot requests to be considered for the new settlement
procedure, the FAA will determine whether the pilot is eligible for the
process. The procedure is not available where there is a question about
a pilot's qualification to hold a certificate other than that presented
by the disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol test result, refusal to submit
to a DOT test, or violation of Sec.  91.17(a)(1) through (4), or where
the pilot is not a first-time violator of these drug or alcohol testing
provisions. If the FAA deems application of the prompt settlement
procedure is appropriate, AGC-300 enforcement counsel will provide the
pilot, or his or her legal representative, a formal agreement that sets
forth the conditions for prompt settlement. The terms of the settlement
agreement will normally include the following provisions.
    (1) The settlement agreement must be executed by the parties within
ten days after the FAA transmits the agreement to the pilot.
    (2) The FAA will issue an emergency order revoking all certificates
the pilot holds that were issued under 14 CFR

parts 61 and 67 immediately upon receiving the fully executed
settlement agreement.
    (3) The emergency order of revocation will: (i) Require the
immediate surrender of all certificates the pilot holds that were
issued under 14 CFR parts 61 and 67 to enforcement counsel; (ii) notify
the pilot that the failure to immediately surrender these certificates
could subject the pilot to further legal enforcement action, including
a civil penalty; and (iii) inform the pilot that the FAA will not
accept an application for a new certificate issued under 14 CFR part 61
for a period of a year from the date of the issuance of the emergency
order of revocation.
    (4) The pilot will waive all appeal rights from the emergency order
of revocation.
    (5) The parties will agree to bear their own costs and attorney
fees, if any, in connection with the matter.
    (6) The pilot will agree to not initiate any litigation before any
court, tribunal, or administrative entity concerning any costs or
attorney fees, including applications under the Equal Access to Justice
Act, incurred as a result of the above-referenced matter.
    (7) The pilot will agree to waive any and all causes of action
against the FAA and its current and/or former officials and employees
relating to the above-referenced matter.
    This procedure is expected to allow pilots who have established
qualifications to hold a new 14 CFR part 61 certificate, and have met
the requirements under 14 CFR part 67 for a special issuance consistent
with participation in the HIMS program, to more quickly assume
commercial flight crewmember duties. Indeed, it should allow pilots to
apply for a new pilot certificate closer in time to a determination
that the pilot is eligible for a special issuance (following timely
evaluation, treatment, and continuing comprehensive care in accordance
with the HIMS program). Further, the added predictability of this
process should allow pilots who have received a disqualifying DOT drug
or alcohol test result, refused to submit to a DOT test, or violated
Sec.  91.17(a)(1) through (4) to focus effort and energy on the
treatment and recovery process, and allow both the pilot and FAA to
better allocate limited resources.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 12, 2018.
Naomi Tsuda,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018-15352 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 61622]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR18-87-001.
    Applicants: ONEOK Field Services Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e)+(g): Revised
Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective 11/1/2018;
    Filed Date: 11/20/18.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>96.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/18.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/18.
    Docket Numbers: RP19-307-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Utility Holdings, Inc., Black Hills Energy
Services Company.
    Description: Joint Application for Temporary Waivers of Capacity
Release, Regulations and Policies, et al. of Black Hills Utility,
Holdings, Inc., et al. under RP19-307.
    Filed Date: 11/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20181120-5220.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/18.
    Docket Numbers: RP19-308-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: APL Nov2018 Delivery Point
Cleanup, Filing to be effective 12/21/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20181121-5018.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/18.
    Docket Numbers: RP19-309-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: CGT Total Amendment Filing to
be effective 11/25/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20181121-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/18.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 26, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26056 Filed 11-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33886-33892]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15343]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0309 and EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0316: FRL-9980-88--Region
8]

Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date and Clean Data
Determination for the Logan, UT-ID 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a
determination of attainment by the attainment date and a clean data
determination (CDD) for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) Logan, Utah (UT)-Idaho (ID) nonattainment area. The
determination is based upon quality-assured, quality-controlled and
certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) based on 2015-2017 data available in the EPA's Air
Quality System (AQS) database. Based on the proposed determination that
the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area is currently attaining the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA is also proposing to determine that the
obligation for Utah and Idaho to make submissions to meet certain Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act) requirements related to attainment of the
NAAQS for this area is not applicable for as long as the area continues
to attain the NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0309 and/or Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0316 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The 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 the disclosure of which 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. The 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], or Matthew Jentgen,
Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), EPA, Region 10,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101; (206) 553-
0340; [email protected].

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

I. Background

A. Designation and Classification of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA revised the level of the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, lowering the primary and secondary
standards from the 1997 standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. The EPA

retained the form of the 1997 24-hour standard, that is, the 98th
percentile of the annual 24-hour concentrations at each population-
oriented monitor within an area, averaged over 3 years. 71 FR 61164-5
(October 17, 2006).
    On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA designated a number of
areas as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35
[micro]g/m\3\, including the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. The EPA
originally designated these areas under the general provisions of CAA
title I, part D, subpart 1 (``subpart 1''), under which attainment
plans must provide for the attainment of a specific NAAQS (in this
case, the 2006 PM2.5 standards) as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date the areas were
designated nonattainment.
    Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit held in NRDC v. EPA \1\ that the EPA
should have implemented the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard
based on both the general nonattainment area requirements in subpart 1
and the PM-specific requirements of CAA title I, part D, subpart 4
(``subpart 4''). In response to the Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA, on
June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA finalized the ``Identification of
Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particulate
(PM2.5) NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.'' This rule
classified the areas that were designated in 2009 as nonattainment to
Moderate, and set the attainment SIP submittal due date for those areas
at December 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the court's decision, on December 16, 2014, the Utah
Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) withdrew all prior Logan, UT-ID
PM2.5 SIP submissions and submitted a new SIP to address
both the general requirements of subpart 1 and the PM-specific
requirements of subpart 4 for Moderate areas. Additionally, on December
24, 2014, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ)
submitted a supplement to the 2012 SIP submission (``2014 amendment'')
that included additional analyses intended to meet CAA subpart 4
requirements.
    On August 24, 2016, the EPA finalized the Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan
Requirements (``PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule''), 81 FR 58010,
which addressed the January 4, 2013 court ruling. The final
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule provides the EPA's
interpretation of the requirements applicable to PM2.5
nonattainment areas and explains how air agencies can meet the
statutory SIP requirements that apply under subparts 1 and 4 to areas
designated nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS.

B. Two, 1-Year Extensions for the Logan, UT-ID Nonattainment Area

    Under CAA section 188(d) and 40 CFR 51.1005, the EPA may grant a
state's request to extend the attainment date for a Moderate area for a
24-hour PM2.5 standard if: ``(1) the State has complied with
all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the
applicable implementation plan; and (2) the 98th percentile 24-hour
concentration at each monitor in the area for the calendar year that
includes the applicable attainment date is less than or equal to the
level of the applicable 24-hour standard.'' The EPA cannot issue more
than two, 1-year extensions for a single Moderate area.
    Both the State of Utah and the State of Idaho submitted requests to
extend the attainment date to December 31, 2016, and then to December
31, 2017.\2\ The EPA granted those requests on September 8, 2017 (82 FR
42447). As a result, the EPA must examine monitor data values from
2015-2017 to determine whether the Logan, UT-ID area attained the NAAQS
by the extended attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Each of the extension requests from Idaho and Utah can be
found in the Region 8 and Region 10 dockets for the Logan, UT-ID
nonattainment area proposed extension request actions. See EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0216 and EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Prior Actions on the Utah Portion of the Logan, UT-ID Nonattainment
Area

    The EPA previously acted on the area source rules and reasonably
available control measure (RACM) analyses of the Utah Moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment area plan on September 9, 2015 (80 FR
54237), February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343), October 19, 2016 (81 FR 71988)
and September 14, 2017 (82 FR 43205). We have not acted on, approved or
disapproved, any other portion of the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5
attainment plan submitted by UDAQ. Since the EPA has not disapproved
any portion of the plan, the clocks for sanctions under 179(a) and for
a FIP under 110(c) are not in effect for the Utah portion of the Logan,
UT-ID nonattainment area. Additionally, we proposed to approve the
attainment demonstration and motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for
the Utah portion on December 4, 2017 (82 FR 57183).

D. Prior Action on the Idaho Portion of the Logan, UT-ID Nonattainment
Area

    Initially, the EPA approved Idaho's baseline emissions inventory on
July 18, 2014 (79 FR 41904), and also approved certain control
measures, including local ordinances and road sanding agreements,
submitted in Idaho's attainment plan on March 24, 2014 (79 FR 16201).
Subsequently, on January 4, 2017 (82 FR 729), the EPA published a
partial approval and partial disapproval of the attainment plan for the
Idaho portion of the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area.
Specifically, the EPA approved Idaho's determination of which
pollutants must be evaluated for control in the Idaho portion of the
nonattainment and Idaho's RACM and reasonably available control
technology (RACT) provisions. The EPA deferred action on the attainment
demonstration, reasonable further progress (RFP), quantitative
milestone, and MVEB requirements. Additionally, we disapproved the
contingency measure element of Idaho's attainment plan.\3\ Since the
EPA has disapproved this portion of the plan, the clocks for sanctions
under 179(a) and for a FIP under 110(c) are in effect for the Idaho
portion of the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. As discussed below, if
the EPA finalizes this action, the clocks for sanctions and for a FIP
will be deferred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA extended the effective date of this partial approval
and partial disapproval to April 20, 2017. See 82 FR 14463.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 8, 2017 (82 FR 37025), based on newly available air
quality monitoring data, the EPA approved Idaho's attainment
demonstration and approved Idaho's 2014 MVEB as early progress budgets.
Additionally, the EPA conditionally approved the RFP, quantitative
milestone and revised MVEB requirements. Idaho committed to submit
revisions for the conditionally approved elements by August 1, 2018.

II. Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date

    Under CAA section 188(b)(2), the EPA is required to determine
within 6 months of the applicable attainment date whether a
nonattainment area attained the standard by that date. As discussed
above, on September 8, 2017, the EPA extended the attainment date for
the Logan, UT-ID area to December 31, 2017. Under the EPA regulations
at 40 CFR 50.13 and part 50, appendix N, section 4.2, the 2006 primary
and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are met when the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS design value at each eligible monitoring site is
less than or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\.

For the 24-hour PM2.5 standards, appendix N defines eligible
monitoring sites as those that meet the technical requirements in 40
CFR 58.11 and 58.30. Three years of valid annual PM2.5 98th
percentile mass concentrations are required to produce a valid 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS design value. A year meets data completeness
requirements when quarterly data capture rates for all four quarters
are at least 75%. Nonetheless, where the 75% data capture requirement
is not met, the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS design value shall still
be considered valid if it passes the maximum quarterly value data
substitution test.
    In accordance with the EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, appendix
N, a finding of attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
must be based upon complete, quality-assured data gathered at
established state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) and
national air monitoring stations (NAMS) in the nonattainment area and
entered in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). Data from air monitors
operated by state/local/tribal agencies in compliance with the EPA
monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies
annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of their
knowledge. Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when
determining the attainment status of areas. See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR
part 50, appendix L; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, and 40 CFR part
58, appendices A, C, D, and E. All data are reviewed to determine the
area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR 50, appendix N.
    Additionally, a determination of attainment is not equivalent to a
redesignation, and the state must still meet the statutory requirements
for redesignation in order to be redesignated to attainment.

A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations

    Determining whether an area has attained the NAAQS pursuant to CAA
section 188(b)(2) is based on monitored air quality data. Thus, the
validity of a determination of attainment depends in part on whether
the monitoring network adequately measures ambient PM2.5
levels in the nonattainment area. The UDAQ and the IDEQ are the
governmental agencies with the authority and responsibilities under
each state's laws for collecting ambient air quality data for the
Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. Annually, UDAQ and IDEQ submit
monitoring network plans to the EPA. These plans document the
establishment and maintenance of the air monitoring network, as
required under 40 CFR part 58. With respect to PM2.5
monitoring in the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area, the EPA Regional
offices for Region 8 and Region 10 have found that UDAQ's and IDEQ's
annual network plans, respectively, met the applicable requirements
under 40 CFR part 58 for the relevant period, 2015-2017, with the
exception (discussed below) of UDAQ's 2015 network plan. Also, UDAQ and
IDEQ annually certify that the data they submit to AQS are quality
assured.
    The UDAQ and IDEQ each operated PM2.5 SLAMS monitors
during the 2015-2017 period within the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5
nonattainment area. In 2015, UDAQ operated two PM2.5
monitoring sites, at Logan and Smithfield, and in 2016 and 2017, UDAQ
operated only the Smithfield monitoring site. The IDEQ monitoring site
for 2015, 2016 and 2017 was located in Franklin, Idaho.

B. Logan/Smithfield, Utah Monitoring

    The 2015 Annual Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP) and Five-Year
Network Assessment was submitted by UDAQ in June 2015. This plan and
assessment was not reviewed and acted on by Region 8 due to Region 8's
Technical Support Audit (TSA), which was completed in August 2015, and
found major and minor/observation issues with the network. The
objective of a TSA is to review a quality assurance (QA) system in
order to evaluate the system's ability to ensure quality, in this case,
the reporting of valid data to the EPA's AQS database. The QA
requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendices A through E pertain to
regulatory air monitoring at SLAMS. A major finding may indicate that
invalid data have been loaded in AQS or, if not corrected, future
operations may result in collection of invalid data, and a minor/
observation finding will not necessarily lead to data loss or
invalidation, but warrant investigation, appropriate follow-up and
audit response. Additional details pertaining to the major and minor
findings can be found in the 2015 TSA in the Region 8 docket (EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0309).
    Due to these monitoring issues, the EPA was not able to approve
UDAQ's 2015 AMNP and a large number of samples from the filter-based
Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor in Logan and Smithfield were
invalidated.\4\ The EPA worked with UDAQ to correct these deficiencies
found in the August 2015 TSA and after their review of the
PM2.5 data for 2015, UDAQ removed the invalid samples for
the Logan FRM monitor and left the valid samples in the AQS database.
Additionally, some continuous sampler data from the Logan co-located
Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitor were determined to have
sufficient QA to meet NAAQS comparison requirements. Data from this co-
located monitor were used to fill in some of the missing days in 2015,
adding to the total number of samples that can be used to determine a
98th percentile value for that year and providing for a complete 2015
monitoring year. Utah used the methodology found in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix N sections 3.0(d)(2) and 3.0(e) to substitute FEM data for the
days without FRM data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ May 8, 2017 EPA Region 8 Memorandum; Logan, Utah
PM2.5 2015 Design Value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has reviewed the Logan site and, using the criteria found
in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, has determined that the QA for the
continuous FEM monitor is acceptable. We therefore agree that the data
from the FEM monitor can be substituted for the days for which the FRM
monitor data was invalid, which would provide for a complete year in
2015 to be used in showing attainment. Pursuant to 40 CFR 50, appendix
N, the standard must be met at each ``eligible monitoring site,'' where
an ``eligible [monitoring] site'' is defined in appendix N as a site
that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 58.11 and 58.30. Thus, appendix N
does not require AMNP approval, only that the monitoring site meets the
substantive requirements. Upon reviewing the Logan and Smithfield
sites, despite the EPA not formally approving the 2015 AMNP, the EPA
finds that the Logan and Smithfield sites met the requirements of 40
CFR 58.11 during 2015. On November 29, 2016, UDAQ submitted a letter
that contained the AMP 430, AMP 450, AMP 256 and AMP 450NC reports
required to certify the 2015 air quality data in Utah. UDAQ completed
the data certification process in AQS and with the November 29, 2016
letter, certified that the 2015 air quality data is accurate.
Additional information related to these monitors can be found in the
November 23, 2016 memoranda found in the Region 8 docket (EPA-R08-OAR-
2018-0309).
    On March 14, 2017, the EPA approved Utah's 2016 AMNP. As part of
the approval, we approved the closing of the Logan monitoring station
on December 31, 2015 (AQS ID #49-005-0004) and the establishment of the
Smithfield monitoring station (AQS ID #49-005-0007) as a maximum
concentration site. Additionally, on April 20, 2017, UDAQ submitted a
letter that contained the AMP 600 and AMP

450NC reports required to certify the 2016 air quality data in Utah.
UDAQ completed the data certification process in AQS and with the April
20, 2017 letter, certified that the 2016 air quality data is accurate.
    On October 27, 2017, the EPA approved Utah's 2017 AMNP, and on
April 10, 2018, the UDAQ submitted a letter that contained the AMP 600
and AMP 450NC reports required to certify the 2017 air quality data in
Utah. With the April 10, 2018 letter, UDAQ completed the data
certification process in AQS and certified that the 2017 air quality
data is accurate.
    The Smithfield monitoring site data was incomplete for 2015 because
the station, including the co-located continuous monitor, was not
operating in January of that year. Thus, in order to establish 3 years
of valid data at the Smithfield monitoring site, the EPA proposes to
combine the January 2015 Logan data with Smithfield's February through
December 2015 data. In doing so, we are considering not only our
approval of the replacement of the Logan monitor with the Smithfield
monitor in the monitoring network, but also the consistency of the data
from the two monitors. During 2015, data from the two monitors on days
above 10 [mu]g/m\3\ was well correlated. For details, please see the
June 13, 2018 memorandum to the docket entitled ``Logan, Utah
PM2.5 Monitoring Data Set Determination Memo.''

C. Franklin, ID Monitoring

    Idaho submitted its 2015 AMNP on August 12, 2015. Until June 30,
2015, Idaho had two regulatory air quality monitors running at the
Franklin, ID site. As part of the network plan, Idaho proposed to
replace the very sharp cut cyclone (VSCC) on its FEM continuous monitor
with a sharp cut cyclone (SCC), making it a special purpose monitor for
Air Quality Index (AQI) reporting. This change resulted in the FEM
continuous monitor becoming non-regulatory, as of June 30, 2015. The
EPA approved Idaho's 2015 AMNP on October 28, 2015.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the approval letter, the EPA noted that since the
alteration of the FEM continuous monitor did not change the SLAMS
network, the EPA approval is not needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Idaho submitted its 2016 AMNP on July 28, 2016. The EPA approved
Idaho's network plan on December 13, 2016. The regulatory FRM monitor
at the Franklin, ID site did not meet the completeness requirements in
Quarter 2 of 2016. Per 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, 4.2(c), when a
monitor has less than 75% capture in a quarter (but greater than 50%),
a substitution test can be performed to determine the validity of the
data. The Franklin monitor had 70% completeness in Quarter 2 of 2016.
Per the substitution test, the highest Quarter 2 value for the 3-year
period under consideration is substituted for all missing data in the
deficient quarter. The 2015-2017 design value is the 3-year period
under consideration in this case. The highest value is 10.3 [mu]g/m\3\
within the 3-year period during that quarter of the year. Applying the
maximum 10.3 [mu]g/m\3\ PM2.5 value to the missing data for
the deficient quarter (Quarter 2, 2016) does not affect the 2015-2017
design value at the Franklin monitor.
    Idaho submitted its initial 2017 AMNP on June 29, 2017, and
submitted an addendum on October 31, 2017. The addendum requested
changing the run schedule of the regulatory FRM monitor at the
Franklin, ID site from every third day to daily. The EPA approved the
2017 AMNP, including the run schedule change, on November 8, 2017.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The November 8, 2017 AMNP approval letter noted monitoring
network deficiencies related to ozone monitoring and deficiencies in
Idaho's network monitoring plan, but these were not deficiencies
specific to PM2.5 air quality monitoring in the Logan,
UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Evaluation of Current Attainment

    As discussed above, the EPA's evaluation of whether the Logan, UT-
ID PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is based on our review of the monitoring data,
and takes into account the adequacy of the PM2.5 monitoring
network in the nonattainment area and the reliability of the data
collected by the network as discussed in the previous section of this
document.
    Based on our review, the PM2.5 monitoring network for
the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area meets the requirements stated above
and is therefore adequate for use in determining whether the area
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA
has reviewed the data for the most recent 3-year period (2015-2017) for
completeness and has determined that the data collected by UDAQ and
IDEQ meets the completeness criterion for all 12 quarters at the
Smithfield, Utah and Franklin, Idaho monitors.
    The EPA reviewed the PM2.5 ambient air monitoring data
from the Smithfield, Utah (AQS site 49-005-0007) and Franklin, Idaho
(AQS site 16-041-0001) monitoring sites consistent with the
requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, as recorded in the EPA AQS
database for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. For purposes of
determining attainment by the December 31, 2017 extended attainment
date, the EPA determined that the data recorded in the AQS database was
certified and complete.
    Additionally, UDAQ submitted exceptional events demonstrations for
the year 2017. The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule (81 FR 58010,
August 24, 2016) states:
    Air quality monitoring data that the EPA determines to have been
influenced by an exceptional event under the procedural steps,
substantive criteria, and schedule specified in the Exceptional Events
Rule may be excluded from regulatory decisions such as initial area
designations decisions and decisions associated with implementing the
PM2.5 NAAQS such as clean data determinations (CDD),
evaluation of attainment demonstrations, and discretionary or mandatory
reclassifications of nonattainment areas from Moderate to Serious.
While the EPA may agree with the state's request to exclude event-
influenced air quality monitoring data from regulatory decisions, these
regulatory actions require the EPA to provide an opportunity for public
comment on the claimed exceptional event and all supporting data prior
to the EPA taking final agency action.
    The EPA concurred on these exceptional events on June 15, 2018, and
the concurrence is included in the Region 8 docket for this action
(EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0309). This proposed determination of attainment and
CDD provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the claimed
exceptional events, all supporting documents and the EPA's concurrence
with the State of Utah's requests.
    The design value for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for
the years 2015-2017 at the Smithfield, Utah site was 33 [mu]g/m\3\ and
30 [mu]g/m\3\ at the Franklin, Idaho site, which is less than the
standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. See Table 1 below for the annual 98th
percentiles and 3-year design value for the 2015-2017 monitoring
period. On the basis of this review, we are proposing to determine that
the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date.

                     Table 1--2015-2017 Logan UT-ID Nonattainment Area PM2.5 Monitoring Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           98th percentile ([mu]g/m\3\)            2015-2017 24-
                                                 ------------------------------------------------   hour design
          Monitor name              AQS site ID                                                    value ([mu]g/
                                                       2015            2016            2017            m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smithfield, UT..................     49-005-0007        \a\ 28.9            34.4            36.0          \a\ 33
Franklin, ID....................     16-041-0001            18.8            33.3        \b\ 38.3          \b\ 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This value combines monitor data from the Logan, UT and Smithfield, UT monitors. The EPA concurred
  exceptional events are excluded.
\b\ This value includes 1 in 3 monitoring frequency from January 1-August 9, 2017, and daily monitoring
  frequency from August 10-December 31, 2017.

III. Clean Data Determination

    Over the past 2 decades, the EPA has consistently applied its
``Clean Data Policy'' interpretation to attainment related provisions
of subparts 1, 2, and 4 of the CAA. The EPA codified the approach in
the Clean Data Policy in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule (40
CFR 51.1015(a)) for the implementation of current and future
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 81 FR 58010, 58161 (August 24, 2016). For a
complete discussion of the Clean Data Policy's history and the EPA's
longstanding interpretation under the CAA, please refer to the August
24, 2016 PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule (81 FR 58010).
    The general requirements of subpart 1 apply in conjunction with the
more specific requirements of subpart 4, to the extent they are not
superseded or subsumed by the subpart 4 requirements. Subpart 1
contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated
nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains specific
planning and scheduling requirements for particulate matter
nonattainment areas, See section188. The final PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule interprets the CAA specific to PM2.5 and
provides information on the statutory requirements for SIPs for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. See 81 FR 58010 (August 24,
2016).
    As provided in 40 CFR 51.1015, so long as an area continues to meet
the standard, finalization of a CDD suspends the requirements for a
nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated
RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures and any other planning SIP
requirements related to the attainment of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. For purposes of this NAAQS, the requirement to submit a
projected attainment inventory as part of an attainment demonstration
or RFP is also suspended by this determination. As discussed in the
2016 PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, the nonattainment base
emissions inventory required by section 172(c)(3) is not suspended by
this determination because the base inventory is a requirement
independent of planning for an area's attainment. See 81 FR 58009 at
58028 and 58127-8 and 80 FR 15340 at 15441-2. Additionally,
nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) requirements are discussed in
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, and required by CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(C); 172(c)(5); 173; 189(a); and 189(e), as not being
suspended by a CDD because this requirement is independent of the
area's attainment planning. See 81 FR 58010 at 58107 and 58127.
    By extension, the requirement to submit a MVEB for the attainment
year for the purposes of transportation conformity is also suspended. A
MVEB is that portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the
submitted or approved control strategy implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting RFP
milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, for
any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to highway and
transit vehicle use and emissions.\7\ For the purposes of the
transportation conformity regulations, the control strategy
implementation plan revision is the implementation plan which contains
specific strategies for controlling the emissions of and reducing
ambient levels of pollutants in order to satisfy CAA requirements for
demonstrations of RFP and attainment.\8\ Given that MVEBs are required
to support the RFP and attainment demonstration requirements in the
attainment plan, suspension of the RFP and attainment demonstration
requirements through a CDD, also suspends the requirement to submit
MVEBs for the attainment and RFP years. The suspension of planning
requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1015, does not preclude the state
from submitting suspended elements of its moderate area attainment plan
for EPA approval for the purposes of strengthening the state's SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 40 CFR 93.101.
    \8\ 40 CFR 93.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The suspension of the obligation to submit such requirements
applies regardless of when the plan submissions are due. The CDD does
not suspend CAA requirements that are independent of helping the area
achieve attainment, such as the requirements to submit an emissions
inventory and NNSR requirements. A clean data determination is not
equivalent to a redesignation, and the state must still meet the
statutory requirements for redesignation in order to be redesignated to
attainment.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1015(a)(1) and (2), the CDD suspends
the aforementioned SIP obligations until such time as the area is
redesignated to attainment, after which such requirements are
permanently discharged; or the EPA determines that the area has re-
violated the PM2.5 NAAQS, at which time the state shall
submit such attainment plan elements for the Moderate nonattainment
area by a future date to be determined by the EPA and announced through
publication in the Federal Register at the time the EPA determines the
area is violating the PM2.5 NAAQS.

A. Clean Data Determination for the Logan, UT-ID Nonattainment Area

    Based on the same monitoring data for the period 2015-2017, the EPA
is also proposing to determine that the area has clean data for
demonstrating attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In
accordance with 40 CFR 51.1015, a CDD can be made upon a determination
by the EPA that a Moderate PM2.5 NAA is attaining the
PM2.5 NAAQS. As provided in 40 CFR 51.1015, so long as the
EPA does not determine that the area has re-violated the standard,
finalization of this determination suspends the requirements for this
area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated RACM, RFP plan,
contingency measures, and any other SIP planning requirements related
to the attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. For purposes of
this NAAQS, the requirement to submit an attainment year projected
inventory for the nonattainment area as part of an

attainment demonstration or RFP as well as MVEB are also suspended by
this determination. As discussed in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, the base year inventory for the nonattainment area
required by section 172(c)(3) is not suspended by this determination
because the base year inventory is a requirement independent of
planning for an area's attainment. See 81 FR 58009 at 58028 and 58127-8
and 80 FR 15340 at 15441-2. Additionally, NNSR requirements are
discussed in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, and required
by CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C); 172(c)(5); 173; 189(a); and 189(e), as
not being suspended by this determination because this requirement is
independent of the area's attainment planning. See 81 FR 58010 at 58107
and 58127.
    Under a CDD, the planning requirements noted above shall be
suspended until such time as the area is redesignated to attainment,
after which such requirements are permanently discharged. Specific to
Idaho, we are proposing to suspend the requirements to submit RFP,
quantitative milestones, attainment year MVEB \9\ and contingency
measures.\10\ If we finalize today's proposed CDD, any sanctions clocks
under CAA section 179(a) or requirements that we promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c) for these SIP
requirements will be suspended for the pendency of the CDD. If the EPA
subsequently determines that the area is in violation of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA would rescind the CDD, the states
would again be required to submit the suspended attainment plan
elements to the EPA, and the FIP and sanctions clocks would resume. See
40 CFR 51.1015(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In accordance with 40 CFR 93.109(c)(5), Idaho will rely on
the 2014 early progress MVEB approved on August 8, 2017, for the
purposes of transportation conformity. 82 FR 37025.
    \10\ Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA conditionally
approved the RFP, quantitative milestones, and attainment year MVEB
elements based on an April 25, 2017, commitment from the IDEQ to
submit the elements by August 1, 2018. 82 FR 37028. If finalized,
the CDD would suspend the state's obligation to meet this
commitment. However, the CDD does not preclude the state from
submitting the suspended elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the proposed finding of attainment by the attainment date
nor the proposed CDD is equivalent to the redesignation of the area to
attainment. This proposed action, if finalized, will not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), because the
states must have an approved maintenance plan for the area as required
under section 175A of the CAA, and the EPA must determine that the area
has met the other requirements for redesignation in order to be
redesignated to attainment. The designation status of the area will
remain nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS until such
time as the EPA determines that the area meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
    It is possible, although not expected, that the Logan, UT-ID area
could violate the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS before a maintenance
plan is adopted, submitted and approved, and the area is redesignated
to attainment. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1015(a)(2), if the EPA determines
that the area has re-violated the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the
states shall be required to submit the suspended attainment plan
elements. Even so, submission of the suspended elements may be
insufficient to eliminate future violations.\11\ Therefore, the
issuance of a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) could be an appropriate
response. This SIP call could require the states to submit, by a
reasonable deadline not to exceed 18 months, a revised plan
demonstrating expeditious attainment and complying with other
requirements applicable to the area at the time of such finding. Under
CAA section 172(d), the EPA may reasonably adjust the dates applicable
to these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As discussed in sections I.C. and I.D. of this Federal
Register action, both Utah and Idaho have implemented RACM. In
addition, Idaho has not adopted contingency measures as part of its
Moderate area SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(2), the EPA is proposing to
determine, based on the most recent 3 years (2015-2017) of valid
data,\12\ that the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area has attained the
2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the
December 31, 2017, attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, and
part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, pursuant to the Clean Data Policy codified at 40 CFR
51.1015(a), and based upon our proposed determination that the Logan,
UT-ID nonattainment area has attained the standard, the EPA proposes to
determine that the obligation to submit any remaining attainment-
related SIP revisions arising from classification of the Logan, UT-ID
area as a Moderate nonattainment area under subpart 4 of part D (of
title I of the Act) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is not
applicable for so long as the area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. If today's action is finalized as proposed, the
sanctions and FIP clocks triggered by the partial disapproval of the
contingency measure element of the Idaho portion of the Logan, UT-ID
PM2.5 SIP will be suspended. This proposed action, if
finalized, would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA
section 107(d)(3).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on
air quality and to suspend certain federal requirements, and thus would
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For this 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 expected to be an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR
9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because this action is not
significant 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 CAA; and
     does not provide the 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 action does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP

obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian tribes and thus
this proposed action will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 25, 2018.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    Dated: June 26, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-15343 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 179 (Monday, September 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52241-52243]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20215]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92980; File No. SR-BOX-2021-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee
Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC Facility

September 14, 2021.
    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 September 1, 2021, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on
the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. While changes to
the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon
filing, the changes will become operative on September 1, 2021. The
text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office
of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on
the Exchange's internet website at http://boxexchange.com.

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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to amend Section I.D.1. (QCC Rebate). Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to remove the current flat rate rebates for QCC transactions
and establish a QCC rebate tier structure.
    By way of background, a Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'')
transaction is comprised of an originating order to buy or sell at
least 1,000 contracts, or 10,000 mini-option contracts, that is
identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade, coupled with
a contra-side order or orders totaling an equal number of contracts.\5\
Currently, the Exchange assesses a fee of $0.17 per contract for Broker
Dealers and Market Makers for all Agency Order, the originating order,
and contra-side orders that are part of a QCC transaction.\6\ The
Exchange currently applies a $0.14 per contract rebate to all QCC
Agency Orders where at least one party to the QCC transaction is a
Broker Dealer or Market Maker and a $0.22 per contract rebate to all
QCC Agency Order when both parties to the QCC transaction are a Broker
Dealer or Market Maker. The above rebates are paid to the Participant
that entered the order into the BOX system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See BOX Rule 7110(c)(6).
    \6\ Public Customers and Professional Customers are not assessed
fees for QCC transactions on BOX. The Exchange notes that, under
this proposal, the QCC transaction fees will remain the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to remove the flat rate QCC rebates
currently in place and establish a tiered rebate structure where the
amount of the rebate will be based off of incrementally increasing
volume thresholds of QCC transactions on BOX. The Exchange notes that
the way in which the rebates will be applied to the QCC transactions
remains the same as it is today. The QCC rebates will still be applied
to the QCC Agency Order when both parties to the QCC transaction are a
Broker Dealer or Market Maker. Also, the rebate will continue to be
paid to the Participant that entered the order into the BOX system when
at least one party to the QCC transaction is a Broker Dealer or Market
Maker. Under this proposal, the per contract rebate for QCC
transactions will now be applied according to the volume threshold tier
achieved. Volume thresholds will be calculated on a monthly basis by
totaling the Participant's QCC Agency Order volume on BOX.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes the QCC Agency Order volume
thresholds as follows:
     To receive the rebate in Tier 1, a Participant must submit
QCC Agency Orders totaling 0 to 1,499,999 contracts per month.
     To receive the rebate in Tier 2, a Participant must submit
QCC Agency Orders totaling 1,500,000 to 2,499,999 contracts per month.
     To receive the rebate in Tier 3, a Participant must submit
QCC Agency Orders totaling 2,500,000 to 3,499,999 contracts per month.
     To receive the rebate in Tier 4, a Participant must submit
QCC Agency Orders totaling 3,500,000 or more contracts per month.
    The proposed tiered rebate structure, including volume thresholds
and applicable rebates, will be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        QCC Agency
        Tier         Order volume on    Rebate 1 (per     Rebate 2 (per
                     BOX (per month)      contract)         contract)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................  0 to 1,499,999            ($0.14)           ($0.22)
                      contracts.
2..................  1,500,000 to              ($0.15)           ($0.23)
                      2,499,999
                      contracts.
3..................  2,500,000 to              ($0.15)           ($0.24)
                      3,499,999
                      contracts.
4..................  3,500,000+                ($0.15)           ($0.25)
                      contracts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When only one side of the QCC transaction is a Broker Dealer or
Market Maker, Rebate 1 will apply. When both parties to the QCC
transaction are a Broker Dealer or Market Maker, Rebate 2 will apply.
If the Participant qualifies for both rebates, only the larger rebate

will be applied to the Agency Order.\7\ The Exchange notes that a
similar rebate structure and rebates for QCC transactions exist at
another exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange again notes that this is how BOX currently
assesses the flat rate rebates for QCC transactions.
    \8\ See Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``CboeEDGX'') Fee Schedule.
The Exchange notes that the proposed volume thresholds are slightly
higher than the volume thresholds at CboeEDGX. Also, the Exchange
notes that the rebate amounts in Rebate 1 and Rebate 2 differ
slightly from CboeEDGX. Despite the differences, the Exchange
believes the proposed rebate structure and rebates discussed herein
are reasonable as they provide an incremental incentive for
Participants to strive for the higher tier levels, which provide
increasingly higher rebates for incrementally more QCC volume
achieved, which the Exchange believes is a reasonably designed
incentive for Participants to grow their QCC order flow to receive
the enhanced rebates. Further, the Exchange notes that the QCC
transaction fees at BOX will remain unchanged at $0.17 for Broker
Dealer and Market Maker Agency Orders and Contra Orders for QCC
Transactions. The Exchange notes that CboeEDGX assesses $0.20 to
Broker Dealers and Market Makers for Agency Orders and Contra Orders
for QCC transactions. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed
rebate structure and rebates is reasonable and appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or
incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange is only one of several
options venues to which market participants may direct their order
flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market. The
proposed changes reflect a competitive pricing structure designed to
incentivize market participants to direct their QCC order flow, which
the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of
all Participants.
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the QCC Rebate
structure are reasonable because the proposed changes provide
opportunities for Participants to receive higher rebates for
incrementally increasing the Participant's Agency QCC Order volume. The
Exchange again notes that a volume-based incentive structure exists at
another exchange,\10\ and believes that the proposed tiers are
reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory because they are open to
all Participants on an equal basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed QCC Rebate tiers are a
reasonable means to encourage Participants to increase their liquidity
on the Exchange, particularly in connection with additional QCC Agency
Order flow to the Exchange in order to benefit from the proposed
enhanced rebates. The Exchange believes that the proposed tiers are
reasonable in that they provide an ample number of opportunities for a
Participant to receive an enhanced rebate for qualifying orders. The
proposed tiers provide an incremental incentive for Participants to
strive for higher tier levels, which provide increasingly higher
rebates for incrementally more QCC Agency Order volume achieved, which
the Exchange believes is a reasonably designed incentive for
Participants to grow their QCC order flow to receive the enhanced
rebates. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed rebate structure
is reasonable, as the fees assessed for QCC transactions on BOX will
remain the same.
    The Exchange believes the proposed enhanced rebates are reasonable
and proportionate with the difficulty of the proposed volume threshold
criteria and that the tiers continue to provide an incremental
incentive for Participants to strive for higher tier levels, which
provides increasingly higher rebates for satisfying increasingly more
stringent criteria. As noted above, the Exchange also believes the
proposal to adopt two alternative rebates (depending on the capacity of
the parties to the transaction) is reasonable as this is how the
Exchange currently assesses the flat rate rebates for QCC transactions
today.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes represent
an equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory
because all Broker Dealer and Market Makers will be eligible for the
proposed tiers and corresponding enhanced rebates. Additionally, the
enhanced rebates will apply uniformly to the Participants that reach
the proposed tiers. Further, the Exchange believes that applying the
proposed rebates where at least one party to the QCC transaction is a
Broker Dealer or Market Maker is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory because Public Customers and Professional
Customers are not assessed fees for these transactions and, in turn, do
not need the incentive of the rebate. As such, the Exchange believes
the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the rebates potentially apply to all Participants that enter
the originating order (except for when both the Agency Order and the
Contra Order are Public Customers or Professional Customers) and
because it is intended to incentivize the sending of more QCC Order to
the Exchange.

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. Rather, as discussed above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change would encourage the
submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby
promoting market depth, execution incentives, and enhanced execution
opportunities for all Participants. As a result, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes
``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders,
large and small.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose
any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the Act. First, the Exchange notes that
the proposed changes apply uniformly to similarly situated
Participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes related
to QCC transactions would not impose any burden on intramarket
competition, but rather, serves to increase intramarket competition by
incentivizing market participants, to direct their QCC orders to the
Exchange, in turn providing for more opportunities to compete at
improved prices. Additionally, the proposed rule change benefits all
market participants as any overall increased liquidity that may result
from the proposed tier incentives benefits all investors by offering
additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings,
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Participants have numerous alternative venues they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges.
Additionally,

the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based
on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more
than 15% of the market share.\11\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed,
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchanges
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. As noted above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rebates under the QCC rebate tiers is comparable to that of
another exchange offering QCC functionality.\12\ Moreover, the
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' The fact that this market is
competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe the proposed change discussed herein imposes any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Monthly Volume
Summary (August 16, 2021), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
    \12\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\14\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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-BOX-2021-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2021-20. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2021-20, and should be submitted on
or before October 12, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-20215 Filed 9-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 106 (Monday, June 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33150-33152]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13099]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0038; Notice 1]

RECARO Child Safety, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: RECARO Child Safety, LLC (RECARO) \1\ has determined that
certain RECARO brand ProSport child restraint systems produced between
June 16, 2010 and January 31, 2013, do not fully comply with paragraph
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(D) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
213, Child Restraint Systems. RECARO has filed an appropriate report
dated February 6,

2013, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ RECARO Child Safety, LLC is a manufacturer of motor vehicle
equipment and is registered under the laws of the state of Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), RECARO submitted a petition for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of RECARO's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Equipment Involved: Affected are approximately 39,181 RECARO brand
ProSport child restraint systems produced between June 16, 2010 and
January 31, 2013.
    Summary of Recaro's Analysis and Arguments: RECARO explains that
the noncompliance is that the RECARO ProSport child restraint system
does not comply with the head excursion requirements of FMVSS 213
S<IP_ADDRESS>(a)(1) when subjected to the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS
No. 213 S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(D), using a six year old test dummy secured to
the test bench by lower anchors and no tether.
    In support of this Petition, RECARO submits the following comments
and data:
    1. The dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 213
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(D) require using a six year old test dummy secured to
the test bench using lower anchors and no tether. This test procedure
is a direct violation of the instructions and warnings in the
instruction manual included with each ProSport child restraint system
and would constitute a major misuse of the child restraint by the
consumer. (RECARO provided the entire manual as part of its petition.)
    2. RECARO has received over 9,000 registration cards returned by
purchasers of the ProSport. Using the on-line survey system Survey
Monkey, RECARO instituted a survey of 3,690 registered owners by
emailing each purchaser the following survey questions:
    a. Are you currently using your ProSport child restraint?
    b. How is (was) your ProSport installed in the vehicle?
    i. Vehicle lap/shoulder belt
    ii. Lower anchors provided with child restraint (LATCH)
    c. Did you use the top tether included on the ProSport to install
the child restraint into the vehicle?
    929 registered owners responded to the survey by confirming that
they installed the child restraint with lower LATCH anchors. Of those
responding, 837 or 90.1% confirmed that the top tether was being used
to install their ProSport when installing the child restraint with
lower LATCH anchors. (RECARO included a copy of the survey details and
results as part of its petition.) RECARO stated its belief that the
survey is a statistically significant confirmation that a very small
percentage of ProSport consumers are misusing the child restraint by
not using the top tether when installing the child restraint with lower
LATCH anchors and that the effectiveness of any noncompliance
notification campaign will be minimal, given the historically low
response rate to technical noncompliance notification campaigns of
child restraints. For example, the survey results indicate that only
those ProSport consumers not properly using the top tether when
installing the child restraint with lower LATCH anchors are likely to
respond to a noncompliance notification. Assuming a response rate of
10% by this group, only 400 of the estimated 4,000 consumers misusing
the child restraint are likely to respond. This statistically
insignificant response renders the technical noncompliance at issue
inconsequential.
    3. All vehicles equipped with lower child restraint (LATCH) anchors
are also equipped with top tether anchors. RECARO has received 82
consumer calls regarding the ProSport. (RECARO included copies of
consumer call reports as part of its petition.) No consumer has
questioned the use of the tether when securing the ProSport with the
lower anchors. RECARO has no information of this misuse actually
occurring in the field or of any injuries sustained by a child when
restrained in a ProSport in this misuse condition.
    4. RECARO has received notice of three accidents involving four
children seated in ProSport child restraint systems. In these
incidents, the ProSport performed well and the occupant was not
injured. It is not known if the ProSports involved were installed using
the lower LATCH anchors or, if so, whether the top tethers were used.
    5. RECARO has implemented an engineering/structural modification to
the ProSport. Dynamic tests of the modified ProSport using a Hybrid II
six year old test dummy secured to the test bench using lower anchors
and no tether confirm that the head excursion requirements of FMVSS No.
213 S<IP_ADDRESS>(a)(1) are met. (RECARO included copies of the test reports
as part of its petition.)
    6. RECARO stated its belief that the ProSport outperforms any
comparable child restraint with regards to head excursions when
installed with the lap/shoulder belt.
    7. Given the relative small number of ProSport child restraints
distributed since introduction in June 2010 (39,181), the effectiveness
of any notification campaign regarding this technical noncompliance
will be limited. Additionally, any noncompliance notice campaign may
result in consumers deciding to discontinue using their ProSport for a
period of time, increasing the risk of injury to a higher degree than
the risk resulting from the small number of consumers misusing the
child restraint by not using the top tether when installing the child
restraint with lower LATCH anchors.
    RECARO has additionally informed NHTSA that it has stopped
production of the ProSport at the end of January 2013.
    In summation, RECARO believes that the described noncompliance of
its equipment is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance
as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance
as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are

provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions
only apply to the subject 39,181 \2\ child restraint systems that
RECARO no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ RECARO's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt RECARO as a motor vehicle
equipment manufacturer from the notification and recall
responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for the affected motor vehicle
equipment. However, a decision on this petition cannot relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant motor vehicle equipment
under their control after RECARO notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment Closing Date: July 3, 2013.

    Authority:  (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

    Issued On: May 21, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-13099 Filed 5-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80353-80354]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD16-3-000]

Notice of Availability of the Draft Guidance Manual for
Environmental Report Preparation and Request for Comments

    The staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) has revised its
Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation (Guidance Manual),
dated August 2002, to incorporate regulation changes and provide
updated guidance on how to prepare resource reports and how interstate
and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects may demonstrate compliance
with certain regulatory requirements. The staff is asking for public
input and suggestions for modifications to the Guidance Manual from
federal and state agencies, Native American tribes, environmental
consultants, inspectors, the natural gas industry, construction
contractors, and other interested parties with special expertise in
regards to preparation of resource reports associated with natural gas
projects. Please note that this comment period will close on January
19, 2016.
    The OEP staff anticipates issuing our final updated version of the
Guidance Manual in early 2016. We will consider all timely comments on
the draft before issuing the final version.
    The revised Guidance Manual, for which we are seeking comment, can
be found in Docket Number AD16-3-000. The full text of the 2002 version
of the Guidance Manual can be viewed on the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC or Commission) Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines.asp and can be used as a reference to
see the changes made.
    Applicable sections of the Code of Federal Regulations Title 18 are
referenced or summarized throughout the Guidance Manual. We stress that
OEP staff is not seeking comment on any existing regulations or
contemplating any changes to regulations within the context of the
Guidance Manual. The Guidance Manual is not the appropriate vehicle for
changes to federal regulations. Comments pertaining to our regulations
will not be considered as we develop the final Guidance Manual.
    The Guidance Manual is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 relates
to the preparation of resource reports for both interstate natural gas
projects and Commission jurisdictional LNG facilities. Volume 2 is
specific to LNG facilities and includes supplemental information needed
to comply with: 18 CFR 380.12(h)(5) to demonstrate information
reflected in National Bureau of Standards Information Report (NBSIR)
84-2833; 18 CFR 380.12(m) to demonstrate the potential hazard to the
public from failure of facility components resulting from natural
catastrophes; and 18 CFR 380.12(o) to demonstrate the proposed
engineering design would be safe and reliable and would likely comply
with the regulatory requirements in 49 CFR 193. Volume 2 is intended to
replace a series of guidance documents that were previously developed
and issued by staff to assist in the preparation and review of LNG
applications. Specifically, Volume 2 is meant to replace Draft Guidance
on Resource Report 11 and 13 issued on December 15, 2005, Draft
Preferred Format Submittal Guidance issued on April 12, 2006, and Draft
FERC Seismic Design Guidelines and Data Submittal Requirements for LNG
Facilities issued on January 23, 2007. The previous versions of these
documents should be considered obsolete.
    Interested parties can help us determine the appropriate updates
and improvements by providing comments or suggestions that focus on the
specific sections of the Guidance Manual requiring clarification,
updates to reflect current laws and regulations, or additional
information that should be included in each resource report. The more
specific your comments, the more useful they will be. A detailed
explanation of the rationale underlying your suggested modifications
and/or any references to scientific studies associated with your
comments would greatly help us with this process.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
docket number (AD16-3-000) with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available
to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text-only comments;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making,
select ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    All of the information related to the proposed updates to the
Guidance Manual and submitted comments can be found on the FERC Web
site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary
link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., AD16-
3). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of

time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you
with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct
links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: December 18, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32398 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P