[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 139 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43938-43941]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15550]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89307; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-066]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 5.24

July 14, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 2, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend Rule 5.24. The text of the proposed rule change is provided
below.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])

* * * * *

Rules of Cboe Exchange, Inc.

* * * * *

Rule 5.24. Disaster Recovery

    (a)-(d) No change.
    (e) Loss of Trading Floor. If the Exchange trading floor becomes
inoperable, the Exchange will continue to operate in a screen-based
only environment using a floorless configuration of the System that
is operational while the trading floor facility is inoperable. The
Exchange will operate using this configuration only until the
Exchange's trading floor facility is operational. Open outcry
trading will not be available in the event the trading floor becomes
inoperable, except in accordance with paragraph (2) below and
pursuant to Rule 5.26, as applicable.
    (1) Applicable Rules. In the event that the trading floor
becomes inoperable, trading will be conducted pursuant to all
applicable System Rules, except that open outcry Rules will not be
in force, including but not limited to the Rules (or applicable
portions of the Rules) in Chapter 5, Section G, and as follows
(subparagraphs (A) through (E) will be effective until [June
30]August 31, 2020):
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.24 regarding the Exchange's
business continuity and disaster recovery plans. Rule 5.24 describes
which Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') are required to connect to the
Exchange's backup systems as well as certain actions the Exchange may
take as part of its business continuity plans so that it may maintain
fair and orderly markets if unusual circumstances occurred that could
impact the Exchange's ability to conduct business. This includes what
actions the Exchange would take if its trading floor became inoperable.
Specifically, Rule 5.24(e) states if the Exchange trading floor becomes
inoperable, the Exchange will continue to operate in a screen-based
only environment using a floorless configuration of the System that is
operational while the trading floor facility is inoperable. The
Exchange would operate using that

configuration only until the Exchange's trading floor facility became
operational. Open outcry trading would not be available in the event
the trading floor becomes inoperable.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to Rule 5.26, the Exchange may enter into a back-up
trading arrangement with another exchange, which could allow the
Exchange to use the facilities of a back-up exchange to conduct
trading of certain of its products. The Exchange currently has no
back-up trading arrangement in place with another exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 5.24(e)(1) currently states in the event that the trading
floor becomes inoperable, trading will be conducted pursuant to all
applicable System Rules, except that open outcry Rules would not be in
force, including but not limited to the Rules (or applicable portions)
in Chapter 5, Section G,\6\ and that all non-trading rules of the
Exchange would continue to apply. The Exchange recently adopted several
rule changes that would apply during a time in which the trading floor
in inoperable, which are effective until June 30, 2020.\7\ The Exchange
believes these rules were necessary to implement to maintain a fair and
orderly market while the trading floor was not operable in order to
create an all-electronic trading environment similar to the otherwise
unavailable open outcry trading environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Chapter 5, Section G of the Exchange's rulebook sets forth
the rules and procedures for manual order handling and open outcry
trading on the Exchange.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 88386 (March 13,
2020), 85 FR 15823 (March 19, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-019); 88447 (March
20, 2020), 85 FR 17129 (March 26, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-023); 88490
(March 26, 2020), 85 FR 18318 (April 1, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-026);
88530 (March 31, 2020), 85 FR 19182 (April 6, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-
031); and 88886 (May 15, 2020), 85 FR 31008 (May 21, 2020) (SR-CBOE-
2020-047).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of March 16, 2020, the Exchange suspended open outcry trading to
help prevent the spread of COVID-19.\8\ The trading floor remained
closed until June 15, 2020. During the time when the trading floor was
closed, the Exchange operated in an all-electronic trading environment
and the temporary rules in Rule 5.24(e)(1) applied to that electronic
trading environment. The Exchange believes that, while those temporary
rules did not fully replicate open outcry trading, they allowed all-
electronic trading to occur more similarly to open outcry trading.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization
characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic and to slow the spread of the
disease, federal and state officials implemented social-distancing
measures, placed significant limitations on large gatherings,
limited travel, and closed non-essential businesses.
    \9\ The Exchange continues to consider other enhancements to the
all-electronic trading configuration that it believes may permit
this configuration to further replicate the open outcry trading
environment. The Exchange would submit separate rule filings for any
such proposed enhancements. The Exchange notes it recently submitted
a separate rule filing to adopt a virtual trading floor, which the
Exchange may determine to make available if the trading floor
becomes inoperable (or is operating in a modified state). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89131 (June 23, 2020), 85 FR
38951 (June 29, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-055). If the Commission approves
that filing, and the trading floor subsequently becomes inoperable
and the Exchange makes the virtual trading floor available, the
temporary rules in Rule 5.24(e)(1) would not be in effect (the
Exchange intends to submit a partial amendment to SR-CBOE-2020-055
to make that clear). Separately, the Exchange believes the temporary
rules in Rule 5.24(e)(1) should be effective for a period of time
while the virtual trading floor is available, the Exchange will
submit a separately rule filing to propose that change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trading floor is currently open for open outcry trading, and
the Exchange is operating pursuant to its normal hybrid trading rules.
The Exchange implemented numerous health and safety measures in
connection with the reopening of the trading floor on June 15, 2020 to
help protect the safety and welfare of the trading floor community and
help prevent the continued spread of COVID-19.\10\ However, the
Exchange recognizes the ongoing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic in the
United States, which may cause the Exchange to once again close its
trading floor to help prevent the continued spread of COVID-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Notice C2020052601, Standards of Conduct
related to the Reopening of the Cboe Options Trading Floor and
COVID-19 (May 26, 2020), available at https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/release_notes/2020/Standards-of-Conduct-related-to-the-Reopening-of-the-Cboe-Options-Trading-Floor-Notice-Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event the Exchange did close its trading floor again, the
Exchange believes it would be necessary to again apply the recently
adopted temporary rules in Rule 5.24(e)(1) to maintain a fair and
orderly market while the trading floor was not operable in order to
create an all-electronic trading environment similar to the otherwise
unavailable open outcry trading environment. As noted above, Rule
5.24(e)(1) is effective only until June 30, 2020 (and the rules became
inapplicable upon the reopening of the trading floor on June 15, 2020).
Given the Exchange may believe it is appropriate to close the trading
floor with little advanced notice and in a short timeframe to help
protect the safety and welfare of the trading floor community, the
Exchange proposes to extend the effectiveness of the temporary rules in
Rule 5.24(e)(1) to August 31, 2020 (unless further extended). The
Exchange believes this will permit the Exchange to as seamlessly as
possible transition back to an all-electronic trading environment. The
Exchange notes Rule 5.24(e)(1) will not apply to trading during times
when the trading floor remains operable.
    Previously when the temporary provisions of Rule 5.24(e)(1) were in
place, the Exchange's Regulatory Division has continued its standard
routine surveillance reviews for electronic trading and implemented a
regulatory plan to surveil the rules in place in Rule 5.24(e)(1) when
operating in a screen-based only environment. In the event the Exchange
closes its trading floor again and the temporary provisions in Rule
5.24(e)(1) become applicable in an all-electronic trading environment,
the Exchange's Regulatory Division would reimplement that regulatory
plan to surveil those rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest by permitting the Exchange to as seamlessly as
possible transition back to an all-electronic trading environment in
the event the Exchange determines it is appropriate to again close its
trading floor. The Exchange expects it would take this action if it
believes necessary and appropriate to help protect the safety and
welfare of the trading community. Such a determination may

occur with little advance notice, and closure of the trading floor may
need to occur in a short time frame. The Exchange continues to believe
the recent amendments to Rule 5.24(e)(1) allowed all-electronic trading
to occur more similarly to open outcry trading while the trading floor
was closed. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is necessary
and appropriate to provide TPHs with execution opportunities in an all-
electronic trading environment for orders that generally execute in
open outcry trading. Additionally, the proposed rule change will
provide TPHs with an all-electronic trading environment to which they
became accustomed when the trading floor was previously closed, and
therefore will provide investors with consistent rules that apply when
the Exchange operates in an all-electronic environment. The proposed
rule change will provide investors with definitive knowledge of what
rules will apply when the trading floor is closed.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended as a competitive filing, but rather extends the
effectiveness of temporary rules as part of the Exchange's business
continuity plans, which are intended to allow the Exchange to continue
to maintain fair and orderly markets while the Exchange's trading floor
continues to be inoperable.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposed rule change may become operative immediately. The Exchange
believes extension of the temporary rules put in place due to the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will permit the Exchange to minimize
disruptions in the market during a transition back to an all-electronic
trading environment if the Exchange believes it is necessary and
appropriate to help protect the safety and welfare of the trading
community. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest as it will allow the temporary rules to continue with minimal
interruption, thereby avoiding investor confusion that could result
from an interruption in the effectiveness of the rules. Accordingly,
the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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-CBOE-2020-066 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-CBOE-2020-066. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. 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-CBOE-2020-066 and should be submitted on
or before August 10, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15550 Filed 7-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56507-56508]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23466]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Regulation 14A (Commission Rules 14a-1 through 14a-21 and
Schedule 14A) SEC File No. 270-056, OMB Control No. 3235-0059.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Exchange Act'') operates to make it unlawful for a company with a
class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange
Act to solicit proxies in

contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission has
prescribed as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for
the protection of investors. The Commission has promulgated Regulation
14A to regulate the solicitation of proxies or consents. Regulation 14A
(Exchange Act Rules 14a-1 through 14a-21 and Schedule 14A) (17 CFR
240.14a-1 through 240.14a-21 and 240.14a-101) sets forth the
requirements for the dissemination, content and filing of proxy or
consent solicitation materials in connection with annual or other
meetings of holders of a Section 12-registered class of securities. We
estimate that Schedule 14A takes approximately 130.52 hours per
response and will be filed by approximately 5,586 issuers annually. In
addition, we estimate that 75% of the 130.52 hours per response (97.89
hours) is prepared by the issuer for an annual reporting burden of
546,814 hours (97.89 hours per response x 5,586 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: September 15, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23466 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73150-73151]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3108; Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-15]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, South Naknek, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at South Naknek NR 2 Airport,
South Naknek, AK, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures
developed for the airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance
the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations
at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-
3108; Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-15, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-
647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in

Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E airspace at South Naknek NR 2 Airport,
South Naknek, AK.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-3108/
Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-15.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the
South Naknek NR 2 Airport, South Naknek, AK. Development of new RNAV
(GPS) standard instrument approach procedures have made this action
necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 South Naknek, AK [New]

South Naknek NR 2 Airport, Alaska
    (Lat. 58[deg]42'08'' N., long. 157[deg]00'09'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of South Naknek NR 2 Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 10, 2015.
Christopher Ramirez,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-29789 Filed 11-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 200)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53440-53442]
[DOCID:fr19oc09-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0914; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-122-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200 and -300, and
Model A340-300 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    In the door 2 area, the hat-racks are supplied with a basic wire
harness which includes ``Oxygen Masks'' activation.
    In case of a monument installation, the respective non-used hat-
rack connections between monument and outer skin are put on stow. It
was noticed in production, that the distance between the stowed wire
harness and the monument could be too small. This condition, if not
corrected, could lead to the short circuit of wires dedicated to
oxygen, which, in case of emergency, could result in a large number
of passenger oxygen masks not being supplied with oxygen, possibly
causing personal injuries.
* * * * *

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 3,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0914;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-122-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0077, dated April 6, 2009 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    In the door 2 area, the hat-racks are supplied with a basic wire
harness which includes ``Oxygen Masks'' activation.
    In case of a monument installation, the respective non-used hat-
rack connections between monument and outer skin are put on stow. It
was noticed in production, that the distance between the stowed wire
harness and the monument could be too small. This condition, if not
corrected, could lead to the short circuit of wires dedicated to
oxygen, which, in case of emergency, could result in a large number
of passenger oxygen masks not being supplied with oxygen, possibly
causing personal injuries.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires the
modification of the hat rack connectors on stow, and the rerouting
of the associated wire harness in case of monument installed in door
2 area.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-92-3070,
Revision 01, dated January 12, 2009; and A340-92-4073, Revision 01,
dated January 13, 2009. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 43 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts costs are negligible. Where the service
information lists required parts costs that are uncovered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $10,320, or $240 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

    Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2009-0914; Directorate Identifier 2009-
NM-122-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by December 3, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223,
-243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343
series airplanes; and Airbus Model A340-311, -312, and -313 series
airplanes; certificated in any category, all manufacturer

serial numbers on which Airbus modification 48825 has been embodied
in production, except those on which Airbus modification 57409 has
been embodied in production.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    In the door 2 area, the hat-racks are supplied with a basic wire
harness which includes ``Oxygen Masks'' activation.
    In case of a monument installation, the respective non-used hat-
rack connections between monument and outer skin are put on stow. It
was noticed in production, that the distance between the stowed wire
harness and the monument could be too small. This condition, if not
corrected, could lead to the short circuit of wires dedicated to
oxygen, which, in case of emergency, could result in a large number
of passenger oxygen masks not being supplied with oxygen, possibly
causing personal injuries.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires the
modification of the hat rack connectors on stow, and the rerouting
of the associated wire harness in case of monument installed in door
2 area.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
both the left-hand (L/H) and right-hand (R/H) hat-rack connectors in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A330-92-3070, Revision 01, dated January 12, 2009;
or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-92-4073, Revision 01,
dated January 13, 2009; as applicable, except as provided by
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
    (2) Modifications done before the effective date of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A330-92-3070 or A340-92-4073, both dated July 10,
2008, as applicable, are acceptable for compliance with the
applicable requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, provided
that within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, the
``ADDITIONAL WORK'' specified in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A330-92-3070, Revision 01, dated January 12, 2009; or Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-92-4073, Revision 01, dated January
13, 2009; as applicable; is accomplished in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A330-92-3070, Revision 01, dated January 12, 2009; or Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-92-4073, Revision 01, dated January
13, 2009; as applicable.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2009-0077, dated April 6, 2009; Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A330-92-3070, Revision 01, dated January 12, 2009; and
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-92-4073, Revision 01, dated
January 13, 2009; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 5, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-24988 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 94)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27437-27443]
[DOCID:fr16my07-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0085; FRL-8315-2]
RIN 2060-AN84

Revisions to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates revisions to the General Provisions
for Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, for National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and for National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories
to allow for extensions to the deadline imposed for source owners and
operators to conduct an initial or subsequent performance test required
by applicable regulations. The General Provisions do not currently
provide for extensions of the deadlines for conducting performance
tests.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0085. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Revisions to Standards of

Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Source Categories Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lula Melton, Air Quality
Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
(C304-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-4511; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to any source whose owner or operator is
required to conduct performance testing to demonstrate compliance with
applicable standards under the General Provisions for Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources, for National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the final amendments will be
placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides

information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.

C. Public Comments on Proposed Rule

    The EPA received 15 sets of public comments on the proposed
amendments to the General Provisions for Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources, for National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants, and for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories during the 90-day comment period.
These comments were submitted to the rulemaking docket. The EPA has
carefully considered these comments in developing the final amendments.
Summaries of the comments and EPA's responses are contained in this
preamble.

D. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available by filing a petition for review in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
July 16, 2007. Only those objections to this final rule that were
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
may be raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the
CAA, the requirements that are the subject of this final rule may not
be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides a mechanism for us
to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to
raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the
grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment
(but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any
person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.

E. How is this document organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Public Comments on Proposed Rule
    D. Judicial Review
    E. How is this document organized?
II. Summary of Final Action and Rationale
    A. What are the requirements?
    B. Why did we amend the requirements for performance tests in
the General Provisions?
III. Responses to Comments
    A. Clarification of Approving Authority
    B. Force Majeure Concept
    C. Notifications
    D. Approvals
    E. Title V Deviations
    F. Other Comments
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Action That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

II. Summary of Final Action and Rationale

A. What are the requirements?

    The final rule allows source owners or operators, in the event of a
force majeure, to petition the Administrator for an extension of the
deadline(s) by which they are required to conduct an initial or
subsequent performance test required by applicable regulations.
Performance tests required as a result of enforcement orders or
enforcement actions are not covered by this rule because enforcement
agreements contain their own force majeure provisions. A ``force
majeure'' is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents the owner or operator from complying with the regulatory
requirement to conduct performance tests within the specified timeframe
despite the affected facility's best efforts to fulfill the obligation.
Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility.
    If an affected owner or operator intends to assert a claim that a
force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred, the owner or
operator must notify the Administrator, in writing, as soon as
practicable following the date the owner or operator first knew, or
through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or
caused a delay in testing beyond the regulatory deadline. The owner or
operator must provide a written description of the event and a
rationale for attributing the delay in testing beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure; describe the measures taken or to be
taken to minimize the delay; and identify a date by which the owner or
operator proposes to conduct the performance test. The test must be
conducted as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs.
    The decision as to whether or not to grant an extension to the
performance test deadline is solely within the discretion of the
Administrator. The Administrator will notify the owner or operator in
writing of approval or disapproval of the request for an extension as
soon as practicable. If an owner or operator misses its performance
test deadline due to a force majeure event, and the request for an
extension is subsequently approved, the owner or operator will not be
held in violation for failure to conduct the performance test within
the prescribed regulatory timeframe.

B. Why did we amend the requirements for performance tests in the
General Provisions?

    We recognize that there may be circumstances beyond a source
owner's or operator's control constituting a force majeure event that
could cause an owner or operator to be unable to conduct performance
tests before the regulatory deadline. We developed this rule to provide
a mechanism for consideration of these force majeure events and
granting of extensions where warranted. Under current rules, a source
owner or operator who is unable to comply with performance testing
requirements within the allotted timeframe due to a force majeure is
regarded as being in violation and subject to enforcement action. As a
matter of policy, EPA often exercises enforcement discretion regarding
such violations. However, where circumstances beyond the control of the
source owner or operator constituting a force majeure prevent the
performance of timely performance tests, we believe that it is
appropriate to provide an opportunity to such owners and operators to
make good faith demonstrations and obtain extensions of the performance
testing deadline where approved by the Administrator in appropriate
circumstances.

III. Responses to Comments

A. Clarification of Approving Authority

    Comment: Five commenters requested that we clarify or define the
approving authority.
    Response: We inadvertently used two terms (Administrator and
delegated agency) in the proposed rule. In 40 CFR Part 60 of the
proposed rule, we stated that the owner or operator shall notify the
Administrator of force majeure events, and in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63 of
the proposed rule, we stated that the owner or operator shall notify
the delegated agency. We have replaced the term delegated agency with
the term Administrator in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63 of the final rule to
be consistent with (1) the term (Administrator) used in 40 CFR Part 60
and (2) the term (Administrator) used in Parts 61 and 63 of the General
Provisions that this final rule amends. Nonetheless, we believe that it
may be appropriate for the Administrator to assign the responsibility
of evaluating and approving or denying requests for extensions to
performance test deadlines due to force majeure events to a duly
delegated agency according to applicable procedures.

B. Force Majeure Concept

    Comment: Six commenters stated that they thought the scope of the
rule was too narrow and that circumstances beyond what they believed
were covered by the definition of ``force majeure'' warranted similar
extensions (e.g., pandemics, facility shutdowns, and process
constraints that result in non-representative testing conditions).
    Response: The proposed rule is not as narrow as indicated by
commenters. Force majeure is defined as ``an event that will be or has
been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected
facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected
facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying with the
regulatory requirement to conduct performance tests within the
specified timeframe despite the affected facility's best efforts to
fulfill the obligation.'' Although we provide examples of events that
could meet this definition (i.e., acts of nature, acts of war or
terrorism, and equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control
of the affected facility), this list is not exhaustive. The focus of
the rule and this definition is an event beyond the control of the
affected facility. Similarly, two definitions of ``force majeure'' in
dictionaries are ``an unexpected or uncontrollable event'' (The
American Heritage Dictionary) and ``an event or effect that cannot be
reasonably anticipated or controlled'' (Merriam-Webster's Online
Dictionary). Thus, any event beyond the control of the affected
facility may qualify for the extension. We can neither provide an
exhaustive list of all of the possible events that may qualify as
``force majeure'' under this rule, nor determine whether the generic
additional examples provided in the public comments would or would not
qualify under all circumstances. The Administrator will exercise his or
her discretion when considering requests for extensions to performance
test deadlines due to ``force majeure'' events.

    Comment: Six commenters requested that we expand the scope of the
rule to allow the force majeure concept to justify extensions for
additional regulatory requirements, such as monitoring, recordkeeping,
reporting, maintenance, and inspections.
    Response: The purpose of this rulemaking is to address requests for
extensions to performance test deadlines. Expanding the force majeure
concept to include additional regulatory requirements is beyond the
scope of the proposed rule. Therefore, the final rule covers petitions
for extensions to performance test deadlines only.

C. Notifications

    Comment: Four commenters requested that we allow simplified
notifications. One of these commenters requested that we allow a
simplified notification initially followed by the timeline for
completing the performance test later. In addition, one of these
commenters requested that we allow initial notification to the
Administrator in non-written formats followed by written communication
later since during force majeure events means of communication may be
disrupted. Two of these commenters stated that the Administrator should
not require listing of every applicable test and rule for an entire
facility.
    Response: We agree that phased notification may be appropriate in
certain circumstances. For example, if a source owner or operator is
unable to determine a date by which the performance test will be
conducted at the time of the force majeure event, verbal notification
to the Administrator that the original performance test deadline will
be missed followed by written communication describing the details
required by the rule may be appropriate. Also, if a force majeure event
results in widespread power outages and no U.S. Postal mail service, an
initial oral notification followed by written notification may be
necessary. The written notification required by this rule does not
include a listing of every applicable test and rule for an entire
facility. The rule requires the source owner or operator to provide to
the permitting authority a written description of the force majeure
event, a rationale for attributing the delay in testing beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event, a written description
of the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay, and a date
(as soon as practicable following the force majeure event) by which the
owner or operator proposes to conduct the performance test.
    Comment: Two commenters requested that we clarify that written
notification includes letters, faxes, e-mails, web-based submittals,
etc.
    Response: We agree that written notification regarding force
majeure events can be provided to the Administrator in such written
formats as those listed above.
    Comment: Three commenters expressed the concern that a legitimate
request for an extension may be denied based on the timing of the
request. For example, source owners and operators may not be aware of
an anticipated hurricane until one day prior to the event. Another
commenter suggested that we require source owners and operators to
notify the Administrator verbally within five days of the force majeure
event and in writing within twenty-one days of the event.
    Response: We proposed that the owner or operator would notify the
Administrator, in writing, as soon as practicable following the date
the owner or operator first knew, or should have known that the event
may cause or caused a delay in testing beyond the regulatory deadline.
We do not believe that it is appropriate to establish specific
timelines in the rule. The existence of a force majeure event typically
necessitates flexibility. Thus, the final rule states that the owner or
operator shall notify the Administrator, in writing as soon as
practicable following the date the owner or operator first knew, or
through due diligence should have known that the event may cause or
caused a delay in testing beyond the regulatory deadline, but the
notification must occur before the performance test deadline unless the
initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event delays the
notice, and in such cases, the notification shall occur as soon as
practicable.

D. Approvals

    Comment: Four commenters suggested that we add a provision that
allows requests for extensions to be automatically granted if the
Administrator does not respond within a specific timeframe. Three of
the four commenters suggested that the Administrator be given thirty
days to respond. Two commenters are concerned that owners and operators
will be subject to enforcement actions until their requests for
extensions are approved.
    Response: We disagree with allowing automatic approvals and with
requiring the Administrator to respond within 30 days. We do not
believe that it is appropriate to place this burden on the
Administrator since the Administrator may also have been affected by
the force majeure event. We believe that it is appropriate to require
the Administrator to notify the owner or operator of approval or
disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as practicable.
Furthermore, if an owner or operator misses its performance test
deadline due to a force majeure event, and the request for an extension
is subsequently approved, the owner or operator will not be held in
violation for failure to conduct the performance test within the
prescribed regulatory timeframe.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that circumstances, such as during
acts of war, mandatory evacuations, or energy and supply restrictions,
applying for an extension to a performance test deadline should be
self-implementing.
    Response: We believe that the Administrator should have the
discretion to determine if a request for an extension warrants approval
and that self-implementation is not appropriate. During any situation
that a source owner or operator believes qualifies as a force majeure
event, the owner or operator must submit a request to the Administrator
that includes the required information, such as a written description
of the force majeure event, a rationale for attributing the delay in
testing beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event, a
description of the measures taken to minimize the delay, and a date (as
soon as practicable) by which the performance test is expected to
occur. The Administrator will notify the owner or operator of approval
or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as practicable.
Furthermore, if an owner or operator misses its performance test
deadline due to a force majeure event, and the request for an extension
is subsequently approved, the owner or operator will not be held in
violation for failure to conduct the performance test within the
prescribed regulatory timeframe.
    Comment: One commenter requested that we add the following
statement to the rule (i.e., ``the Administrator shall approve a
reasonable request for extension of the performance test deadline.'')
    Response: We do not believe that it is necessary to add this
statement to the rule. The decision as to whether or not to grant an
extension to the performance test deadline is solely within the
discretion of the Administrator. The Administrator will notify the
owner or operator in writing of approval or disapproval of the request
as soon as practicable.
    Comment: Two commenters requested that EPA affirm that we already
have the

authority to approve requests for extensions to performance tests.
    Response: We do not have this authority except through enforcement
discretion. Therefore, we developed this rule to grant this authority.
    Comment: Three commenters believe that the Administrator should
have the authority to issue blanket approvals for a designated area in
advance of a force majeuere event.
    Response: We do not believe that blanket approvals are necessary
since approvals for requests to extend performance test deadlines can
be granted after the force majeure event occurs. Furthermore, we
believe that requests to extend performance test deadlines should be
reviewed and considered on a case-by-case basis because situations and
circumstances may vary among facilities affected by the same force
majeure event.

E. Title V Deviations

    Comment: Four commenters requested that we specify that extensions
granted under this rule are not Title V deviations.
    Response: We agree that extensions granted under this rule are not
Title V deviations since the original performance test deadline will
not be applicable once a request for an extension has been approved.
However, where the Administrator has not yet issued a decision on a
request for an extension under today's rule, the failure to conduct the
performance test within the originally prescribed timeframe is a
deviation and should be reported as such.

F. Other Comments

    Comment: One commenter requested that we expand the concept of
force majeure to cover regulations for other environmental media, such
as water regulations.
    Response: We proposed that this rule address air regulations only
and are maintaining that approach in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter requested that denials for extensions be
administratively appealable.
    Response: The commenter did not explain why this recommendation is
appropriate or how it could be implemented. Therefore, we are not
adopting this recommendation.
    Comment: One commenter requested that we delete the word
``strictly'' from the statement ``Until an extension of the performance
test deadline has been approved under * * *, the owner or operator of
the affected facility remains strictly subject to the requirements of
this part.''
    Response: We disagree with the request to remove the word
``strictly'' because it is intended to emphasize that this rule is one
of strict liability.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    The final rule requires a written notification only if a plant
owner or operator needs an extension of a performance test deadline due
to certain rare events, such as acts of nature, acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of
the affected facility. Since EPA believes such events will be rare, the
projected cost and hour burden will be minimal.
    The increased annual average reporting burden for this collection
(averaged over the first 3 years of the ICR) is estimated to total 6
labor hours per year at a cost of $377.52. This includes one response
per year from six respondents for an average of 1 hour per response. No
capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are associated
with the final reporting requirements. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Extensions
to deadlines for conducting performance tests will provide flexibility
to small entities and reduce the burden on them by providing them an
opportunity for additional time to comply with performance test
deadlines during force majeure events. We expect force majeure events
to be rare since these events include circumstances such as, acts of
nature, acts of war or terrorism, and equipment failure or safety
hazard beyond the control of the affected facility.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an
EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the
UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most
cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when
they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows
EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that the final rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. The maximum total annual cost of this final
rule for any year has been estimated to be less than $435.00. Thus,
today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that the final rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The final rule requires source owners and operators to
provide a written notification to the Agency only if an extension to a
performance test deadline is necessary due to rare force majeure
events. Therefore, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The final rule requirements will
not supercede State regulations that are more stringent. In addition,
the final rule requires a written notification only if a plant owner or
operator needs an extension of a performance test deadline due to
certain rare events, such as acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility. Since EPA believes such events will be rare, the
projected cost and hour burden will be minimal. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final
rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This rule does not affect the
underlying control requirements established by the applicable standards
but only the timeframe associated with performance testing in limited
circumstances.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. New test methods are not
being proposed in this rulemaking, but EPA is allowing for extensions
of the regulatory deadlines by which owners or operators are required
to conduct performance tests when a force majeure is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred which prevents owners or operators from testing
within

the regulatory deadline. Therefore, NTTAA does not apply.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective May 16, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 10, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 60,
61, and 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 60.2 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a
definition for ``Force majeure'' to read as follows:

Sec.  60.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Force majeure means, for purposes of Sec.  60.8, an event that will
be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying
with the regulatory requirement to conduct performance tests within the
specified timeframe despite the affected facility's best efforts to
fulfill the obligation. Examples of such events are acts of nature,
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 60.8 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.8  Performance tests.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1),(a)(2), (a)(3), and
(a)(4) of this section, within 60 days after achieving the maximum
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but
not later than 180 days after initial startup of such facility, or at
such other times specified by this part, and at such other times as may
be required by the Administrator under section 114 of the Act, the
owner or operator of such facility shall conduct performance test(s)
and furnish the Administrator a written report of the results of such
performance test(s).
    (1) If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred
for which the affected owner or operator intends to assert a claim of
force majeure, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator, in
writing as soon as practicable following the date the owner or operator
first knew, or through due diligence should have known that the event
may cause or caused a delay in testing beyond the regulatory deadline,
but the notification must occur before the performance test deadline
unless the initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event
delays the notice, and in such cases, the notification shall occur as
soon as practicable.
    (2) The owner or operator shall provide to the Administrator a
written description of the force majeure event and a rationale for
attributing the delay in testing beyond the regulatory deadline to the
force majeure; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay; and identify a date by which the owner or operator proposes
to conduct the performance test. The performance test shall be
conducted as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs.
    (3) The decision as to whether or not to grant an extension to the
performance test deadline is solely within the discretion of the
Administrator. The Administrator will notify the owner or operator in
writing of approval or disapproval of the request for an extension as
soon as practicable.
    (4) Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been
approved by the Administrator under paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3) of
this section, the owner or operator of the affected facility remains
strictly subject to the requirements of this part.
* * * * *

PART 61--[AMENDED]

0
4. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
5. Section 61.02 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a
definition for ``Force majeure'' to read as follows:

Sec.  61.02  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Force majeure means, for purposes of Sec.  61.13, an event that
will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying
with the regulatory requirement to conduct performance tests within the
specified timeframe despite the affected facility's best efforts to
fulfill the obligation. Examples of such events are acts of nature,
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 61.13 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing ``; or'' at the end of paragraph (a)(1) and adding in
its place a period.
0
b. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
c. By adding paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(6).

Sec.  61.13  Emission tests and waiver of emission tests.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and
(a)(6) of this section, if required to do emission testing by an
applicable subpart and unless a waiver of emission testing is obtained
under this section, the owner or operator shall test emissions from the
source:
* * * * *
    (3) If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred
for which the affected owner or operator intends to assert a claim of
force majeure, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator, in
writing as soon as practicable following the date the owner or operator
first knew, or through due diligence should have known that the event
may cause or caused a delay in testing beyond the regulatory deadline
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section or beyond a
deadline established pursuant to the requirements under paragraph (b)
of this section, but the notification must occur

before the performance test deadline unless the initial force majeure
or a subsequent force majeure event delays the notice, and in such
cases, the notification shall occur as soon as practicable.
    (4) The owner or operator shall provide to the Administrator a
written description of the force majeure event and a rationale for
attributing the delay in testing beyond the regulatory deadline to the
force majeure; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay; and identify a date by which the owner or operator proposes
to conduct the performance test. The performance test shall be
conducted as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs.
    (5) The decision as to whether or not to grant an extension to the
performance test deadline is solely within the discretion of the
Administrator. The Administrator will notify the owner or operator in
writing of approval or disapproval of the request for an extension as
soon as practicable.
    (6) Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been
approved by the Administrator under paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), and
(a)(5) of this section, the owner or operator of the affected facility
remains strictly subject to the requirements of this part.
* * * * *

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
7. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
8. Section 63.2 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a
definition for ``Force majeure'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Force majeure means, for purposes of Sec.  63.7, an event that will
be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying
with the regulatory requirement to conduct performance tests within the
specified timeframe despite the affected facility's best efforts to
fulfill the obligation. Examples of such events are acts of nature,
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) introductory
text and (a)(2)(ix) and by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7  Performance testing requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, if
required to do performance testing by a relevant standard, and unless a
waiver of performance testing is obtained under this section or the
conditions of paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of this section apply, the owner
or operator of the affected source must perform such tests within 180
days of the compliance date for such source.
* * * * *
    (ix) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, when
an emission standard promulgated under this part is more stringent than
the standard proposed (see Sec.  63.6(b)(3)), the owner or operator of
a new or reconstructed source subject to that standard for which
construction or reconstruction is commenced between the proposal and
promulgation dates of the standard shall comply with performance
testing requirements within 180 days after the standard's effective
date, or within 180 days after startup of the source, whichever is
later. If the promulgated standard is more stringent than the proposed
standard, the owner or operator may choose to demonstrate compliance
with either the proposed or the promulgated standard. If the owner or
operator chooses to comply with the proposed standard initially, the
owner or operator shall conduct a second performance test within 3
years and 180 days after the effective date of the standard, or after
startup of the source, whichever is later, to demonstrate compliance
with the promulgated standard.
* * * * *
    (4) If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred
for which the affected owner or operator intends to assert a claim of
force majeure:
    (i) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator, in
writing as soon as practicable following the date the owner or operator
first knew, or through due diligence should have known that the event
may cause or caused a delay in testing beyond the regulatory deadline
specified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, or elsewhere
in this part, but the notification must occur before the performance
test deadline unless the initial force majeure or a subsequent force
majeure event delays the notice, and in such cases, the notification
shall occur as soon as practicable.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall provide to the Administrator a
written description of the force majeure event and a rationale for
attributing the delay in testing beyond the regulatory deadline to the
force majeure; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay; and identify a date by which the owner or operator proposes
to conduct the performance test. The performance test shall be
conducted as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs.
    (iii) The decision as to whether or not to grant an extension to
the performance test deadline is solely within the discretion of the
Administrator. The Administrator will notify the owner or operator in
writing of approval or disapproval of the request for an extension as
soon as practicable.
    (iv) Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been
approved by the Administrator under paragraphs (a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii),
and (a)(4)(iii) of this section, the owner or operator of the affected
facility remains strictly subject to the requirements of this part.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.91 is amended by adding paragraph (g)(1)(i)(O) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.91  Criteria for straight delegation and criteria common to
all approval options.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (O) Section 63.7(a)(4), Extension of Performance Test Deadline
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-9407 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P