[Federal Register: May 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29797-29798]
[DOCID:fr22my08-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57821; File No. SR-FICC-2008-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change,
as Modified, To Eliminate the Coverage Component and Margin Requirement
Differential From the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division Participants
Fund Calculation

May 15, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on April 18, 2008, the Fixed
Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') and on April 21, 2008, amended the
proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which
items have been prepared primarily by FICC. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify FICC's
Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') participant fund
calculation as set forth in Article IV, Rule 1 (Total Required Fund
Deposit) by eliminating the Coverage Component and the Margin
Requirement Differential from the calculation.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B),

and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On August 31, 2007, FICC filed with the Commission and on September
27, 2007, amended proposed rule change SR-FICC-2007-10 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Act. On March 31, 2008, the Commission approved
the proposed rule change.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57586 (March 31, 2008),
73 FR 19537 (SR-FICC-2007-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule change modified FICC's MBSD rules, replacing the current
participants fund methodology (which used haircuts and offsets) with a
Value-at-Risk (``VaR'') model, which was expected to better account for
market volatility and more thoroughly distinguish levels of risk
presented by individual securities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ VaR is defined to be the maximum amount of money that may be
lost on a portfolio over a given period of time, within a given
level of confidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As approved by the Commission, the revised participants fund
calculation included: (1) An end-of-day charge (which is the greater of
the VaR-based charge and a defined minimum charge), (2) a Coverage
Component (which is an additional charge to bring the participant's
coverage to a targeted confidence level), (3) an additional payment
(which is called a ``Special Charge'') as determined by FICC from time
to time, and (4) a Margin Requirement Differential (which takes into
account intra-day portfolio variations and the potential for a late
margin deficit satisfaction).
    FICC has determined not to implement the Coverage Component and the
Margin Requirement Differential, while it continues to study the
methodology. Accordingly, FICC is modifying MBSD Article I (Definitions
and General Provisions) and Article IV (Participants Fund) to remove
references to these components.
    FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to FICC because the proposed rule
change should better enable FICC to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds in its custody or control or for which it is
responsible by enabling FICC to more effectively manage the risks
presented by participants' activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact on or impose any burden on competition.

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

    No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been
solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by FICC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \7\
thereunder because the proposed rule change effects a change in an
existing service of FICC that (i) does not adversely affect the
safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or control of FICC
or for which it is responsible and (ii) does not significantly affect
the respective rights of the clearing agency or persons using the
service. At any time within sixty days of the filing of such rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
    \8\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on April 21, 2008, the date on which the last amendment
to the proposed rule change was filed with the Commission. 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FICC-2008-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2008-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule changes that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FICC and on FICC's
Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rule_filings/ficc/2008.php. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2008-03 and should be
submitted on or before June 12, 2008.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-11425 Filed 5-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13033-13034]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04800]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-437, OMB Control No. 3235-0494]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 30e-2

    Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), (``Paperwork Reduction Act'') the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for
extension of the previously approved collection of information
discussed below.
    Rule 30e-2 (17 CFR 270.30e-2) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``Investment Company Act'') requires
registered unit investment trusts (``UITs'') that invest substantially
all of their assets in shares of a management investment company
(``fund'') to send their unitholders annual and semiannual reports
containing financial information on the underlying company.
Specifically, rule

30e-2 requires that the report contain all the applicable information
and financial statements or their equivalent, required by rule 30e-1
under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.30e-1) to be included in
reports of the underlying fund for the same fiscal period. Rule 30e-1
requires that the underlying fund's report contain, among other things,
the information that is required to be included in such reports by the
fund's registration statement form under the Investment Company Act.
The purpose of this requirement is to apprise current shareholders of
the operational and financial condition of the UIT. Absent the
requirement to disclose all material information in reports, investors
would be unable to obtain accurate information upon which to base
investment decisions and consumer confidence in the securities industry
might be adversely affected. Requiring the submission of these reports
to the Commission permits us to verify compliance with securities law
requirements.
    Rule 30e-2, however, permits, under certain conditions, delivery of
a single shareholder report to investors who share an address
(``householding''). Specifically, rule 30e-2 permits householding of
annual and semi-annual reports by UITs to satisfy the delivery
requirements of rule 30e-2 if, in addition to the other conditions set
forth in the rule, the UIT has obtained from each applicable investor
written or implied consent to the householding of shareholder reports
at such address. The rule requires UITs that wish to household
shareholder reports with implied consent to send a notice to each
applicable investor stating that the investors in the household will
receive one report in the future unless the investors provide contrary
instructions. In addition, at least once a year, UITs relying on the
rule for householding must explain to investors who have provided
written or implied consent how they can revoke their consent. The
purpose of the notice and annual explanation requirements associated
with the householding provisions of the rule is to ensure that
investors who wish to receive individual copies of shareholder reports
are able to do so.
    The Commission estimates that the annual burden associated with
rule 30e-2 is 125 hours per respondent. The Commission estimates that
there are currently approximately 660 UITs that file 1,320 reports per
year. Therefore, the Commission estimates that the total hour burden is
approximately 82,500 hours. In addition to the burden hours, the
Commission estimates that the annual cost of contracting for outside
services associated with rule 30e-2 is $20,000 per respondent, or
$6,667 per respondent that transmits reports electronically, for a
total cost of approximately $5,280,198.
    Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive
or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules
and forms. The collection of information under rule 30e-2 is mandatory.
The information provided under rule 30e-2 will not be kept
confidential. 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 public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, 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 protected]; and (ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected]. Written comments and recommendations for the
proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of
publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find
this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under
30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search
function.

    Dated: March 2, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04800 Filed 3-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26993-26996]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11019]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0426; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-087-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -800, -900, and -900ER
series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that certain
seat

track bolts were found with severed head bolts due to fatigue. This
proposed AD would require replacing titanium seat track bolts with
corrosion resistant steel (CRES) bolts, repetitive inspections for
cracking of the splice strap and forward seat track holes, and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD
also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct missing or
severed bolt heads, which, if not corrected, could result in the
inability of the seat track to carry passenger loads, which could cause
the seats to detach from the seat track, resulting in possible injury
to passengers during an emergency landing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 22, 2012.

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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Gillespie, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0426;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-087-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 because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received reports indicating that the seat track bolts at Station
727B, buttock lines (BL) 24.75 and 45.50 left and right sides, were
found with severed bolt heads due to fatigue. Missing or severed bolt
heads, if not detected and corrected, could result in the inability of
the seat track to carry passenger loads, which could cause the seats to
detach from the seat track, resulting in possible injury to passengers
during an emergency landing.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1296,
dated January 11, 2011. That service information describes procedures
for replacing titanium seat track bolts with CRES bolts, repetitive
inspections for cracking of the splice strap and forward seat track
holes, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.
    Related investigative action includes detailed inspection and high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking in holes common
to the splice strap and forward seat track.
    Corrective actions include contacting Boeing for repair
instructions, repairing, replacing missing or severed titanium seat
track bolts with CRES bolts, and replacing a cracked splice strap with
a new slice strap. Replacing the missing or severed seat track bolts
and installing the new splice strap eliminates the need for the
repetitive splice strap inspections at Station 727B, BL 24.75 and
45.50, left and right sides, on all airplanes.
    For the inspections for cracking of the splice strap and forward
seat track holes and replacement of missing or severed seat track
bolts, the service information specifies an initial compliance time of
before 7,000 total flight cycles or within 24 months after the issue
date of the service bulletin, and a repetitive interval of 7,000 flight
cycles.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
below.

Differences Between Proposed AD and Service Bulletin

    Although Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1296,
dated January 11, 2011, specifies that operators may contact the
manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions, this
proposed AD would require operators to repair those conditions using a
method approved by the FAA.
    Although Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1296,
dated January 11, 2011, specifies the sequence of steps performed in
that service bulletin can be changed, this proposed AD would require
operators to perform the repair using the sequence of steps in that
service bulletin.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 168 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per    Cost on U.S.
                Action                            Labor cost             Parts cost    product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace bolts and install new splice    18 work-hours x $85 per hour =       $1,991       $3,521        $591,528
 strap.                                  $1,530.
Repetitive Inspection.................  3 work-hours x $85 per hour =             0          255          42,840
                                         $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2012-0426; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-087-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 22, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -800,
-900, and -900ER series airplanes, with passenger seats installed;
certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1296, dated January 11, 2011.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that certain seat track bolts
were found with severed bolt heads due to fatigue. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct missing or severed bolt heads, which,
if not corrected, could result in the inability of the seat track to
carry passenger loads, which could cause the seats to detach from
the seat track, resulting in possible injury to passengers during an
emergency landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Seat Track Bolt Replacement and Splice Strap Installation

    Before the accumulation of 7,000 total flight cycles, or within
24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later, replace titanium seat track bolts with corrosion resistant
steel (CRES) bolts at both the left and right sides of buttock lines
24.75 and 45.50, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1296, dated
January 11, 2011. If a titanium seat track bolt is found missing
from the structure during the accomplishment of the tasks required
by this paragraph: Before further flight, do a high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspection for cracking in the fastener holes and do
a general visual inspection of the area, including the splice strap
and forward seat track for damage, and replace missing bolts with
new or serviceable CRES bolts, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-
1296, dated January 11, 2011. If cracking or damage is found: Before
further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a
repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification
basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to
this AD.

(h) Detailed and High Frequency Eddy Current Inspections

    Before the accumulation of 7,000 total flight cycles, or within
24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later: Do a detailed inspection and an HFEC inspection for cracking
in the holes common to the splice strap and forward seat track at
both the left and right sides of buttock lines 24.75 and 45.50, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1296, dated January 11, 2011.
Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,000
flight cycles, until the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD have been done.
    (1) If a crack is found in the splice strap during any
inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further
flight, replace the seat track bolts and install a new splice strap
part number (P/N) 146A5342-26 and retained angle at the affected
location, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1296, dated January
11, 2011.
    (2) If a crack is found in the seat track during any inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, and Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-53-1296, dated January 11, 2011, specifies to
contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair
the seat track in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, FAA. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Optional Terminating Action

    Replacing the titanium seat track bolts with CRES bolts on both
the left and right sides of buttock lines 24.75 and 45.50 at Station
727B, and installing a new splice strap P/N 146A5342-26, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1296, dated January 11, 2011,
terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of
this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the
Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA)
that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those
findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Patrick
Gillespie, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental
Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:
425-917-6429; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29, 2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-11019 Filed 5-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47930-47934]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22126]

Vol. 82

Friday,

No. 197

October 13, 2017

Part V

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 52

 Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0452; FRL-9969-30--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
portions of a revision to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP)
concerning the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) that was submitted by Georgia on July 26, 2017.
Under CSAPR, large electricity generating units (EGUs) in Georgia are
subject to Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) requiring the units to
participate in CSAPR's federal trading program for annual emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX), one of CSAPR's two federal trading
programs for annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
one of CSAPR's two federal trading programs for ozone season emissions
of NOX. This action approves the State's regulations
requiring large Georgia EGUs to participate in new CSAPR state trading
programs for annual NOX, annual SO2, and ozone
season NOX emissions integrated with the CSAPR federal
trading programs, replacing the corresponding FIP requirements. Under
the CSAPR regulations, approval of these portions of the SIP revision
automatically eliminates Georgia's units' obligations under the
corresponding CSAPR FIPs addressing interstate transport requirements
for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. Approval of
these portions of the SIP revision satisfies Georgia's good neighbor
obligation for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. In addition,
approval of this revision removes from Georgia's SIP those state
trading program rules adopted to comply with CAIR.

DATES: This rule is effective November 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0452. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashten Bailey, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bailey can be reached by telephone at
(404) 562-9164 or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on CAIR

    To help reduce interstate transport of ozone and PM2.5
pollution in the eastern half of the United States, EPA finalized CAIR
in May 2005.\1\ CAIR addressed both the 1997 Ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS and required 28 states, including Georgia, and the District of
Columbia to limit emissions of NOX and SO2. For
CAIR, EPA developed three separate cap and trade programs that could be
used to achieve the required reductions: The CAIR NOX ozone
season trading program, the CAIR NOX annual trading program,
and the CAIR SO2 trading program. Georgia was subject to
CAIR requirements only with respect to annual NOX and
SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded to EPA by the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on
rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176. This ruling allowed CAIR to remain in effect
until a new interstate transport rule consistent with the Court's
opinion was developed. While EPA worked on developing a new rule to
address the interstate transport of air pollution, the CAIR program
continued as planned with the NOX annual and ozone season
programs beginning in 2009 and the SO2 annual program
beginning in 2010.
    In response to the remand of CAIR, EPA promulgated CSAPR on July 6,
2011.\2\ Along with provisions discussed more fully in the following
section, the rule contained provisions that would sunset CAIR-related
obligations on a schedule coordinated with the implementation of CSAPR
compliance requirements. CSAPR was to become effective January 1, 2012;
however, the timing of CSAPR's implementation was impacted by a number
of court actions. On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed CSAPR
prior to its implementation, and EPA was ordered to continue
administering CAIR on an interim basis.\3\ In a subsequent decision on
the merits, the Court vacated CSAPR based on a subset of petitioners'
claims.\4\ However, on April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed
that decision and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for further
proceedings.\5\ Throughout the initial round of D.C. Circuit
proceedings and the ensuing Supreme Court proceedings, the stay on
CSAPR remained in place, and EPA continued to implement CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \3\ Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.
    \4\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 U.S. 2857 (2013).
    \5\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584,
1600-01 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the April 2014 Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a motion
asking the D.C. Circuit to lift the stay in order to allow CSAPR to
replace CAIR in an equitable and orderly manner while further D.C.
Circuit proceedings were held to resolve remaining claims from
petitioners. Additionally, EPA's motion requested to toll, by three
years, all CSAPR compliance deadlines that had not passed as of the
approval date of the stay. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit
granted EPA's request, and on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663), in an
interim final rule, EPA set the updated effective date of CSAPR as
January 1, 2015, and tolled the implementation of CSAPR Phase 1 to 2015
and CSAPR Phase 2 to 2017. In accordance with the interim final rule,
the sunset date for CAIR was December 31, 2014, and EPA began
implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 40 CFR 51.123(ff) (sunsetting CAIR requirements related
to NOX); 40 CFR 51.124(s) (sunsetting CAIR requirements
related to SO2).

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

II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    As discussed previously, EPA issued CSAPR in July 2011 to address
the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate transport of air pollution. As
amended (including by the 2016 CSAPR Update \7\), CSAPR requires 27
Eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of SO2
and/or NOX in order to mitigate transported air pollution
unlawfully impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain four
NAAQS: The 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, and the 2008 8-
hour Ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms
of maximum statewide ``budgets'' for emissions of annual
SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone season
NOX by each covered state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state
budgets are implemented in two phases of generally increasing
stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and
2016 and the Phase 2 (and CSAPR Update) budgets applying to emissions
in 2017 and later years. As a mechanism for achieving compliance with
the emissions limitations, CSAPR establishes five federal emissions
trading programs: a program for annual NOX emissions, two
geographically separate programs for annual SO2 emissions,
and two geographically separate programs for ozone-season
NOX emissions. CSAPR also establishes FIP requirements
applicable to the large EGUs in each covered state.\8\ Currently, the
CSAPR FIP provisions require each state's units to participate in up to
three of the five CSAPR trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The CSAPR Update was
promulgated to address interstate pollution with respect to the 2008
8-hour Ozone NAAQS and to address a judicial remand of certain
original CSAPR ozone season NOX budgets promulgated with
respect to the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR at 74505. The
CSAPR Update established new emission reduction requirements
addressing the more recent NAAQS and coordinated them with the
remaining emission reduction requirements addressing the older ozone
NAAQS, so that starting in 2017, CSAPR includes two geographically
separate trading programs for ozone season NOX emissions
covering EGUs in a total of 23 states. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(1)-(2).
    \8\ States are required to submit good neighbor SIPs within
three years (or less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after a
NAAQS is promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2). Where EPA finds
that a state fails to submit a required SIP or disapproves a SIP,
EPA is obligated to promulgate a FIP addressing the deficiency. CAA
section 110(c). EPA found that Georgia failed to make timely
submissions required to address the good neighbor provision with
respect to the 1997 Annual PM2.5 and 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
(70 FR 21147, April 25, 2005), and the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS (80
FR 39961, June 13, 2015). In addition, EPA disapproved Georgia's SIP
revision submitted to address the good neighbor provision with
respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 76 FR 43159
(July 20, 2011). Accordingly, as a part of CSAPR and the CSAPR
Update, EPA promulgated FIPs applicable to sources in Georgia
addressing the good neighbor provision with respect to the 1997
annual PM2.5, 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, and the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed below, when EPA finalized
the CSAPR Update, EPA determined that Georgia did not interfere with
nonattainment or maintenance for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CSAPR includes provisions under which states may submit and EPA
will approve SIP revisions to modify or replace the CSAPR FIP
requirements while allowing states to continue to meet their transport-
related obligations using either CSAPR's federal emissions trading
programs or state emissions trading programs integrated with the
federal programs, provided that the SIP revisions meet all relevant
criteria.\9\ Through such a SIP revision, a state may replace EPA's
default provisions for allocating emission allowances among the state's
units, employing any state-selected methodology to allocate or auction
the allowances, subject to timing conditions and limits on overall
allowance quantities. In the case of CSAPR's federal trading programs
for ozone season NOX emissions (or an integrated state
trading program), a state may also expand trading program applicability
to include certain smaller EGUs.\10\ If a state wants to replace CSAPR
FIP requirements with SIP requirements under which the state's units
participate in a state trading program that is integrated with and
identical to the federal trading program even as to the allocation and
applicability provisions, the state may submit a SIP revision for that
purpose as well. However, no emissions budget increases or other
substantive changes to the trading program provisions are allowed. A
state whose units are subject to multiple CSAPR FIPs and federal
trading programs may submit SIP revisions to modify or replace either
some or all of those FIP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the ability to
submit SIP revisions to meet their transport-related obligations
using mechanisms other than the CSAPR federal trading programs or
integrated state trading programs.
    \10\ States covered by both the CSAPR Update and the
NOX SIP Call have the additional option to expand
applicability under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program to include non-EGUs that would have participated in
the former NOX Budget Trading Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States can submit two basic forms of CSAPR-related SIP revisions
effective for emissions control periods in 2017 or later years.\11\
Specific conditions for approval of each form of SIP revision are set
forth in the CSAPR regulations. Under the first alternative--an
``abbreviated'' SIP revision--a state may submit a SIP revision that
upon approval replaces the default allowance allocation and/or
applicability provisions of a CSAPR federal trading program for the
state.\12\ Approval of an abbreviated SIP revision leaves the
corresponding CSAPR FIP and all other provisions of the relevant
federal trading program in place for the state's units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CSAPR also provides for a third, more streamlined form of
SIP revision that is effective only for control periods in 2016 and
is not relevant here. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3), (b)(3), (b)(7);
52.39(d), (g).
    \12\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4), (b)(4), (b)(8); 52.39(e), (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the second alternative--a ``full'' SIP revision--a state may
submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces a CSAPR federal
trading program for the state with a state trading program integrated
with the federal trading program, so long as the state trading program
is substantively identical to the federal trading program or does not
substantively differ from the federal trading program except as
discussed above with regard to the allowance allocation and/or
applicability provisions.\13\ For purposes of a full SIP revision, a
state may either adopt state rules with complete trading program
language, incorporate the federal trading program language into its
state rules by reference (with appropriate conforming changes), or
employ a combination of these approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5), (b)(5), (b)(9); 52.39(f), (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR regulations identify several important consequences and
limitations associated with approval of a full SIP revision. First,
upon EPA's approval of a full SIP revision as correcting the deficiency
in the state's implementation plan that was the basis for a particular
set of CSAPR FIP requirements, the obligation to participate in the
corresponding CSAPR federal trading program is automatically eliminated
for units subject to the state's jurisdiction without the need for a
separate EPA withdrawal action, so long as EPA's approval of the SIP is
full and unconditional.\14\ Second, approval of a full SIP revision
does not terminate the obligation to participate in the corresponding
CSAPR federal trading program for any units located in any Indian
country within the borders of the state, and if and when a unit is
located in Indian country within a state's borders, EPA may modify the
SIP approval to exclude from the SIP, and include in the surviving
CSAPR FIP instead, certain trading program provisions that apply
jointly to units in the state and to units in Indian country

within the state's borders.\15\ Finally, if at the time a full SIP
revision is approved EPA has already started recording allocations of
allowances for a given control period to a state's units, the federal
trading program provisions authorizing EPA to complete the process of
allocating and recording allowances for that control period to those
units will continue to apply, unless EPA's approval of the SIP revision
provides otherwise.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(6), (b)(10)(i); 52.39(j).
    \15\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iv)-(v), (a)(6), (b)(5)(v)-(vi),
(b)(9)(vi)-(vii), (b)(10)(i); 52.39(f)(4)-(5), (i)(4)-(5), (j).
    \16\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(7), (b)(11)(i); 52.39(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision on a number of
petitions related to CSAPR, which found that EPA required more
emissions reductions than may have been necessary to address the
downwind air quality problems to which some states contribute. The
Court remanded several CSAPR emission budgets to EPA for
reconsideration, including the Phase 2 SO2 trading budget
for Georgia.\17\ However, Georgia has voluntarily adopted into their
SIP a CSAPR state trading program that is integrated with the federal
trading program and includes a state-established SO2 budget
equal to the state's remanded Phase 2 SO2 emission
budget.\18\ EPA notes that nothing in the Court's decision affects
Georgia's authority to seek incorporation into its SIP of a state-
established budget as stringent as the remanded federally-established
budget or limits EPA's authority to approve such a SIP revision. The
CSAPR regulations provide each covered state with the option to meet
its transport obligations through SIP revisions replacing the federal
trading programs and requiring the state's EGUs to participate in
integrated CSAPR state trading programs that apply emissions budgets of
the same or greater stringency. Under the CSAPR regulations, when such
a SIP revision is approved, the corresponding FIP provisions are
automatically withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (EME Homer City II),
795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The D.C. Circuit also remanded
SO2 budgets for Alabama, South Carolina, and Texas. The
court also remanded Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for
eleven states, which did not include Georgia.
    \18\ See memo entitled ``The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Plan for Responding to the Remand of the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Phase 2 SO2 Budgets for Alabama, Georgia,
South Carolina and Texas'' from Janet G. McCabe, EPA Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Air
Division Directors (June 27, 2016), available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0598-0003. The memo
directs the Regional Air Division Directors to share the memo with
state officials. EPA also communicated orally with officials in
Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas in advance of the memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA determined that air pollution
transported from EGUs in Georgia would unlawfully affect other states'
ability to attain or maintain the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and included Georgia in the CSAPR ozone season NOX
trading program and the annual SO2 and NOX
trading programs.\19\ In the CSAPR Update rulemaking, EPA determined
that Georgia was not linked to any identified downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptors for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.\20\ Georgia's
units meeting the CSAPR applicability criteria are consequently
currently subject to CSAPR FIPs that require participation in the CSAPR
NOX Annual Trading Program, the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 1 Trading Program, and the CSAPR SO2 Group 2
Trading Program.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 76 FR 48208, 48213 (August 8, 2011).
    \20\ 81 FR 74504, 74506 (October 26, 2016). EPA also determined
in the CSAPR Update rulemaking that Georgia had no further transport
obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
1997 Ozone NAAQS beyond the ozone season NOX emission
reduction requirements established in the original CSAPR rulemaking.
Id. at 74525.
    \21\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(2), (b)(2); 52.39(c); 52.584; 52.585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 26, 2017, Georgia submitted to EPA a SIP revision including
provisions that, upon approval, incorporates into Georgia's SIP CSAPR
state trading program regulations to replace the CSAPR regulations for
all three of these federal trading programs with regard to Georgia
units, and removes SIP provisions related to CAIR. In a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 16, 2017 (82 FR 38866),
EPA proposed to approve the portions of Georgia's July 26, 2017, SIP
submittal designed to replace the CSAPR federal trading programs and
remove CAIR from Georgia's SIP. The NPRM provides additional detail
regarding the background and rationale for EPA's actions. Comments on
the NPRM were due on or before September 15, 2017. EPA received no
adverse comments on the proposed action.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Georgia Rules
for Air Quality Control, Rule 391-3-1-.02(12), Rule 391-3-1-.02(13),
and Rule 391-3-1-.02(14), state effective on July 20, 2017, comprising
Georgia's Cross State Air Pollution Rule NOX Annual Trading
Program, Georgia's Cross State Air Pollution Rule SO2 Annual
Trading Program, and Georgia's Cross State Air Pollution Rule
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, respectively. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please
contact the person identified in the ``For Further Information
Contact'' section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP,
have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Actions

    EPA is approving the portions of Georgia's July 26, 2017, SIP
submittal concerning the establishment for Georgia units of CSAPR state
trading programs for annual NOX, annual SO2
emissions, and ozone season NOX emissions. This approval
revises the Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control in the SIP to include
CSAPR as follows: 391-3-1-.02(12) will be revised to include Georgia's
``Cross State Air Pollution Rule NOX Annual Trading
Program;'' 391-3-1-.02(13) will be revised to include Georgia's ``Cross
State Air Pollution Rule SO2 Annual Trading Program;'' and
391-3-1-.02(14) will be added to include ``Georgia's Cross State Air
Pollution Rule NOX Ozone Season Trading Program.'' These
Georgia CSAPR state trading programs will be integrated with the
federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program, the federal CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 Trading Program, and the federal CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 1 Trading Program, respectively, and
are substantively identical to the federal trading programs. Georgia
units will generally be required to meet requirements under Georgia's
CSAPR state trading programs equivalent to the requirements the units
otherwise would have been required to meet under the corresponding
CSAPR federal trading programs. EPA is approving these portions of the
SIP revision because they meet the requirements of the CAA and EPA's
regulations for approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision replacing a
federal trading program with a state trading program.

    EPA promulgated FIPs requiring Georgia units to participate in the
federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program, the federal CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 Trading Program, and the federal CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 1 Trading Program in order to address
Georgia's obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect
to the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in the absence
of SIP provisions addressing those requirements. Approval of the
portions of Georgia's SIP submittal adopting CSAPR state trading
program rules for annual NOX, annual SO2, and
ozone season NOX substantively identical to the
corresponding CSAPR federal trading program regulations (or differing
only with respect to the allowance allocation methodology) satisfies
Georgia's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to
prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS in any other state and therefore corrects the same
deficiency in the SIP that otherwise would be corrected by those CSAPR
FIPs. Under the CSAPR regulations, upon EPA's full and unconditional
approval of a SIP revision as correcting the SIP's deficiency that is
the basis for a particular CSAPR FIP, the obligation to participate in
the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program is automatically
eliminated for units subject to the state's jurisdiction (but not for
any units located in any Indian country within the state's borders).
Approval of the portions of Georgia's SIP submittal establishing CSAPR
state trading program rules for annual NOX, annual
SO2, and ozone season NOX emissions therefore
results in automatic termination of the obligations of Georgia units to
participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program,
the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program, and the
federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 Trading Program.
    As noted previously, the Phase 2 SO2 budget established
for Georgia in the CSAPR rulemaking has been remanded to EPA for
reconsideration. As this action finalizes approval of these portions of
the SIP revision as proposed, Georgia will have fulfilled its
obligations to provide a SIP that addresses the interstate transport
provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
and the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. Thus, EPA is no longer under an
obligation to (nor does EPA have the authority to) address those
transport requirements through implementation of a FIP, and approval of
these portions of the SIP revision eliminates Georgia units'
obligations to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Annual
Trading Program, the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading
Program, and the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1
Trading Program. Elimination of Georgia units' obligations to
participate in the federal trading programs includes elimination of the
federally-established Phase 2 budgets capping allocations of CSAPR
NOX Annual allowances, CSAPR SO2 Group 2
allowances, and CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 allowances to
Georgia units under those federal trading programs. As approval of
these portions of the SIP revision eliminates Georgia's remanded
federally-established Phase 2 SO2 budget and eliminates
EPA's authority to subject units in Georgia to a FIP, approval of this
SIP action addresses the judicial remand of Georgia's federally-
established Phase 2 SO2 budget.
    In addition, EPA is approving the portions of Georgia's July 26,
2017, SIP revision removing Georgia's state trading provisions adopted
to implement CAIR: Georgia Rules for Air Quality control at provisions
391-3-1-.02(12), ``Clean Air Interstate Rule NOX Annual
Trading Program'' and 391-3-1-.02(13) ``Clean Air Interstate Rule
SO2 Annual Trading Program.''

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 action 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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 12, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this
action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See
section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: September 29, 2017.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec.  52.38   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.38:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(8)(iii) after the word ``Alabama'' by adding the
words ``and Georgia''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(12)(iii), by removing the text ``[none]'' and
adding the word ``Georgia'' in its place.

Sec.  52.39   [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.39 paragraph (m)(3) after the word ``Alabama'' by
adding the words ``and Georgia''.

Subpart L--Georgia

0
4. In Sec.  52.570, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entries ``391-3-1-.02(12)'' and ``391-3-1-.02(13),''; and adding in
numerical order an entry for ``391-3-1-.02(14)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Georgia Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
        State citation              Title/subject       effective     EPA approval date         Explanation
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(12)...............  Cross State Air          7/20/2017  10/13/2017, [Insert
                                 Pollution Rule NOX                  Federal Register
                                 Annual Trading                      citation].
                                 Program.
391-3-1-.02(13)...............  Cross State Air          7/20/2017  10/13/2017, [Insert
                                 Pollution Rule SO2                  Federal Register
                                 Annual Trading                      citation].
                                 Program.
391-3-1-.02(14)...............  Cross State Air          7/20/2017  10/13/2017, [Insert
                                 Pollution Rule NOX                  Federal Register
                                 Ozone Season Trading                citation].
                                 Program.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-22126 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		January 24, 2015

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Howard J. Hoffman, EPA - OGC

SUBJECT:	January 14, 2015 Telephone Call with NextGen Climate Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On January 14, 2015, Howard J. Hoffman of EPA-OGC met by telephone with David Weiskopf of NextGen Climate to discuss NextGen Climate's comments concerning the proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants.


SUBJ: Meeting with David Dunlap of the Uniform Textile and Service Assocation FROM: Jan Matuszko, EPA TO: 304( g)/ 307 Record DATE: January 4, 2005 On March 18, 2004, the Uniform Textile and Service Association ( UTSA) submitted comments on the Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. In part, these comments discussed the Laundry Environmental Stewardship Program ( Laundry ESP) and preliminary results of the industry's data collection as part of this program. The comments indicated that the Association planned to release a final analysis of data collected later in 2004.

In November, 2004, I contacted David Dunlap of UTSA to obtain additional information on the Laundry ESP Program as part of our 304( g)/ 307 review of Industrial Laundries. He provided two items and indicated they were in follow up to his March 18, 2004 comments:

1. A brochure on the Laundry ESP Program, and 2. A Power Point presentation summarizing the results of the Laundry ESP Program through 2002 After reviewing these materials, I met with David Dunlap on December 16 to clarify some of the information provided in the Power Point presentation. This memo summarizes additional information obtained during the meeting. The information below coincides with the Power Point presentation.

Data Quality:

Questionnaire reviewers ran algorithms that pointed out inconsistencies with responses. Consultants called these respondents and corrected information, as applicable.

Outliers were determined using a t Statistic.

There was no need to normalize slides presented as efficiency ( since efficiency calculation is self normalizing) such as water and energy.

Need to see notes on normalizing pollutants lbs.

Pollutant Data Points as a % of 2002 Total:

Demonstrates that participation is increasing and that data for 1997 represents approx 60% of the facilities participating in 2002. Facility Size Distribution:

Demonstrates that participation by smallest facilities is low. UTSA is attempting to increase participation by small facilities.

Pollutant Equivalents Industry threw out 1997 results because of the smaller number of facilities participating. The industry does not believe 1997 data is representative of the industry.

Emphasis on pollutants was on metals since metals drive the TWPE for this industry. List of metals included and the TWFs applied is in an attached e mail. Also see e mail for approach to organic constituents. TWFs were obtained from Industrial Laundries record.

In performing the calculations, all concentration data for a particular year was grouped together and averaged. PE was then determined by applying TWF for each pollutant and summing.

For a pollutant to be included in this analysis, there had to be at least 10 data points for a pollutant in all years evaluated. This was done to decrease the chances that a few data points drive the results.

Line is arbitrary and could be deleted.


http://toyotanewsroom.com/releases/ford+toyota+hybrid+trucks+suvs+telematics.htm

August 22, 2011

Ford, Toyota to Collaborate on Developing New Hybrid System for Light Trucks, SUVs; Future Telematics Standards
   *    Ford and Toyota are collaborating as equal partners to accelerate consumer availability of a new advanced hybrid system for light trucks and SUVs
   *    New co-developed hybrid system ready for use later this decade on Ford and Toyota rear-wheel-drive light trucks and SUVs, delivering greater fuel efficiency while still providing customers the capability they want and need
   *    Ford and Toyota also will collaborate on development of next-generation standards for in-car telematics and Internet-based services

Click here for Toyota Motor Corporation EVP Takeshi Uchiyamada's remarks

Dearborn, Mich., Aug. 22, 2011  -  Ford Motor Company and Toyota Motor Corporation  -  the world's two leading manufacturers of hybrid vehicles  -  today announced they will equally collaborate on the development of an advanced new hybrid system for light truck and SUV customers.

Ford and Toyota have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the product development collaboration, with the formal agreement expected by next year.

Both companies have been working independently on their own future-generation rear-wheel drive hybrid systems. The two now have committed to collaborate as equal partners on a new hybrid system for light trucks and SUVs. This new hybrid powertrain will bring the full hybrid experience of greater fuel efficiency to a new group of truck and SUV customers without compromising the capability they require in their vehicles. Ford and Toyota believe that their collaboration will allow them to bring these hybrid technologies to customers sooner and more affordably than either company could have accomplished alone.

"This agreement brings together the capability of two global leaders in hybrid vehicles and hybrid technology to develop a better solution more quickly and affordably for our customers," said Derrick Kuzak, Ford group vice president, Global Product Development. "Ford achieved a breakthrough with the Ford Fusion Hybrid, and we intend to do this again for a new group of truck and SUV buyers  -  customers we know very well."

Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota executive vice president, Research & Development, said: "In 1997, we launched the first-generation Prius, the world's first mass-produced gasoline-electric hybrid. Since then, we have sold about 3.3 million hybrid vehicles. We expect to create exciting technologies that benefit society with Ford  -  and we can do so through the experience the two companies have in hybrid technology."

The two companies also agreed to work together on enablers to complement each company's existing telematics platform standards, helping bring more Internet-based services and useful information to consumers globally.

Under the MOU agreement, the two companies will bring the best of their independently developed hybrid powertrain technology and knowledge to a new co-developed hybrid system, which will be used in rear-wheel-drive light trucks arriving later this decade. Specifically, Ford and Toyota will:

   *    Jointly develop as equal partners a new rear-wheel drive hybrid system and component technology for light trucks and SUVs
   *    Independently integrate the new hybrid system in their future vehicles separately
For years, both Ford and Toyota have been working independently on similar new rear-wheel-drive hybrid systems aimed at delivering higher fuel economy in light trucks and SUVs. When the two companies began discussing this potential collaboration, they discovered how quickly they were able to find common ground.

"By working together, we will be able to serve our customers with the very best affordable, advanced powertrains, delivering even better fuel economy," said Ford President and CEO Alan Mulally. "This is the kind of collaborative effort that is required to address the big global challenges of energy independence and environmental sustainability."

Toyota President Akio Toyoda added: "Toyota is extremely proud to join Ford in developing a hybrid system for pickup trucks and SUVs. Not only is this tie-up clearly one aimed at making automobiles ever better, it should also become an important building block for future mobility in the U.S. By building a global, long-term relationship with Ford, our desire is to be able to continue to provide people in America automobiles that exceed their expectations."

This rear-wheel-drive hybrid system will be based on an all-new architecture to deliver the capability truck and SUV customers demand while providing greater fuel economy.

While the rear-wheel-drive hybrid system will share significant common technology and components, Ford and Toyota will individually integrate the system into their own vehicles. Each company also will determine the calibration and performance dynamics characteristics of their respective light pickups and SUVs.

In addition, as telematics plays an increasingly more important role in the in-car experience, both companies have agreed to collaborate on standards and technologies needed to enable a safer, more secure and more convenient in-car experience for next-generation telematics systems. The telematics collaboration relates only to standards and technologies, and each company will continue to separately develop their own in-vehicle products and features.

"Ford has made tremendous progress in the area of telematics," Kuzak said. "We have unique and very good solutions today with SYNC and MyFordTouch. Working together on in-vehicle standards can only enhance our customers' experience with their vehicles."

Uchiyamada added: "Toyota has also invested heavily in telematics in various countries around the world, with services like the G-BOOK and G-Link. In the U.S., we have just introduced the accessible, easy-to-use Entune. By sharing our know-how and experience, we would like to offer even better telematics services in the future."