[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80719-80722]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32509]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0074; FRL-9940-58-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Temporary Alternate Opacity Limits
for American Electric Power, Rockport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP),
authorizing temporary alternate opacity limits (TAOLs) at the American
Electric Power, Rockport (AEP Rockport) facility during periods of unit
startup and shutdown. This action is consistent with the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and EPA policy regarding emissions during periods of startup and
shutdown. Indiana has provided an air quality analysis demonstrating
that this revision will continue to protect the applicable National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) in Spencer County.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0074, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2015-0074. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's analysis?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background for this action?

    On July 16, 2002 (67 FR 46589), EPA approved a revision to
Indiana's SIP to include 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 5-1-3,
which provides a mechanism to establish TAOLs. The rule is consistent
with the criteria contained in EPA's September 20, 1999, ``State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' memorandum. The criteria requires
that: The frequency and duration of operation in startup or shutdown
mode must be minimized to the extent possible; and the state must
analyze the potential worst-case emissions that could occur during
startup and shutdown to ensure that the NAAQS are protected. Indiana
initially submitted TAOLs for 22 power plants with coal-fired boilers
that use electrostatic precipitators (ESPs).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These facilities are identified in the attachment to the
October 10, 2001, letter from Janet McCabe, IDEM Assistant
Commissioner to Stephen Rothblatt, US EPA Region 5 Air Programs
Branch Chief. They are: Alcoa Generating, AEP Tanners Creek,
Crawfordsville Electric, Hoosier Energy Merom, Hoosier Energy Ratts,
IKEC Clifty Creek, IPL Perry ``K'', IPL Stout, IPL Pritchard, IPL
Petersburg units 1-3, NIPCCO Bailly, NIPSCO Michigan City, NIPSCO
Schahfer, PSI Cayuga, PSI Edwardsport, PSI Gallagher, PSI Gibson,
PSI Noblesville, PSI Wabash River, Richmond Power & Light, SIGECO
Brown unit 1, and SIGECO Culley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    326 IAC 5-1-3(d) provides for a TAOL, upon EPA approval, if the
following criteria are met: (1) The source burns any combination of
coal, wood, fuel oil, tire-derived fuel, or petroleum coke, (2) the
source demonstrates that the TAOL is needed during periods of startup
and shutdown and a demonstration is made that the TAOL will not
interfere with the NAAQS, (3) Indiana determines that acceptable
operating and maintenance procedures are being used, be based on
information provided to the commissioner, (4) the commissioner may
require the source to install a continuous opacity monitor (COM), (5)
the TAOL shall be reviewed by the commissioner after two years of
monitoring, (6) the commissioner may deny a request for a TAOL limit if
economically and technically feasible

means are available to meet a more stringent opacity limit, and (7) the
TAOL must be submitted to and approved by EPA.
    On January 13, 2015, Indiana requested a SIP revision to add 326
IAC 5-1-8, which provides a mechanism to establish site-specific TAOLs.
This provision was used to establish AEP Rockport Units #1 and #2 a
TAOL during unit startup and shutdown. These two coal-fired boilers are
each controlled by an ESP.
    The TAOL for unit startup is only allowed until the exhaust
temperature reaches 250[emsp14][deg]F at the ESP inlet, up to a maximum
of two hours (20 six-minute averaging periods). The TAOL for unit
shutdown is only allowed when the exhaust temperature declines below
250[emsp14][deg]F at the ESP inlet, up to a maximum of one and one-half
(1.5) hours (15 six-minute averaging periods).

III. What is EPA's analysis?

    To support the SIP revision request, Indiana evaluated COMs data
for Units #1 and #2, and air dispersion modeling. Air dispersion
modeling was conducted using the AERMOD regulatory dispersion model
with five years of meteorological data. The analysis included
conservative suppositions for stack temperature and flow rate. Indiana
used worst-case emission rates to predict the highest hourly emissions
during a cold startup. The modeling results yielded an eighth high 24-
hour PM2.5 value of 22.2 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\), well below the 24-hour PM2.5
standard of 35 [micro]g/m\3\. The air quality in the area will remain
protected when Units #1 and #2 are operating with TOALs at the AEP
Rockport facility.
    EPA has reviewed the COMs data provided in Indiana's submission on
AEP Rockport's startups and shutdowns from 2001 until the first quarter
of 2004. The AEP Rockport TAOLs appear to be set at appropriate levels,
minimizing the TAOL duration. The startup TAOL for AEP Rockport is
limited to two hours. The shutdown TAOL is limited to one hour, 30
minutes. Both are less than the three-hour TAOL periods allowed under
326 IAC 5-1-3(e)(2). Indiana has provided the facility's operation and
maintenance procedures for its ESPs, which support the expectation that
AEP Rockport will operate in a manner that will minimize emissions with
well operating emission control. In addition, because the ESP exhaust
must be warm enough for it to be safely operated, it is impractical to
require operating the ESPs during startup and shutdown periods.
    Further, EPA reviewed the AEP Rockport COMs data from 2009 to 2013,
which shows that it was in compliance with the opacity standards 99.81
percent of the time. This indicates that the facility is generally in
compliance with the opacity rule, even during the startup and shutdown
periods covered by the TAOLs.
    EPA has determined the AEP Rockport TAOL meets the criteria
contained in 326 IAC 5-1-3(d) as follows: (1) The AEP Rockport facility
burns coal, (2) AEP Rockport has demonstrated that the TAOL is needed
during periods of startup and shutdown, and that the TAOL will not
interfere with the maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards, (3) Indiana has determined that acceptable operating and
maintenance procedures are being used, based on information AEP
Rockport provided, (4) AEP Rockport currently operates a COM for each
boiler, (5) Indiana has determined that no economically and technically
feasible controls are available to meet a more stringent limit, and (6)
the TAOLs were submitted to EPA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requirement in 326 IAC 5-1-3(d)(5) related to Indiana
review of monitoring data does not apply in this case because AEP
has previously installed COMs and provided the necessary data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the addition of 326 IAC 5-1-8 to the
Indiana SIP. The rule provides AEP Rockport Units #1 and Unit #2 with
TAOLs during unit startup and shutdown periods. This action is
consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA policy regarding
emissions during periods of startup and shutdown. Indiana has provided
an air quality analysis demonstrating that this revision will continue
to protect the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for PM2.5 in Spencer County.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Indiana Regulation 326 IAC 5-1-8 entitled ``Site-specific
temporary alternative opacity limitations'', effective December 6,
2014. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 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).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal

governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 14, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-32509 Filed 12-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 65687-65689]
[DOCID:fr26oc10-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63138; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-092]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Expand the $.50 Strike Price Program

October 20, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 12, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``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 proposes to amend Rule 5.5 to: (i) Expand the $0.50 Strike
Program for strike prices below $1.00; (ii) extend the $0.50 Strike
Program to strike prices that are $5.50 or less; (iii) extend the
prices of the underlying security to at or below $5.00; and (iv) extend
the number of options classes overlying 20 individual stocks. The text
of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://
www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's principal office, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to modify
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 5.5 to expand the $0.50 Strike
Program in order to provide investors with opportunities and strategies
to minimize losses associated with owning a stock declining in price.
    The Exchange is proposing to establish strike price intervals of
$0.50, beginning at $0.50 for certain options classes where the strike
price is $5.50 or less and whose underlying security closed at or below
$5.00 in its primary market on the previous trading day and which have
national average daily volume that equals or exceeds 1,000 contracts
per day as determined by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
during the preceding three calendar months. The Exchange also proposes
to limit the listing of $0.50 strike prices to options classes
overlying no more than 20 individual stocks as specifically designated
by the Exchange.
    Currently, Rule 5.5.01(b) permits strike price intervals of $0.50
or greater beginning at $1.00 where the strike price is $3.50 or less,
but only for option classes whose underlying security closed at or
below $3.00 in its primary market on the previous trading day and which
have national average daily volume that equals or exceeds 1,000
contracts per day as determined by OCC during the preceding three
calendar months. Further, the listing of $0.50 strike prices is limited
to options classes overlying no more than 5 individual stocks as
specifically designated by the Exchange. The Exchange is currently
restricted from listing series with $1 intervals within $0.50 of an
existing strike price in the same series, except that strike prices of
$2, $3, and $4 shall be permitted within $0.50 of an existing strike
price for classes also selected to participate in the $0.50 Strike
Program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 5.5.01(a)(2) referring to $1 Strike Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of $0.50 strike options traded on the Exchange has
continued to increase since the inception of the Program. There are now
approximately 25 classes that participate in the $0.50 Strike Program
listed, and traded, across all options exchanges including CBOE; 2 of
which are classes chosen by CBOE for the $0.50 Strike Program. The
current proposal would expand $0.50 strike offerings to market
participants, such as traders and retail investors, and thereby enhance
their ability to tailor investing and hedging strategies and
opportunities in a volatile marketplace.
    By way of example, suppose an investor wanted to invest in 5,000
shares of Sirius Satellite (``SIRI'') on July 13, 2010. The closing
price for SIRI on that day was $ 0.9678. If the investor wanted to buy
a call option as an alternative to purchasing the shares outright for
about $4,800, the lowest strike price available was the $1 strike, an
out-of-the money option. However, if a $0.50 strike series had been
available, the investor would have been able to control 5,000 shares by
purchasing 50 exercisable in-the-money $0.50 strike call options. The
Exchange notes that a 3-month SIRI call option with an implied
volatility of 50 has a theoretical value of $0.47,\6\ or $47 per
contract. Thus, the investor could have benefitted from the same upside
potential as the stock purchase, but at a cost of only $2,350 ($47 per
contract times 50 contracts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Using a Black Scholes pricing model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, if an investor wanted to hedge a position in SIRI stock
with put options, the lowest available strike price was the $1 strike,
an in-the-money option. If a $0.50 strike series had been available,
the investor could have used 50 out-of-the-money puts for a fraction of
the cost of buying 50 put options with a $1 strike price. The Exchange
believes that investors deserve the opportunity to hedge downside risk
in stocks trading less than $1.00 in the same manner as investors have
with stocks trading greater than $1.00.
    Increasing the threshold from $3.00 to $5.00 and expanding the
number of $0.50 strikes available for stocks under $5.00 further aids
investors by offering opportunities to manage risk and execute a
variety of option strategies to improve returns. For example, today an
investor can enhance their yield by selling an out-of-the-money call.
Using an example of an investor who wants to hedge Citigroup (``C'')
which is trading at $4.24,\7\ that investor would be able to choose the
$4.50 strike which is 6% out-of-the-money or they would be able to
choose the $5.00 strike which is 17.92% out-of-the-money, under this
proposal. Today, this investor only has the latter choice. Beyond that,
this investor today may choose the $6.00 strike which is 41% out-of-
the-money and offers significantly less premium. Pursuant to this
proposal, if this investor had a choice to hedge with a $5.50 strike
option, the investor would have the opportunity to sell the option at
only 29% out-of-the-money and would improve her return by gaining more
premium, while also benefitting from 29% of upside return in the
underlying equity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This was the price for C on July 14, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By increasing the number of securities from 5 individual stocks to
20 individual stocks would allow the Exchange to offer investors
additional opportunities to use the $0.50 Strike Program. The Exchange
notes that $0.50 strikes have had no impact on capacity. Further, the
Exchange has observed the popularity of $0.50 strikes.
    By expanding the $0.50 Strike Program investors would be able to
better enhance returns and manage risk by providing investors with
significantly greater flexibility in the trading of equity options that
overlie lower price stocks by allowing investors to establish equity
options positions that are better tailored to meet their investment,
trading and risk. The Exchange also proposes making a corresponding
amendment to Rule 5.5.01(a)(2) to add $5 and $6 to $1 Strike Program
language that addresses listing series with $1 intervals within $0.50
of an existing strike price in the same series. Currently, and to
account for the overlap with the $0.50 Strike Program, the following
series are excluded from this prohibition: Strike prices of $2, $3, and
$4. The Exchange proposes to add $5 and $6 to that list to account for
the proposal to expand the $0.50 Strike Program to a strike price of
$5.50.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act \8\ and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of

trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. The Exchange believes that amending the current
$0.50 Strike Program will result in a continuing benefit to investors
by giving them more flexibility to closely tailor their investment
decisions in a greater number of securities. Investors would be
provided with an opportunity to minimize losses associated with
declining stock prices which do not exist today. With the increase in
active, low-prices securities, the Exchange believes that amending the
$0.50 Strike Program to allow a $0.50 strike interval below $1 for
strike prices of $5.50 or less is necessary to provide investor
additional opportunity to minimize and manage risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not 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 \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's 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
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal is substantially similar to that of
another exchange that has been approved by the Commission.\13\
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63132 (October 19,
2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-118) (order approving expansion of $0.50 Strike
Price Program).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-092 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-092. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-092 and should be
submitted on or before November 16, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27009 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19044-19045]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7526]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66652; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-038]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 4120

March 23, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 19, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ is proposing to amend Rule 4120 to adopt a modification in
the process for initiating trading of a security that is the subject of
an initial public offering (an ``IPO'') on NASDAQ. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/,
at the Exchange's principal office, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov/, 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
    NASDAQ is proposing to make a minor modification to its process for
commencing trading of a security that is the subject of an IPO on
NASDAQ. Rule 4120(a)(7) provides that trading in an IPO security is
halted until the security is released for trading. Rule 4120(c)(7)(B)
establishes the process for lifting the halt and commencing trading.
Under that rule, prior to terminating the halt, there is a 15-minute
Display-Only Period during which market participants may enter quotes
and orders into the NASDAQ Market Center. At the conclusion of the
Display-Only Period, trading commences through the halt cross process
provided for in Rule 4753. However, if at the end of a Display-Only
Period, NASDAQ detects an order imbalance in the security, the halt may
be extended for up to six additional Display-Only Periods of five
minutes each.
    Under the current process, quotes and orders in the IPO security
may not be entered until the commencement of the Display-Only Period.
However, NASDAQ believes that the quality of its process for commencing
IPO trading would be enhanced by allowing market participants to begin
entering orders at 7 a.m., to be held and not displayed until the
beginning of the Display-Only Period. Specifically, NASDAQ believes
that this change will provide for a greater number of orders being
entered prior to commencement of trading, resulting in a higher level
of order interaction at the open.
    To effect this change, NASDAQ proposes amending Rule 4120(c)(7)(B)
to provide that beginning at 7 a.m., market participants may enter
Market Hours Day Orders (``MDAY Orders'') in a security that is the
subject of an IPO on NASDAQ and designate such orders to be held until
the beginning of the Display-Only Period. Such orders will be held in
an undisplayed state until the beginning of the Display-Only Period, at
which time they will be entered into the system. Market participants
may cancel orders entered in this manner in the same way they would
cancel any other order. Orders entered prior to the Display-Only Period
will be cancelled

back to the entering participant unless they are designated for
holding.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that the proposal is 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. Specifically, NASDAQ
believes that the proposed rule change will result in a greater number
of orders being entered prior to commencement of trading of IPO
securities, resulting in a higher level of order interaction at the
open. Thus, NASDAQ believes that the change will remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. NASDAQ believes
that the proposed rule change will result in a greater number of orders
being entered prior to commencement of trading of IPO securities,
resulting in a higher level of order interaction at the open. NASDAQ
believes that this change will enhance competition by increasing its
attractiveness as a venue for trading IPO securities.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\6\ in that the proposed rule change: (i) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the
filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest;
provided the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-038 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-038. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-038 and should be
submitted on or before April 19, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7526 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 208)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55755-55757]
[DOCID:fr29oc09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0314; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-196-AD;
Amendment 39-16066; AD 2009-22-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and
-400ER Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes. This AD
requires an inspection to determine if certain motor operated valve
actuators for the fuel tanks are installed, and related investigative
and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from fuel system
reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to
prevent an ignition source inside the fuel tanks, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and
consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective December 3, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 3,
2009.

ADDRESSES: 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>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Bryant, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6505; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Boeing Model 767-200,-300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2009 (74 FR
15681). That NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine if
certain motor operated valve actuators for the fuel tanks are
installed, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary.

Comments

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

Request To Include an Additional Part Number for Serviceable MOV
Actuators

    ABX Air asks that the NPRM include part number (P/N) MA30A1001 as a
serviceable actuator acceptable for installation. ABX states that the
NPRM would not allow serviceable actuators having part number MA30A1001
to be installed. ABX adds that requiring installation of only new MOV
actuators having P/N MA30A1001 would impose an undue burden on
operators.
    We agree to include installation of serviceable MOV actuators
having P/N MA30A1001 in this AD. The intent of the AD is to replace MOV
actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 with a new or serviceable replacement
part. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to allow installation of
serviceable MOV actuators having P/N MA30A1001.

Request To Include Revision 1 of the Reference Service Bulletin

    Boeing asks that paragraphs (c), (g)(1), (g)(2), and (h) of the
NPRM be changed to include Revision 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
767-28A0090, in addition to the original issue, dated July 3, 2008,
referred to for the applicability and accomplishing the actions in the
NPRM. Boeing states that operators will be burdened with tracking
incorporation of Revision 1 as an alternative method of compliance if
it is not included in the final rule.
    We do not agree to include Revision 1 of the referenced service
bulletin in this AD, since a revision to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
767-28A0090, dated July 3, 2008, has not yet been issued. Boeing has
informed us that the revision to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
28A0090, when issued, will not have additional work to be performed and
will not expand the scope of the AD. Since Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767-28A0090 is expected to be revised after issuance of this
AD, we might consider approving the revised service bulletin as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC), as provided by paragraph
(i)(1) of this AD.

Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance Section

    Boeing also asks that we consider revising the Costs of Compliance
section specified in the NPRM to project more accurate cost estimates.
Boeing states that the cost estimates do not seem accurate. Boeing adds
that the parts costs for the replacement are substantial, and, when the
replacement parts costs are added to the costs of labor, estimated
work-hours, and the total number of airplanes affected, the cost
estimates would be substantially higher than the estimate in the NPRM.
    We agree that the work-hours for the inspection should be higher
than estimated in the NPRM. We have determined that it takes between 2
and 4 work-hours to perform the inspection,

depending on airplane configuration. We have changed the Costs of
Compliance section (below) to expand the work-hour estimate.
    We do not agree that the parts cost for replacement should be
included. The data in the Costs of Compliance section are limited only
to the cost of actions actually required by the AD. The cost analysis
in AD rulemaking actions does not include the costs of ``on-condition''
actions (e.g., ``repair or replace, if necessary'') or replacement
parts that are necessary when doing those on-condition actions.
Regardless of AD direction, those actions would be required to correct
an unsafe condition identified in an airplane and ensure operation of
that airplane in an airworthy condition. Therefore, we have made no
change to the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 397 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it takes between 2 and 4 work-hours per product to
comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be between $63,520 and $127,040, or between $160 and $320 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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (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) 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2009-22-13 Boeing: Amendment 39-16066. Docket No. FAA-2009-0314;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-196-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 3,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -
400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0090, dated July 3, 2008.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent an ignition source
inside the fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel
vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of
the airplane.

Compliance

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

Subject

    (f) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Inspection and Related Investigative/Corrective Actions

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Inspect the motor operated valves (MOVs) in the main and
center fuel tanks to determine if any MOV having part number (P/N)
MA20A1001-1 is installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0090, dated
July 3, 2008. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable
in lieu of this inspection if the part number can be conclusively
determined from that review.
    (2) Do all applicable related investigative and corrective
actions specified in and in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0090, dated
July 3, 2008, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD.

Alternative Part Numbers

    (h) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0090, dated July
3, 2008, specifies replacing any actuator having P/N MA20A1001-1
with a new actuator having P/N MA30A1001, a serviceable actuator
having any of the following part numbers is also acceptable as a
replacement part: MA30A1001; MA20A2027 (S343T003-56); MA11A1265-1
(S343T003-41); or AV-31-1 (S343T003-111).

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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: Douglas Bryant, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-
140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(425) 917-6590.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
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.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0090,
dated July 3, 2008, to

do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (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>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the 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>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 19, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-25916 Filed 10-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46042-46043]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16691]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Chapter I

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0669]

Draft Revisions to the Marine Safety Manual, Volume III, Parts B
and C, Change-2

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of a draft update
to the Marine Safety Manual (MSM), Volume III, Marine Industry
Personnel, and the corresponding Commandant Change Notice that
highlights the changes made

to that manual. MSM Volume III provides information and interpretations
on international conventions and U.S. statutes and regulations relating
to marine industry personnel. This draft Commandant Change Notice
discusses the substantive changes to Parts B and C of MSM Volume III.
The proposed changes are red-lined and each changed page is annotated
with CH-2 in the footer. Additionally, we have created a document that
provides a summary of each change. The Coast Guard seeks and will
consider comments on these draft changes before issuing a final version
of MSM Volume III.

DATES: Guidance documents discussed in this document should be
available in the online docket within 3 business days of July 15, 2016.
Comments must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 13,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number ``USCG-
2016-0669'' using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call of email Lieutenant Commander Corydon Heard, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    Volume III of the Marine Safety Manual (MSM) provides information
and interpretations on international conventions and U.S. statutes and
regulations relating to marine industry personnel. The last updates to
Volume III of the MSM were released on July 30, 2014 (79 FR 45451, Aug.
5, 2014). This document announces updates to portions of Part B and C.
    Specifically, substantive changes include: (1) Updated guidance to
align with the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act
of 2014; (2) manning scales for towing vessels certificated under 46
CFR Subchapter M from the recently published Inspection of Towing
Vessels final rule (81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016); and (3) various policy
updates involving vessel manning.
    In addition to red-lining proposed changes and annotating each
changed page with CH-2 in the footer, we have created a change matrix
identifying proposed changes. Both of these documents are available for
viewing in the public docket.
    It should be noted that the proposed revisions in this draft change
are not intended to preempt or take the place of separate policy
initiatives regarding specific decisions on appeal or future
regulations. Future changes to the MSM may be released if the Coast
Guard promulgates new regulations or issues appeal decisions, which may
affect the guidance and information contained within the MSM.

Public Participation and Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on our
draft Commandant Change Notice 16000, CH-2 to the Marine Safety Manual,
Volume III, Marine Industry Personnel, COMDTINST M16000.8B, which is in
the docket and contains substantive changes to Parts B and C of MSM
Volume III. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final
action based on your comments. If you submit a comment, please include
the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of the
Commandant Change Notice to which each comment applies, and provide a
reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted or the Coast Guard publishes
another document related to the draft Marine Safety Manual, Volume III,
Parts B and C, Change-2.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: July 11, 2016.
Verne B. Gifford,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director, Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-16691 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


                 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION WORKSHEET
                    Part II: Information Collection Detail

IMPORTANT:  A separate Part II must be completed for each Information Collection (IC) activity associated with the ICR.  If more than one Part II is required, create a separate Part II document for each IC.  For more information see OEI's ICR website at http://intranet.epa.gov/icrintra/.  There you will find information on completing this form (see OEI's ICRAS instructions under the Prepare an ICR tab) and information on how break your ICR into ICs (see OMB's ROCIS IC Q&A under the Download Guidance tab).
1. Title of Information Collection:  Federal Implementation Plans Under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in ID, OR, and WA
2. Is this a common form?
  Yes
  No

(Select Yes to identify forms that EPA is willing to host for potential use by other Federal Agencies.)

3. Obligation to respond (check one):
       Voluntary
       Required to obtain or retain benefits
        Mandatory

Note: Only one selection may be made.  If multiple categories apply, you must create additional ICs to account for the burden associated with each category.
4. Frequency of reporting (only to be completed if there are reporting requirements, check all that apply):

  Hourly
  Daily
  Weekly
  Monthly
  Yearly
    Every Decade
    Quarterly
    Semi-Annually
  Biennially
  Once
  Occasionally
5.  CFR Citation(s) for the information collection under review (if applicable):

Title  Rule for limiting visible emissions  Part  40  Section  49.124
Title              Part              Section
Title              Part              Section
Title              Part              Section
6. Information Collection Instruments/Forms (if applicable) :

Form Name:
Form Number:
URL (required if electronic) :
Is this form available electronically?        Yes        No
If yes, can this form be submitted electronically?        Yes        No

Form Name:
Form Number:
URL (required if electronic) :
Is this form available electronically?        Yes        No
If yes, can this form be submitted electronically?        Yes        No

Form Name:
Form Number:
URL (required if electronic) :
Is this form available electronically?        Yes        No
If yes, can this form be submitted electronically?        Yes        No

Attach additional sheets if necessary.

Note: Instruments/Forms must be submitted/uploaded as a separate attachment.

7.  Federal Enterprise Architecture Business Reference Model:

Line of Business (check one) :                                                                         Subfunction (check one) :
  Environmental Management
  Environmental Monitoring and Forecasting
  Environmental Remediation
  Pollution Prevention and Control
  Health
  Illness Prevention
  Immunization Management
  Public Health Monitoring
  Health Care Services
  Consumer Health and Safety
  Natural Resources
  Water Resource Management
  Conservation, Marine and Land Management
  Recreational Resource Management and Tourism
  Agricultural Innovation and Services
Note: Most EPA ICRs will be aligned with the Environmental Management FEA Line of Business.  Other likely categories are also listed.  For a full listing of the FEA Business Reference Model categories and definitions, see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/documents/FY07_Ref_Model_Mapping_QuickGuide.pdf.
8. Privacy Act System of Records (if applicable) :

Title:
Federal Register Citation:    Volume                Page Number                Publication Date
9. Respondents

Total Number:  0
Small Entity Number:  0
Percentage of responses collected electronically:  0

Affected Public (check one) :

  Individuals or Households
  Private Sector (if private sector, check all that apply)
                  Business or other for-profit
                  Not-for-profit institutions
                  Farms
  State, Local, or Tribal Governments
  Federal Government

Note:  Only one selection may be made.  If multiple categories apply, you must create additional ICs to account for the burden associated with each category.  Selecting multiple subcategories within "Private Sector" will not affect then number of ICs required.
10. Frequency: How often on average will each respondent respond to the Information Collection?

Calculated Annual Frequency:  0
   (responses per respondent per year)

Calculated Annual Number of Responses:  0
  Year

  Hour
  Business hour
  Day
  Business Day
  Week
  Month
  Decade
  Quarter
  Half-year

Number of Respondents 0  per

11. Hour and Cost Burden: Enter the hours and cost (per response) broken out by reporting, record keeping, and third party disclosure:

                              Hours per Response
                           Total Annual Hour Burden
                               Cost per Response
                           Total Annual Cost Burden
Reporting
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
Recordkeeping
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
Third Party Disclosure

Total
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0

IMPORTANT: "Cost per Response" and "Total Annual Cost Burden" should include Capital/Startup and O&M costs only.

12. Annual Responses and Burden Change

                                Total Requested
                       Program Change due to New Statute
                    Program Change due to Agency Discretion
                  Change due to Adjustment in Agency Estimate
                      Change due to Violation of the PRA
                              Currently Approved
Annual Responses
                                       0

                                       0

                                       0
Annual Hour Burden
                                       0

                                       0

                                       0
Annual Cost Burden
                                       0

                                       0

                                       0


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25565-25567]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0030]

Agency Request for Information; State Electronic Data Collection
Grant Program

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests information from interested parties to
assist the agency to develop and implement a new discretionary grant
program to increase the number of States, U.S. territories, and Indian
tribes electronically transferring their motor vehicle crash data to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted as the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), establishes a new program called the
State electronic data collection program. Specifically, section
24108(d)(2) mandates that NHTSA provide grants to States to upgrade and
standardize their State crash data systems to enable electronic data
collection, intrastate data sharing, and electronic data transfers to
NHTSA to increase the accuracy, timeliness, and accessibility of the
data including data relating to fatalities involving vulnerable road
users. Ultimately, the grants will support an increased capacity of the
NHTSA data systems, including the Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS), the Crash Reporting Sampling System (CRSS), and the Crash
Investigation Sampling System (CISS), and make State crash data
accessible to the public. NHTSA seeks comments from all interested
parties, including State crash data owners, highway safety offices, law
enforcement, and other stakeholders to help inform NHTSA's development
of a grant program. This grant program is to modernize State data
collection systems and to enable full electronic data transfer. All
comments should be submitted via docket number NHTSA-2022-0030.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted using any one of the
following methods:
    (1) Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    (2) Fax: Written comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the Federal
regulations website at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    (4) Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> before coming.
    (5) Instructions: All comments submitted in relation to this notice
must include the agency name and docket number. Please note that all
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may also call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Rhea, State Data Reporting
Systems Division Chief, NHTSA (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) or you may send an
email to Ms. Rhea at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 24108(d) of BIL directs NHTSA to
establish a new State electronic data collection program that requires
NHTSA to develop and implement a new discretionary grant program. The
new grant program is to provide support to States to upgrade and
standardize their State crash data systems to enable electronic data
collection, intrastate data sharing, and electronic data transfers to
NHTSA to increase the accuracy, timeliness, and accessibility of the
data including data relating to fatalities involving vulnerable road
users. See Public Law 117-58, 24108(d)(3). Eligible States \1\ may use
these grants for the costs of equipment to upgrade a statewide crash
data repository; adoption of electronic crash reporting by law
enforcement agencies and increasing alignment of State crash data with
the latest Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria.\2\ This notice
requests information from interested parties, including State crash
data owners, highway safety offices, law enforcement, and other
stakeholders to assist NHTSA in the development of a new State
electronic data collection program that supports State crash data
system improvements, enhances NHTSA's National Center for Statistics
and Analysis (NCSA) data infrastructure where these data will be
stored, and shares a subset of the resulting data with the public.
NHTSA plans to utilize the information provided under this Request for
Information to enhance and support the development of the State
electronic data collection discretionary grant program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under BIL, ``State'' is defined as each of the 50 States,
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Northern
Mariana Islands and the Secretary of the Interior, acting on behalf
of an Indian Tribe. See Public Law 117-58, 24108(d)(1)(A).
    \2\ Sec.  24108(d)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. 401, et seq., as amended,
and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101
et seq. as amended, both authorize NHTSA to collect and analyze motor
vehicle crash data to, among other things, improve all aspects of
traffic safety systems and conditions, determine the relationship
between motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance
characteristics, crashes involving motor vehicles; and deaths or
personal injuries resulting from those crashes. NHTSA has several data
collections that support its traffic safety mission. Several of these
data collections are housed within NHTSA's NCSA. As part of NHTSA's
ongoing effort to obtain crash data in a more timely, accurate and
efficient manner, the agency has successfully implemented a streamlined
process for collecting crash data in an electronic format, known as
Electronic Data Transfer (EDT).
    The existing EDT protocol obtains crash data using police accident
reports (PAR), supplemental crash reports, and crash images from
participating State crash systems through electronic data transfer
processes, services, and functions. Generally, this transfer occurs on
a nightly basis once the data are accepted by each State's centralized
database following quality control checks. NCSA uses these data to
develop a census of the participating State's crashes. This dataset
supports real-time decision making; reduces the burden of data
collection; and improves data quality. NCSA uses these data to identify
existing and emerging highway safety trends, assess the effectiveness
of motor vehicle safety standards, and evaluate new and emerging
technologies.
    However, only 19 States participate in the existing EDT protocol
and data obtained through these processes vary in completeness from
State-to-State. The BIL State electronic data collection program
intends to increase the number of participating States and enhance the
robustness of the data through standardization and the modernization of
its systems. BIL Section 24108(d) establishes a State electronic data
collection program that consists of two components. The first
component, and the subject of this request for information, is a new
discretionary grant program that provides grants to States for the
modernization of State data collection systems to enable full
electronic data transfer. Public Law 117-58, 24108(d)(2)(A). The second
component is for NHTSA to update its data collection systems to manage
and support State electronic data transfers. Public Law 117-58,
24108(d)(2)(B). The purpose of the grants under the State electronic
data collection program is to upgrade and standardize State crash data
systems to enable electronic data collection, improve intrastate data
sharing and electronic data transfers to NHTSA to increase the
accuracy, timeliness, and accessibility of the data, including data
relating to fatalities involving vulnerable road users. Public Law 117-
58, 24108(d)(3)(A). To be eligible for a grant, a State must submit a
plan to implement full electronic data transfer to NHTSA and provide
any other information as NHTSA may require Public Law 117-58,
24108(d)(3)(B). A State may use grant funds to: (i) Acquire or upgrade
equipment for the statewide crash data repository; (ii) adopt
electronic crash reporting by law enforcement agencies; and (iii)
increase alignment of State crash data with the latest Model Minimum
Uniform Crash Criteria. Public Law 117-58, 24108(d)(3)(C).
    NHTSA's vision of the BIL State electronic data collection program
is to support States that create centralized crash data systems to
transfer uniform crash data to NHTSA. The uniformity of the crash data
will align to the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC)
Guideline. States currently submitting electronic data to NHTSA will be
eligible for the State electronic data collection grants to modernize
their systems and standardize their data consistent with this new
program. NHTSA further envisions that States participating in the State
electronic data collection program will have crash data collected
electronically in the field by all law enforcement agencies and
jurisdictions using a uniform, efficient

approach (e.g., question or scenario-based software) that is consistent
with the MMUCC Guideline and the statewide database's validation rules.
The program will require that crash data is validated at the point
records are added to the central State crash repository.
    The State electronic data collection program requires that NHTSA
make electronic State crash data publicly available. See Public Law
117-58, 24108(d)(4)(B). Consistent with Federal Privacy Law, 23 U.S.C.
403(e), 49 U.S.C. 30183, and U.S. Department of Transportation policy,
NHTSA will withhold from public disclosure any information in the State
motor vehicle crash data that would lead to the identification of
individuals involved in a motor vehicle crash.

Request for Information

    The agency is interested in information that would help develop and
implement a successful State electronic data collection program. This
includes information about States' existing capacity to collect, store,
and transfer crash data from the State level to NHTSA; interest in
moving to an electronic data collection framework; making State crash
data accessible to the public; identifying potential barriers;
describing the infrastructural needs to transition to an electronic
data transfer protocol; and adoption of electronic crash reporting by
law enforcement agencies. The information will support the development
and implementation of the State electronic data collection program by
taking into consideration the States' experiences and operational
capacity. NHTSA has a general understanding of how data collection and
information technology protocols work based on NHTSA's assessment of
State traffic records systems, current State electronic data transfer,
and FARS operations. However, NHTSA hereby seeks further information
based on the below questions. This list is not exhaustive, and we
encourage commenters to provide any further information that they
believe is relevant to inform the agency as it seeks to implement a
successful State electronic data collection grant program.

Data Standardization and Modernization of Information Technology

    (1) What are the State's current methodologies for collecting and
standardizing statewide crash data electronically in a central
repository?
    (2) NHTSA relies on MMUCC to establish a standardized data set.
What steps are required for the State to meet this standardization?
    (a) Please provide an estimated timeline to implement MMUCC
standardization.
    (b) What would it cost the State to move toward this data
standardization?
    (3) If the State does not have a centralized statewide crash data
repository, describe what the State will need to establish the
infrastructure; processes and procedures; information technology
requirement; and training, to support this data modernization effort?
    (4) Explain what the State will need to establish the
infrastructure; processes and procedures; information technology
requirement; and training to implement an electronic data transfer
protocol.
    (5) How long would it take for the State to establish a centralized
statewide crash data repository and to implement an electronic data
transfer protocol?
    (6) What are the State's estimated costs associated with
establishing a centralized statewide crash repository to support an
electronic data transfer protocol?
    (7) Explain the challenges associated with establishing a
centralized statewide crash repository that supports an electronic data
transfer protocol. Elaborate on the State's needs to overcome those
challenges.

Law Enforcement Electronic Crash Reporting

    (8) What percentage or number of the State's law enforcement
agencies collect motor vehicle traffic crash information using an
electronic crash report/records management system?
    (a) Are all law enforcement agencies in the State collecting motor
vehicle traffic crash information via an electronic crash report/
records management system using the same application?
    (b) For law enforcement agencies collecting motor vehicle traffic
crash information using an electronic crash report/records management
system, what application is used?
    (9) What percentage or number of law enforcement agencies solely
use paper crash reports in the crash reporting process?
    (a) If so, are these paper reports coded into the centralized
statewide crash repository?
    (b) Describe any law enforcement's reservations for participating
in electronic crash reporting to document motor vehicle traffic crash
information?
    (c) Specify the needs and costs for law enforcement agencies to
adopt electronic-crash reporting to document motor vehicle traffic
crash information?

Data Management

    (10) Does the State have a conceptual or notional design of how the
data would flow into a centralized statewide crash data repository? If
so, please elaborate.
    (11) If the State currently participates in NHTSA EDT protocol,
does the State have written operating procedures for managing the data
flow? If so, please submit the data flow or the operational structure.
    (12) Does the State, in its crash data, distinguish between crash
types between self-reported and police reported crashes?
    (13) Does the State include variables to identify State-reportable
vs. non-reportable crashes?

Data Accessibility to the Public

    (14) Please provide recommendations on the format types for
publicly available State crash data.
    (15) What State products and services that include State crash data
does the State find are most helpful to the public?
    (16) Please advise if the State is interested in modernizing and
standardizing its State crash system?
    This notice is for information purposes only. The agency will
review and consider information provided in response to this notice as
it implements the State electronic data collection grant program, but
will not respond to comments.
    Authority: S. 24108, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat 429.

Chou-Lin Chen,
Associate Administrator, National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2022-09152 Filed 4-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P