[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76775-76779]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1002; Notice No. 25-13-36-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus, Model A350-900 Series Airplane;
Lightning Protection of Fuel Tank Structure To Prevent Fuel Tank Vapor
Ignition

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Airbus Model
A350-900 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual
design feature(s) that will incorporate a nitrogen generation system
(NGS) for all fuel tanks that actively reduce flammability exposure
within the fuel tanks significantly below that required by the fuel
tank flammability regulations. Among other benefits, the NGS
significantly reduces the potential for fuel vapor ignition caused by
lightning strikes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send your comments on or before February 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2013-1002
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/ gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Bryant, Propulsion/Mechanical
Systems, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the
comments we receive.

Background

    On August 25, 2008, Airbus applied for a type certificate for their
new Airbus Model A350-900 series airplane. Later, Airbus requested and
the FAA approved an extension to the application for FAA type
certification to June 28, 2009. The Model A350-900 series has a
conventional layout with twin wing-mounted Rolls-Royce Trent XWB
engines. It features a twin aisle 9-abreast economy class layout, and
accommodates side-by-side placement of LD-3 containers in the cargo
compartment. The basic Model A350-900 series configuration will
accommodate 315 passengers in a standard two-class arrangement. The
design cruise speed is Mach 0.85 with a Maximum Take-Off Weight of
602,000 lbs. Airbus proposes the Model A350-900 series to be certified
for extended operations (ETOPS) beyond 180 minutes at entry into
service for up to a 420-minute maximum diversion time.

Type Certification Basis

    Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Airbus
must show that the Model A350-900 series meets the applicable
provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-
129.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model A350-900 series because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under Sec.  21.16.

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model A350-900 series must comply with the fuel vent
and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19,
under Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis
under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Model A350-900 series will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features: fuel tank NGS that is intended to
control fuel tank flammability for all fuel tanks. This NGS is designed
to provide a level of performance that applies the more stringent
standard for warm day flammability performance applicable to normally
emptied tanks within the fuselage contour from Sec.  25.981(b) and 14
CFR part 25 appendix M, to all fuel tanks of the Model A350-900 series.
This high level of NGS performance for all fuel tanks is an unusual
design feature not envisioned at the time the regulations in the Model
A350-900 series certification basis were promulgated.

Discussion

    The certification basis of the Airbus Model A350-900 series
includes Sec.  25.981, as amended by Amendment 25-125, as required by
14 CFR 26.37. This amendment includes the ignition prevention
requirements in Sec.  25.981(a), as amended by Amendment 25-102, and it
includes revised flammability limits for all fuel tanks and new
specific limitations on flammability for all fuel tanks as defined in
Sec.  25.981(b), as amended by Amendment 25-125.

Ignition Source Prevention

    Section 25.981(a)(3) requires applicants to show that an ignition
source in the fuel tank system could not result from any single
failure, from any single failure in combination with any latent failure
condition not shown to be extremely remote, or from any combination of
failures not shown to be extremely improbable. This requirement was
originally adopted in Amendment 25-102 and it requires the assumption
that the fuel tanks are always flammable when showing that the
probability of an ignition source being present is extremely remote.
(Amendment 25-102 included Sec.  25.981(c) that required minimizing
fuel tank flammability and this was defined in the preamble as being
equivalent to unheated aluminum fuel tanks located in the wing.) This
requirement defines three types of scenarios that must be addressed in
order to show compliance with Sec.  25.981(a)(3). The first scenario is
that any single failure, regardless of the probability of occurrence of
the failure, must not cause an ignition source. The second scenario is
that any single failure, regardless of the probability of occurrence,
in combination with any latent failure condition not shown to be at
least extremely remote, must not cause an ignition source. The third
scenario is that any combination of failures not shown to be extremely
improbable must not cause an ignition source. Demonstration of
compliance with this requirement would typically require a structured,
quantitative safety analysis. Design areas that have latent failure
conditions typically would be driven by these requirements to have
multiple fault tolerance, or ``triple redundancy.'' This means that
ignition sources are still prevented even after two independent
failures.

Flammability Limits

    Section 25.981(b) states that no fuel tank fleet average
flammability exposure may exceed 3 percent of the flammability exposure
evaluation time calculated using the method in part 25, Appendix N, or
the fleet average flammability of a fuel tank within the wing of the
airplane being evaluated, whichever is greater. If the wing is not a
conventional unheated aluminum wing, the analysis must be based on an
assumed equivalent conventional construction unheated aluminum wing. In
addition, for fuel tanks that are normally emptied during operation and
that have any part of the tank located within the fuselage contour, the
fleet average flammability for warm days (above 80 [deg]F) must be
limited to 3 percent as calculated using the method in part 25,
Appendix M.

Application of Existing Regulations Inappropriate Due to Impracticality

    Since the issuance of Sec.  25.981(a)(3), as amended by Amendment
25-102, the FAA has conducted certification projects in which
applicants found it impractical to meet the requirements of that
regulation for some areas of lightning protection for fuel tank
structure. Partial exemptions were issued for these projects. These
same difficulties exist for the Airbus Model A350-900 series project.
    The difficulty of designing multiple-fault-tolerant structure, and
the difficulty of detecting failures of hidden structural design
features in general, makes compliance with Sec.  25.981(a)(3) uniquely
challenging and impractical for certain aspects of the electrical
bonding of structural elements. Such bonding is needed to prevent
occurrence of fuel tank ignition sources from lightning strikes. The
effectiveness and fault tolerance of electrical bonding features for
structural joints and fasteners is partially dependent on design
features that cannot be effectively inspected or tested after assembly
without damaging the structure, joint, or fastener. Examples of such
features include a required interference fit between the shank of a
fastener and the hole in which the fastener is installed, metal foil or
mesh imbedded in composite material, a required clamping force provided
by a fastener to pull two structural parts together, and a required
faying surface bond between the flush surfaces of adjacent pieces of
structural material such as in a wing skin joint or a mounting bracket
installation. In addition, other features that can be physically
inspected or tested may be located within the fuel tanks; therefore, it
is not practical to inspect for failures of those features at short
intervals. Examples of such failures include separation or loosening of
cap seals over fastener ends and actual structural failures of internal
fasteners. This inability to practically detect manufacturing errors
and failures of structural design features critical to lightning
protection results in degraded conditions that occur and remain in
place for a very long time, possibly for the remaining life of the
airplane.
    Accounting for such long failure latency periods in the system
safety analysis required by Sec.  25.981(a)(3) would require multiple
fault tolerance in the structural lightning protection design. As part
of the design development activity for the Model A350-900 series,
Airbus has examined possible design provisions to provide multiple
fault tolerance in the structural design to prevent ignition sources
from occurring in the event of lightning attachment to the airplane in
critical locations. Airbus has concluded from this examination that
providing multiple fault tolerance for some structural elements is not
practical. Airbus has also identified some areas of

the Model A350-900 series design where it is impractical to provide
even single fault tolerance in the structural design to prevent
ignition sources from occurring in the event of lightning attachment
after a single failure. The FAA has reviewed this examination with
Airbus in detail and has agreed that providing fault tolerance beyond
that in the proposed Model A350-900 series design for these areas would
be impractical.
    As a result of the Airbus Model A350-900 series and other
certifications projects, the FAA has now determined that compliance
with Sec.  25.981(a)(3) is impractical for some areas of lightning
protection for fuel tank structure, and that application of Sec.
25.981(a)(3) to those design areas is therefore inappropriate. The FAA
plans further rulemaking to revise Sec.  25.981(a)(3). As appropriate,
the FAA plans to issue special conditions or exemptions, for
certification projects progressing before the revision is complete.
This is discussed in FAA Memorandum ANM-112-08-002, Policy on Issuance
of Special Conditions and Exemptions Related to Lightning Protection of
Fuel Tank Structure, dated May 26, 2009.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The memorandum may be viewed at: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/12350AE62D393B7A862575C300709CA3?OpenDocument&Highlight=anm-112-08-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Existing Regulations Inappropriate Due to Compensating
Feature That Provides Equivalent Level of Safety

    Section 25.981(b) sets specific standards for fuel tank
flammability as discussed above under ``Flammability Limits.'' Under
that regulation, the fleet average flammability exposure of all fuel
tanks on the Model A350-900 series may not exceed 3 percent of the
flammability exposure evaluation time calculated using the method in
part 25, Appendix N, or the fleet average flammability of a wing main
tank within an equivalent construction conventional unheated aluminum
wing fuel tank, whichever is greater. The typical fleet average fuel
tank flammability of fuel tanks located in the wing ranges between 1
and 5 percent. If it is assumed that an Model A350-900 series
equivalent conventional unheated aluminum wing fuel tank would not
exceed a fleet average flammability time of 3 percent, the actual
composite airplane wing fuel tank design would be required to comply
with the 3 percent fleet average flammability standard and therefore a
means to reduce the flammability to 3 percent would be required.
However, the proposed Model A350-900 series design includes NGS for all
fuel tanks that will also be shown to meet the additional, more
stringent warm day average flammability standard in part 25, Appendix
M, which is only required for normally emptied fuel tanks with some
part of the tank within the fuselage contour. Fuel tanks that meet this
requirement typically have average fuel tank flammability levels well
below the required 3 percent.
    Since the proposed NGS for all fuel tanks on the Model A350-900
series provides performance that meets part 25, Appendix M, the FAA has
determined that the risk reduction provided by this additional
performance will provide compensation for some relief from the ignition
prevention requirements of Sec.  25.981(a)(3) while still establishing
a level of safety equivalent to that established in the regulations.
    In determining the appropriate amount of relief from the ignition
prevention requirements of Sec.  25.981(a), the FAA considered the
original overall intent of Amendment 25-102, which was to ensure the
prevention of catastrophic events due to fuel tank vapor explosion.
These proposed special conditions are intended to achieve that
objective through a prescriptive requirement that fault tolerance (with
respect to the creation of an ignition source) be provided for all
structural lightning protection design features where providing such
fault tolerance is practical, and through a performance-based standard
for the risk due to any single failure vulnerability that exists in the
design. In addition, for any structural lightning protection design
features for which Airbus shows that providing fault tolerance is
impractical, these proposed special conditions would require Airbus to
show that a fuel tank vapor ignition event due to the summed risk of
all non-fault-tolerant design features is extremely improbable. Airbus
would be required to show that this safety objective is met by the
proposed design using a structured system safety assessment similar to
that currently used for demonstrating compliance with Sec. Sec.  25.901
and 25.1309.
    Given these novel design features, and the compliance challenges
noted earlier in this document, the FAA has determined that application
of Sec.  25.981(a)(3) is inappropriate in that it is neither practical
nor necessary to apply the ignition source prevention provisions of
Sec.  25.981(a)(3) to the specific fuel tank structural lightning
protection features of the Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes.
However, without the Sec.  25.981(a)(3) provisions, the remaining
applicable regulations in the Model A350-900 series certification basis
would be inadequate to set an appropriate standard for fuel tank
ignition prevention. Therefore, in accordance with provisions of Sec.
21.16, the FAA has determined that, instead of Sec.  25.981(a)(3),
alternative fuel tank structural lighting protection requirements be
applied to fuel tank lightning protection features that are integral to
the airframe structure of the Model A350-900 series. These proposed
alternative requirements are intended to provide the level of safety
intended by Sec.  25.981(a)(3), based on our recognition, as discussed
above, that a highly effective NGS for the fuel tanks makes it
unnecessary to assume that the fuel tank is always flammable. As
discussed previously, the assumption that the fuel tanks are always
flammable was required when demonstrating compliance to the ignition
prevention requirements of Sec.  25.981(a)(3).
    One resulting difference between these proposed special conditions
and the Sec.  25.981(a)(3) provisions they are meant to replace is the
outcome being prevented--fuel vapor ignition versus an ignition source.
These proposed special conditions acknowledge that the application of
fuel tank flammability performance standards will reduce fuel tank
flammability to an extent that it is appropriate to consider the
beneficial effects of flammability reduction when considering design
areas where it is impractical to comply with Sec.  25.981(a)(3).
    One of the core requirements of these proposed special conditions
is a prescriptive requirement that structural lightning protection
design features must be fault tolerant. (An exception wherein Airbus
can show that providing fault tolerance is impractical, and associated
requirements, is discussed below.) The other core requirement is that
Airbus must show that the design, manufacturing processes, and
airworthiness limitations section of the instructions for continued
airworthiness include all practical measures to prevent, and detect and
correct, failures of structural lightning protection features due to
manufacturing variability, aging, wear, corrosion, and likely damage.
The FAA has determined that, if these core requirements are met, a fuel
tank vapor ignition event due to lightning is not anticipated to occur
in the life of the airplane fleet. This conclusion is based on the fact
that a critical lightning strike to any given airplane is itself a
remote event, and on the fact that fuel tanks must be shown to be
flammable for only a relatively

small portion of the fleet operational life.
    For any non-fault-tolerant features proposed in the design, Airbus
must show that eliminating these features or making them fault tolerant
is impractical. The requirements and considerations for showing it is
impractical to provide fault tolerance are described in FAA Memorandum
ANM-112-08-002. This requirement is intended to minimize the number of
non-fault tolerant features in the design.
    For areas of the design where Airbus shows that providing fault
tolerant structural lighting protection features is impractical, non-
fault-tolerant features will be allowed provided Airbus can show that a
fuel tank vapor ignition event due to the non-fault-tolerant features
is extremely improbable when the sum of probabilities of those events
due to all non-fault-tolerant features is considered. Airbus will be
required to submit a structured, quantitative assessment of fleet
average risk for a fuel tank vapor ignition event due to all non-fault-
tolerant design features included in the design. This will require
determination of the number of non-fault tolerant design features,
estimates of the probability of the failure of each non-fault-tolerant
design feature, and estimates of the exposure time for those failures.
This analysis must include failures due to manufacturing variability,
aging, wear, corrosion, and likely damage.
    It is acceptable to consider the probability of fuel tank
flammability, the probability of a lightning strike to the airplane,
the probability of a lightning strike to specific zones of the airplane
(for example, Zone 2 behind the nacelle, but not a specific location or
feature), and a distribution of lightning strike amplitude in
performing the assessment provided the associated assumptions are
acceptable to the FAA. The analysis must account for any dependencies
among these factors, if they are used. The assessment must also account
for operation with inoperative features and systems, including any
proposed or anticipated dispatch relief. This risk assessment
requirement is intended to ensure that an acceptable level of safety is
provided given the non-fault-tolerant features in the proposed design.
    Part 25, Appendix N, as adopted in Amendment 25-125, in conjunction
with these proposed special conditions, constitutes the standard for
how to determine flammability probability. In performing the safety
analysis required by these special conditions, relevant Sec.
25.981(a)(3) compliance guidance is still applicable. Appropriate
credit for the conditional probability of environmental or operational
conditions occurring is normally limited to those provisions involving
multiple failures, and this type of credit is not normally allowed in
evaluation of single failures. However, these special conditions would
allow consideration of the probability of occurrence of lightning
attachment and flammable conditions when assessing the probability of
structural failures resulting in a fuel tank vapor ignition event.
    The FAA understands that lightning protection safety for airplane
structure is inherently different from lightning protection for
systems. We intend to apply these proposed special conditions only to
structural lightning protection features of fuel systems. We do not
intend to apply the alternative standards used under these proposed
special conditions to other areas of the airplane design evaluation.

Requirements Provide Equivalent Level of Safety

    In recognition of the unusual design feature discussed above, and
the impracticality of requiring multiple fault tolerance for lightning
protection of certain aspects of fuel tank structure, the FAA has
determined that an equivalent level of safety to direct compliance with
Sec.  25.981(a)(3) will be achieved for the Model A350-900 series by
applying these proposed requirements. The FAA considers that, instead
of only concentrating on fault tolerance for ignition source
prevention, significantly reducing fuel tank flammability exposure in
addition to preventing ignition sources is a better approach to
lightning protection for the fuel tanks. In addition, the level of
average fuel tank flammability achieved by compliance with these
proposed special conditions is low enough that it is not appropriate or
accurate to assume in a safety analysis that the fuel tanks may always
be flammable.
    Section 25.981(b), as amended by Amendment 25-125, sets limits on
the allowable fuel tank flammability for the Model A350-900 series.
Paragraph 2(a) of these proposed special conditions applies the more
stringent standard for warm day flammability performance applicable to
normally emptied tanks within the fuselage contour from Sec.  25.981(b)
and part 25, Appendix M, to all of the fuel tanks of the Model A350-900
series.
    Because of the more stringent fuel tank flammability requirements
in these proposed special conditions, and because the flammability
state of a fuel tank is independent of the various failures of
structural elements that could lead to an ignition source in the event
of lightning attachment, the FAA has agreed that it is appropriate in
this case to allow treatment of flammability as an independent factor
in the safety analysis. The positive control of flammability and the
lower flammability that is required by these proposed special
conditions exceeds the minimum requirements of Sec.  25.981(b). This
offsets a reduction of the stringent standard for ignition source
prevention in Sec.  25.981(a)(3), which assumes that the fuel tank is
flammable at all times.
    Given the stringent requirements for fuel tank flammability, the
fuel vapor ignition prevention and the ignition source prevention
requirements in these proposed special conditions will prevent `` . . .
catastrophic failure . . . due to ignition of fuel or vapors'' as
stated in Sec.  25.981(a). Thus, the overall level of safety achieved
by these proposed special conditions is considered equivalent to that
which would be required by compliance with Sec.  25.981(a)(3) and (b).

Applicability

    As discussed above, these proposed special conditions apply to
Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes. Should Airbus apply later for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes. It is not a rule of
general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type certification basis
for Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes.

1. Definitions

    Most of the terms used in these proposed special conditions,
Alternative Fuel Tank Structural Lightning Protection Requirements,
either have the common dictionary meaning or are defined in Advisory
Circular 25.1309-1A, System Design and Analysis, dated June 21, 1988.
The following definitions

are the only terms intended to have a specialized meaning when used in
these proposed special conditions:
    (a) Basic Airframe Structure. Includes design elements such as
structural members, structural joint features, and fastener systems
including airplane skins, ribs, spars, stringers, etc., and associated
fasteners, joints, coatings, and sealant. Basic airframe structure may
also include those structural elements that are expected to be removed
for maintenance, such as exterior fuel tank access panels and fairing
attachment features, provided maintenance errors that could compromise
associated lightning protection features would be evident upon an
exterior preflight inspection of the airplane and would be corrected
prior to flight.
    (b) Permanent Systems Supporting Structure. Includes static,
permanently attached structural parts (such as brackets) that are used
to support system elements. It does not include any part intended to be
removed, or any joint intended to be separated, to maintain or replace
system elements or other parts, unless that part removal or joint
separation is accepted by the FAA as being extremely remote.
    (c) Manufacturing Variability. Includes tolerances and variability
allowed by the design and production specifications as well as
anticipated errors or escapes from the manufacturing and inspection
processes.
    (d) Extremely Remote. Conditions that are not anticipated to occur
to each airplane during its total life, but which may occur a few times
when considering the total operational life of all airplanes of one
type. Extremely remote conditions are those having an average
probability per flight hour on the order of 1 x 10-7 or
less, but greater than on the order of 1 x 10-9.
    (e) Extremely Improbable. Conditions that are so unlikely that they
are not anticipated to occur during the entire operational life of all
airplanes of one type. Extremely improbable conditions are those having
an average probability per flight hour of the order of 1 x
10-9 or less.

2. Alternative Fuel Tank Structural Lightning Protection Requirements

    For lightning protection features that are integral to fuel tank
basic airframe structure or permanent systems supporting structure, as
defined in this these proposed special conditions, Definitions, for
which Airbus shows and the FAA finds compliance with Sec.  25.981(a)(3)
to be impractical, the following requirements may be applied in lieu of
the requirements of Sec.  25.981(a)(3):
    (a) Airbus must show that the airplane design meets the
requirements of part 25, Appendix M, as amended by Amendment 25-125,
for all fuel tanks installed on the airplane.
    (b) Airbus must show that the design includes at least two
independent, effective, and reliable lightning protection features (or
sets of features) such that fault tolerance to prevent lightning-
related ignition sources is provided for each area of the structural
design proposed to be shown compliant with these proposed special
conditions in lieu of compliance with the requirements of Sec.
25.981(a)(3). Fault tolerance is not required for any specific design
feature if:
    (1) For that feature, providing fault tolerance is shown to be
impractical, and
    (2) Fuel tank vapor ignition due to that feature and all other non-
fault-tolerant features, when their fuel tank vapor ignition event
probabilities are summed, is shown to be extremely improbable.
    (c) Airbus must perform an analysis to show that the design,
manufacturing processes, and airworthiness limitations section of the
instructions for continued airworthiness include all practical measures
to prevent, and detect and correct, failures of structural lightning
protection features due to manufacturing variability, aging, wear,
corrosion, and likely damage.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 15, 2013.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-30236 Filed 12-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8460-8465]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03404]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0529; FRL-9942-57-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve some elements of a state implementation plan (SIP) submission
from Wisconsin regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0529 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the

full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance 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 is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?
III. What is the result of EPA's review of this SIP submission?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

A. What state SIP submission does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses a submission from the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). The state submitted its
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 \1\ NAAQS on July 13,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, oftentimes
referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Why did the state make this SIP submission?

    Under section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submission must contain any revisions
needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS
already meet those requirements.
    EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007,
guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007
Guidance) and has issued additional guidance documents, the most recent
on September 13, 2013, entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2)'' (2013 Guidance). The SIP submission referenced in this
rulemaking pertains to the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1)
and (2), and addresses the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Wisconsin that addresses
the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make SIP
submissions of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). States
must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as
the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)
as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as SIP submissions that address the nonattainment planning requirements
of part D and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, and ``regional haze SIP''
submissions required to address the visibility protection requirements
of CAA section 169A.
    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submissions: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (''SSM'') at sources, that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP-
approved emissions limits with limited public notice or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA;
and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement
Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526
(June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA has the authority to
address each one of these substantive areas in separate rulemakings. A
detailed history, interpretation, and rationale as they relate to
infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May 13, 2014,
proposed rule entitled, ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin;
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the
section, ``What is the scope of this rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR 27241 at
27242-27245).

II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?

    EPA's guidance for this infrastructure SIP submission is embodied
in the 2007 Guidance referenced previously. Specifically, attachment A
of the 2007 Guidance (Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the
statutory elements that states need to submit in order to satisfy the
requirements for an infrastructure SIP submission. As discussed, EPA
issued additional guidance, the most recent being the 2013 Guidance
that further clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs that are not
NAAQS specific.

III. What is the result of EPA's review of this SIP submission?

    Pursuant to section 110(a), states must provide reasonable notice
and opportunity for public hearing for all infrastructure SIP
submissions. WDNR provided notice of a public comment period on May 19,
2015, held a public hearing at WDNR state Headquarters on June 17,
2015, and closed the public comment period on June 19, 2015. No
comments were received during the WDNR's public comment period.
    Wisconsin provided a detailed synopsis of how various components of
its SIP meet each of the applicable requirements in section 110(a)(2)
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The following review evaluates the
state's submission.

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits
and other control measures, means or techniques, as well as schedules
and timetables for compliance, and other related matters. However, EPA
has long interpreted emission limits and control measures

for attaining the standards as being due when nonattainment planning
requirements are due.\2\ In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA
is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose.
Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic
structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964 at 67034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Wisconsin Statutes (Wis. Stats.) 227 and 285, WDNR holds the
authority to create new rules and implement existing emission limits
and controls. Authority to monitor, update, and implement revisions to
Wisconsin's SIP, including revisions to emission limits and control
measures as necessary to meet NAAQS, is contained in Wis. Stats.
285.11-285.19. Authority related to specific pollutants, including the
establishment of ambient air quality standards and increments,
identification of nonattainment areas, air resource allocations, and
performance and emissions standards, is contained in Wis. Stats.
285.21-285.29.
    Specifically, authority for WNDR to create new rules and
regulations is found in Wis. Stats. 227.11, 285.11, and 285.21. Wis.
Stats. 227.11(2)(a) expressly confers rulemaking authority to an
agency. Wis. Stats. 285.11(1) and (6) require that WDNR promulgate
rules and establish control strategies in order to prepare and
implement the SIP for the prevention, abatement, and control of air
pollution in Wisconsin.
    The 2013 Guidance states that to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(A)
requirements, ``an air agency's submission should identify existing
EPA-approved SIP provisions or new SIP provisions that the air agency
has adopted and submitted for EPA approval that limit emissions of
pollutants relevant to the subject NAAQS, including precursors of the
relevant NAAQS pollutant where applicable.'' The following current
Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapters Natural Resources (NR) contain
existing emission limits and control requirements that apply to
particulate emissions:

Chapter NR 415, Wis. Adm. Code--Control of Particulate Emissions
Chapter NR 431, Wis. Adm. Code--Control of Visible Emissions

These regulations can be applied to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On January 1, 2015, EPA began implementing the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Wisconsin is subject to CSAPR's requirements
regarding annual oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and SO2
power plant emissions, which are intended to address transport of
PM2.5 to downwind states. EPA and WDNR expect that CSAPR
will result in reduced NOX and SO2 emissions from
Wisconsin's power plants, which will assist Wisconsin's efforts to
attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve any new
provisions in NR 415 or NR 431 that have not been previously approved
by EPA. EPA is also not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing
state provisions or rules related to start-up, shutdown or malfunction
or director's discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A). EPA
proposes that Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for
establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and
analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to
EPA upon request. This review of the annual monitoring plan includes
EPA's determination that the state: (i) Monitors air quality at
appropriate locations throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal
Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits
data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, (iii)
provides EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned
changes to monitoring sites or the network plan.
    WDNR continues to operate an extensive air monitoring network,
which is used to determine compliance with the NAAQS. Furthermore, WDNR
submits yearly monitoring network plans to EPA, and EPA approved WDNR's
Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan on October 31, 2014. Monitoring data
from WDNR are entered into EPA's AQS in a timely manner, and the state
provides EPA with prior notification when changes to its monitoring
network or plan are being considered. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with
respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures;
PSD

    This section requires each state to provide a program for
enforcement of control measures. Section 110(a)(2)(C) also includes
various requirements relating to PSD.
    1. Program for enforcement of control measures.
    States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet new source review (NSR)
requirements under PSD and nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while
part D of the CAA (sections 171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
    WDNR maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP
requirements. The Bureau of Air Management houses an active statewide
compliance and enforcement team that works in all geographic regions of
the state. WDNR refers actions as necessary to the Wisconsin Department
of Justice with the involvement of WDNR. Under Wis. Stats. 285.13, WDNR
has the authority to impose fees and penalties to ensure that required
measures are ultimately implemented. Wis. Stats. 285.83 and Wis. Stats.
285.87 provide WDNR with the authority to enforce violations and assess
penalties. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the enforcement of SIP
measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    2. PSD.
    Section 110(a)(2)(C) includes various PSD requirements:
identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions in
the PSD program, identification of precursors to PM2.5 and
the identification of PM2.5 and PM10 \3\
condensables in the PSD program, PM2.5 increments in the PSD
program, and greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting and the ``Tailoring
Rule.'' \4\ In this rulemaking, we are not taking action on the state's
satisfaction of the various PSD permitting requirements. Instead, EPA
will evaluate Wisconsin's compliance with each of these requirements in
a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers.
    \4\ In EPA's April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking for
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS,
we stated that each state's PSD program must meet applicable
requirements for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD
permits (see 76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in
EPA's August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking for infrastructure SIPs
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 45992 at 45998). In
other words, if a state lacks provisions needed to adequately
address NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5
precursors, PM2.5 and PM10 condensables,
PM2.5 increments, or the Federal GHG permitting
thresholds, the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a
suitable PSD permitting program must be considered not to have been
met irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered the requirement to
submit an infrastructure SIP.

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

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport; Pollution Abatement

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures
required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to
protect visibility in another state.
    1. Interstate transport--significant contribution.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to significant contribution to
transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, EPA will
evaluate these requirements in a separate rulemaking.
    2. Interstate transport--interfere with maintenance.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to interference with
maintenance for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, EPA will
evaluate these requirements in a separate rulemaking.
    3. Interstate transport--prevention of significant deterioration.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting interference with PSD. In this rulemaking, we are not
taking action on the state's satisfaction of PSD requirements. Instead,
EPA will evaluate Wisconsin's compliance with PSD requirements in
separate rulemakings.
    4. Interstate transport--protect visibility.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the
CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states
that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, or an
approved SIP addressing regional haze.
    On August 7, 2012, EPA published its final approval of Wisconsin's
regional haze plan (see 77 FR 46952). Therefore, EPA is proposing that
Wisconsin has met the visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    5. Interstate and international pollution abatement.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate
provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of
section 126 and section 115 of the CAA (relating to interstate and
international pollution abatement, respectively).
    Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify
neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute
does not specify the method by which the source should provide the
notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a
provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources. A
lack of such a requirement in state rules would be grounds for
disapproval of this element.
    Wisconsin has provisions in the EPA-approved portion of its PSD
program requiring new or modified sources to notify neighboring states
of potential negative air quality impacts. Wisconsin's submission
references these provisions as being adequate to meet the requirements
of section 126(a). Wisconsin has no pending obligations under section
115. Therefore, EPA is proposing that Wisconsin has met all applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) with
respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Authority and Resources

    This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and
related issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to
comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128.
    1. Adequate resources.
    Wisconsin's biennial budget ensures that EPA grant funds as well as
state funding appropriations are sufficient to administer its air
quality management program, and WDNR has routinely demonstrated that it
retains adequate personnel to administer its air quality management
program. Wisconsin's Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement
with EPA documents certain funding and personnel levels at WDNR. As
discussed in previous sections, basic duties and authorities in the
state are outlined in Wis. Stats. 285.11. EPA proposes that Wisconsin
has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section
110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    2. State board requirements.
    Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions
that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the
CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this
chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the
public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their
income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under
this chapter, and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
    On July 2, 2015, WDNR submitted rules from Wis. Stats. for
incorporation into the SIP, pursuant to section 128 of the CAA.
Wisconsin maintains a state board, called the Wisconsin Natural
Resources Board (NRB). However, the NRB's functions are purely
regulatory, advisory, and policy-making. Under Wis. Stats. 15.05, the
administrative powers and duties of the WDNR, including issuance of
permits and enforcement orders, are vested in the secretary. Under the
statutes that govern its operations, the NRB does not and cannot
approve permits or enforcement orders. Therefore, Wisconsin has no
further obligations under section 128(a)(1) of the CAA.
    Under section 128(a)(2) of the CAA, the head of the executive
agency with the power to approve permits or enforcement orders must
adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest. In Wisconsin,
this power is vested in the Secretary of the WDNR. Wis. Stats. 19.45(2)
prevents financial gain of any public official, which addresses the
issue of deriving any significant portion of income from persons
subject to permits and enforcement orders. Additionally, Wis. Stats.
19.46 prevents a public official from taking actions where there is a
conflict of interest. As a public official under Wis. Stats. 19, the
Secretary of the WDNR is subject to these ethical obligations. EPA
concludes that WDNR's submission as it relates to the state board
requirements under section 128 is consistent with applicable CAA
requirements. EPA approved these rules on Thursday, January 21, 2016
(81 FR 3334). Therefore, EPA is proposing that Wisconsin has satisfied
the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for this section of
110(a)(2)(E) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System

    States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also
require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment,
and the

implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state
plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation
of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    WDNR requires regulated sources to submit various reports,
dependent on applicable requirements and the type of permit issued, to
the Bureau of Air Management Compliance Team. The frequency and
requirements for report review are incorporated as part of NR 438 and
NR 439. Additionally, WDNR routinely submits quality-assured analyses
and data obtained from its stationary source monitoring system for
review and publication by EPA. Basic authority for Wisconsin's
Federally mandated Compliance Assurance Monitoring reporting structure
is provided in Wis. Stats. 285.65. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with
respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Power

    This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is
analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate
contingency plans to implement such authority. The 2013 Guidance states
that infrastructure SIP submissions should specify authority, rested in
an appropriate official, to restrain any source from causing or
contributing to emissions which present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.
    Wis. Stats. 285.85 requires WDNR to act upon a finding that an
emergency episode or condition exists. The language contained in this
chapter authorizes WDNR to seek immediate injunctive relief in
circumstances of substantial danger to the environment or to public
health. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for this portion of section
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions

    This section requires states to have the authority to revise their
SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved
methods for attaining the NAAQS, or an EPA finding that the SIP is
substantially inadequate.
    Wis. Stats. 285.11(6) provides WDNR with the authority to develop
all rules, limits, and regulations necessary to meet the NAAQS as they
evolve, and to respond to any EPA findings of inadequacy with the
overall Wisconsin SIP and air management programs. EPA proposes that
Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Planning Requirements of Part D

    The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas.
    EPA has determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to
the infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D
attainment plans through separate processes.

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notification; PSD; Visibility Protection

    The evaluation of the submission from Wisconsin with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are described below.
    1. Consultation with government officials.
    States must provide a process for consultation with local
governments and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation
requirements.
    Wis. Stats. 285.13(5) contains the provisions for WDNR to advise,
consult, contract, and cooperate with other agencies of the state and
local governments, industries, other states, interstate or inter-local
agencies, the Federal government, and interested persons or groups
during the entire process of SIP revision development and
implementation and for other elements regarding air management for
which WDNR is the officially charged agency. WDNR's Bureau of Air
Management has effectively used formal stakeholder structures in the
development and refinement of all SIP revisions. Additionally,
Wisconsin is an active member of the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO), which provides technical assessments and a forum
for discussion regarding air quality issues to member states. EPA
proposes that Wisconsin has satisfied the infrastructure SIP
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    2. Public notification.
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS. WDNR
maintains portions of its Web site specifically for issues related to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\ Information related to monitoring
sites is found on Wisconsin's Web site, as is the calendar for all
public events and public hearings held in the state. EPA proposes that
Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion
of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/Particles.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. PSD.
    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. Wisconsin's PSD program in the context of
infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and (a)(2)(D)(i)(II). EPA will evaluate
Wisconsin's compliance with the various PSD and GHG infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) in a separate rulemaking.
    4. Visibility protection.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and
169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, the visibility
and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change.
Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation ``triggered''
under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. However,
as EPA discussed in section D, Wisconsin has a fully approved regional
haze plan. This plan also meets the visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J). EPA proposes that Wisconsin has satisfied the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J)
with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data

    SIPs must provide for the performance of air quality modeling for
predicting effects on air quality of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant
and the submission of such data to EPA upon request.
    WDNR maintains the capability to perform computer modeling of the
air quality impacts of emissions of all criteria pollutants, including
both source-oriented dispersion models and more regionally directed
complex photochemical grid models. WDNR

collaborates with LADCO, EPA, and other Lake Michigan states in order
to perform modeling. Wis. Stats. 285.11, Wis. Stats. 285.13, and Wis.
Stats. 285.60-285.69 authorize WDNR to perform modeling. EPA proposes
that Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees

    This section requires SIPs to mandate each major stationary source
to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving,
implementing, and enforcing a permit.
    WDNR implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA
approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62951). EPA approved revisions to
the program on February 28, 2006 (71 FR 9934). NR 410 contains the
provisions, requirements, and structures associated with the costs for
reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing various types of
permits. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local
Entities

    States must consult with and allow participation from local
political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    In addition to the measures outlined in the paragraph addressing
WDNR's submittals regarding consultation requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J), as contained in Wis. Stats. 285.13(5), the state follows
a formal public hearing process in the development and adoption of all
SIP revisions that entail new or revised control programs or strategies
and targets. For SIP revisions covering more than one source, WDNR is
required to provide the standing committees of the state legislature
with jurisdiction over environmental matters with a 60-day review
period to ensure that local entities have been properly engaged in the
development process. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve most elements of the submission from
Wisconsin certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the
required infrastructure elements under section 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA's proposed actions for the state's satisfaction of
infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) and
NAAQS, are contained in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Element                            2012 PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)--Emission limits and other control      A
 measures.
(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/data    A
 system.
(C)1--Program for enforcement of control    A
 measures.
(C)2--PSD.................................  NA
(D)1--I Prong 1: Interstate transport--     NA
 significant contribution.
(D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate transport--     NA
 interfere with maintenance.
(D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate transport--    NA
 prevention of significant deterioration.
(D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate transport--    A
 protect visibility.
(D)5--Interstate and international          A
 pollution abatement.
(E)1--Adequate resources..................  A
(E)2--State board requirements............  A
(F)--Stationary source monitoring system..  A
(G)--Emergency power......................  A
(H)--Future SIP revisions.................  A
(I)--Nonattainment planning requirements    NA
 of part D.
(J)1--Consultation with government          A
 officials.
(J)2--Public notification.................  A
(J)3--PSD.................................  NA
(J)4--Visibility protection...............  A
(K)--Air quality modeling/data............  A
(L)--Permitting fees......................  A
(M)--Consultation and participation by      A
 affected local entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   A                                 Approve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA.....................................  No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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: February 3, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016-03404 Filed 2-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 15360]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06516]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March
24, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Chair White, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed
for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Post Argument Discussion;
Opinion; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: March 17, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06516 Filed 3-18-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53813-53816]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21529]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72998; File No. SR-ISE-2014-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Strike Price
Intervals for SPY and DIA Options

September 4, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the

``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given that,
on September 3, 2014, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE proposes to amend its rules to allow $1 or greater strike
price intervals for options on certain Exchange-Traded Fund Shares
approved for options trading pursuant to Rule 502(h). The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, 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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend ISE rules to
allow $1 or greater strike price intervals for options listed on the
SPDR S&P 500 ETF (``SPY'') and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average
ETF (``DIA''), consistent with recent changes proposed by NASDAQ OMX
PHLX (``Phlx'') and approved by the Commission.\4\ Options on SPY and
DIA have historically traded on the ISE with $1 intervals up to a
strike price of $200 pursuant to Rule 504(h), which permits options on
Exchange-Traded Fund Shares to be traded in intervals that were
established on other exchanges prior to listing on the ISE.\5\ Above
$200 these options classes trade with significantly wider $5 strike
price intervals. As the underlying securities have been steadily
approaching, and in the case of SPY has recently surpassed, the $200
mark, and in response to increased investor and member demand to list
additional strikes in these heavily traded options classes, the
Exchange now proposes to list options on SPY and DIA in dollar
intervals regardless of the strike price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No.[sic] 72664 (July 24,
2014), 79 FR 44231 (July 30, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-46) (Notice); 72949
(August 29, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-46) (Approval).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44037 (March 2,
2001), 66 FR 14613 (March 13, 2001) (SR-ISE-01-08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material
.14 to state that notwithstanding any other provision regarding the
interval of strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund
Shares in Rule 504, the interval of strike prices on SPY and DIA
options will be $1 or greater. By having smaller strike intervals in
SPY and DIA, investors will have more efficient hedging and trading
opportunities. The proposed $1 intervals above a $200 strike price will
result in having at-the-money series based on the underlying SPY or DIA
moving less than 1%, which falls in line with slower price movements of
a broad-based index. Furthermore, the proposed $1 intervals will allow
members to continue to employ current option trading and hedging
strategies in SPY and DIA. Considering that $1 intervals already exist
below the $200 price point, and that SPY and DIA are both trading close
to or at the $200 level, continuing to maintain the artificial $200
ceiling (above which intervals increase 500% to $5), will have a
negative effect on investing, trading and hedging opportunities and
volume. The continued demand for highly liquid options such as SPY and
DIA, and the investing, trading, and hedging opportunities they
represent, far outweighs any potential negative impact of allowing SPY
and DIA options to trade in more finely tailored intervals above a $200
price point.
    With the proposal, for example, investors and traders would be able
to roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in
conjunction with the price movement of the underlying. Under the
current rule, where the next higher available series would be $5 away
above a $200 strike price, the ability to roll such positions is
effectively negated. Thus, to move a position from a $200 strike to a
$205 strike under the current rule, an investor would need for the
underlying product to move 2.5%, and would not be able to execute a
roll up until such a large movement occurred. With the proposed rule
change, however, the investor would be in a significantly safer
position of being able to roll his open options position from a $200 to
a $201 strike price, which is only a 0.5% move for the underlying.
    By allowing SPY and DIA options in $1 intervals over a $200 strike
price, the proposal will moderately augment the total number of options
series available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange has analyzed
its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price Reporting
Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems capacity to handle any
potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that its members will not have a capacity issue
as a result of this proposal. The Exchange also represents that it does
not believe this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity. The
Exchange's beliefs are supported by the limited nature of the proposal,
which applies to two symbols rather than to all Exchange-Traded Fund
Shares. Moreover, while under current rules there is ample liquidity,
such liquidity is constricted above $200. This proposal enhances
liquidity by offering more rational strike price intervals as the stock
market appreciates in value.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like the other
strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit
investors by giving them more flexibility to more closely tailor their
investment and hedging decisions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\6\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\
in particular, in that it 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change would add consistency to
the SPY and DIA options markets and allow investors to use SPY and DIA
options more easily and effectively. Moreover, the proposed rule change
would allow investors and traders, whether big or small, to better
trade and hedge positions in SPY and DIA options where the strike price
is greater than $200, and ensure that SPY and DIA options investors and
traders are not at a disadvantage simply because of the strike price.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\8\ which provides that the Exchange be
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the
Exchange. The rule change proposal allows the Exchange to respond to
customer demand to allow SPY and DIA options to trade in $1 intervals
above a $200 strike price. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule would create additional capacity issues or affect market
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares generally
trade in wider $5 intervals above a $200 strike price, whereas options
at or below a $200 strike price trade in $1 intervals. This creates a
situation where contracts on the same option class, namely SPY and DIA
options, effectively may not be able to execute certain strategies,
such as rolling to a higher strike price, simply because of the
arbitrary $200 strike price above which options intervals increase by
500%. This proposal remedies the situation by establishing an exception
to the current strike price interval regime, for SPY and DIA options
only, to allow such options to trade in $1 or greater intervals at all
strike prices.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like other
strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit
investors by giving them increased flexibility to more closely tailor
their investment and hedging decisions. Moreover, the proposed rule
change is consistent with changes proposed by Phlx and approved by the
Commission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and OPRA have
the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional
traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange
believes that its members will not have a capacity issue as a result of
this proposal.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the
proposed rule change is a competitive response to a recent Phlx filing
approved by the Commission.\10\ The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change is essential to ensure fair competition between markets,
and will result in additional investment options and opportunities to
achieve the investment and trading objectives of market participants
seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of
investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change 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). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Commission has waived the pre-filing requirement in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement will ensure
fair competition among options exchanges by allowing the Exchange to
establish smaller strike price intervals in these highly traded
products at the same time as at least one other options exchange. For
these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
presents no novel issues and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest;
and will allow the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2014-42 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2014-42. 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 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; 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-ISE-2014-42 and should be submitted on or before October
1, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21529 Filed 9-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20508-20509]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-1503-000]

Cavalier Solar A, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Cavalier Solar A, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and

assumptions of liability, is April 19, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 30, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07101 Filed 4-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P