[Federal Register: June 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 36732-36736]
[DOCID:fr28jn10-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62334; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-076]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1, To Amend NASDAQ Rule 11890 Governing Clearly Erroneous
Executions

June 21, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 17, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``Nasdaq'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. On June 18, 2010, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission to amend NASDAQ Rule
11890, entitled Cleary Erroneous Transactions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available from Nasdaq's Web
site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/Filings/, at Nasdaq's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these

statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing modifications to its Rule 11890, entitled
Clearly Erroneous Transactions. First, NASDAQ proposes replacing
existing paragraph (C)(2) of Rule 11890, entitled ``Unusual
Circumstances and Joint Market Rulings'' with a new paragraph, entitled
``Multi-Stock Events Involving Twenty or More Securities.'' Second,
NASDAQ replacing existing paragraph (C)(4) of Rule 11890, entitled
``Numerical Guidelines Applicable to Volatile Market Opens'' with a new
paragraph, entitled ``Individual Stock Trading Pauses.'' Third, NASDAQ
is proposing changes to existing paragraph (b) of Rule 11890 to
eliminate the ability of NASDAQ to deviate from the Numerical
Guidelines contained in paragraph (C)(1) (other than under limited
circumstances set forth in paragraph (b)(i)) when deciding which
transactions will be reviewed by NASDAQ as potentially clearly
erroneous. Finally, NASDAQ proposes modifications to paragraphs (C)(1)
and (C)(3) of Rule 11890 consistent with the proposed changes to
paragraphs (C)(2) and (C)(4). As proposed, the provisions of paragraphs
(C), (c)(1), (b)(i), and (b)(ii) of Rule 11890 as amended pursuant to
this filing, would be in effect during a pilot period set to end on
December 10, 2010. If the pilot is not either extended or approved
permanent by December 10, 2010, the prior versions of paragraphs (C),
(c)(1), and (b) of Rule 11890 would be in effect.
    NASDAQ is proposing the rule changes described below in
consultation with other markets and Commission staff to provide for
uniform treatment: (1) Of clearly erroneous execution reviews in Multi-
Stock Events involving twenty or more securities; and (2) in the event
transactions occur that result in the issuance of an individual stock
trading pause by the primary market and subsequent transactions that
occur before the trading pause is in effect on NASDAQ. NASDAQ has also
proposed additional changes to Rule 11890 that reduce the ability of
NASDAQ to deviate from the objective standards set forth in the Rule.
In addition, NASDAQ is modifying certain defined terms in the rule to
match definitions used by other exchanges in order to avoid the risk of
confusion. The proposed changes are described in further detail below.
Revised Paragraph (C)(2) Related to Multi-Stock Events Involving Twenty
or More Securities
    NASDAQ proposes to eliminate the majority of existing paragraph
(C)(2), which provides flexibility to NASDAQ to use different Numerical
Guidelines or Reference Prices in various ``Unusual Circumstances.''
NASDAQ proposes to replace this paragraph with new language that would
apply to Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or more securities whose
executions occurred within a period of five minutes or less. The
revised paragraph would retain language making clear that during Multi-
Stock Events involving twenty or more securities the number of affected
transactions may be such that immediate finality is necessary to
maintain a fair and orderly market and to protect investors and the
public interest. Accordingly, in such circumstances, decisions made by
NASDAQ in consultation with other markets could not be appealed.
Further, as proposed, in connection with reviews of Multi-Stock Events
involving twenty or more securities, NASDAQ may use a Reference Price
other than consolidated last sale in its review of potentially clearly
erroneous executions. With the exception of those securities under
review that are subject to an individual stock trading pause as
described in proposed paragraph (C)(4), and to ensure consistent
application across market centers when proposed paragraph (C)(2) is
invoked, NASDAQ will promptly coordinate with the other market centers
to determine the appropriate review period, which may be greater than
the period of five minutes or less that triggered application of
proposed paragraph (C)(2), as well as select one or more specific
points in time prior to the transactions in question and use
transaction prices at or immediately prior to the one or more specific
points in time selected as the Reference Price. NASDAQ will nullify as
clearly erroneous all transactions that are at prices equal to or
greater than 30% away from the Reference Price in each affected
security during the review period selected by NASDAQ and other markets
consistent with the proposed paragraph (C)(2).
    Because NASDAQ and other market centers are adopting a different
threshold and standards to handle large-scale market events, which
would include events occurring during times of high volatility at the
beginning of regular trading hours, NASDAQ proposes deletion of
paragraph (C)(4) (``Numerical Guidelines Applicable to Volatile Market
Opens'') of the existing rule. NASDAQ believes that this provision is
no longer necessary, and if maintained, could result in extremely high
Numerical Guidelines (up to 90%) in certain circumstances.
Revised Paragraph (C)(4) Related to Individual Stock Trading Pauses
    NASDAQ and other primary listing markets for U.S. stocks recently
amended their rules so that they may, from time to time, issue a
trading pause for an individual security if the price of such security
moves 10% or more from a sale in a preceding five-minute period. In
this regard, NASDAQ recently amended its rules to pause trading in an
individual stock when the primary listing market for such stock issues
a trading pause triggered pursuant to Rule 4120(a)(11), as approved.\3\
As described above, NASDAQ is proposing to eliminate existing paragraph
(C)(4) (``Numerical Guidelines Applicable to Volatile Market Opens'').
NASDAQ proposes adopting a rule, numbered as (C)(4) following such
elimination, which will provide for uniform treatment of clearly
erroneous execution reviews in the event transactions occur that result
in the issuance of an individual stock trading pause by the primary
listing market and subsequent transactions that occur before the
trading pause is in effect on NASDAQ. The proposed rule change is
necessary to provide greater certainty of the clearly erroneous
Reference Price for transactions that trigger a trading pause (the
``Trigger Trade'') and subsequent transactions occurring between the
time of the Trigger Trade and the time the trading pause message is
received by NASDAQ from the single plan processor responsible for
consolidation and dissemination of information for the security and put
into effect on NASDAQ, especially under highly volatile and active
market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62252 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-061).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ proposes to revise paragraph (C)(4) of NASDAQ Rule 11890 to
allow NASDAQ to use the price that triggered a trading pause in an
individual stock (the ``Trading Pause Trigger Price'') as the Reference
Price for clearly erroneous execution reviews of a Trigger Trade and
transactions that occur immediately after a Trigger Trade but before a
trading pause is in effect on NASDAQ. As proposed, the phrase

``Trading Pause Trigger Price'' shall mean the price that triggered a
trading pause in any Securities as defined in NASDAQ Rule 4120(a)(11).
The Trading Pause Trigger Price reflects a price calculated by the
primary listing market over a rolling five-minute period and may differ
from the execution price of a transaction that triggered a trading
pause. NASDAQ will rely on the primary listing market that issued an
individual stock trading pause to determine and communicate the Trading
Pause Trigger Price for such stock. NASDAQ proposes to make clear in
the text that the proposed standards in paragraph (C)(4) apply
regardless of whether the security at issue is part of a Multi-Stock
Event involving five or more securities as described in proposed
paragraphs (C)(1) and (C)(2).
    As proposed, the Numerical Guidelines set forth in NASDAQ Rule
11890(C)(1), other than those Numerical Guidelines applicable to Multi-
Stock Events, would apply to reviews of Trigger Trades and subsequent
transactions. Nasdaq proposes to review, on its own motion pursuant to
paragraph (b)(ii) of the Rule, all transactions that trigger a trading
pause and subsequent transactions occurring before the trading pause is
in effect on NASDAQ. NASDAQ has proposed to limit such reviews to
reviews of transactions that executed at a price lower than the Trading
Pause Trigger Price in the event of a price decline and higher than the
Trading Pause Trigger Price in the event of a price rise. Because the
proposed rules for trading pauses would only apply within Regular
Trading Hours,\4\ an execution would be reviewed and nullified as
clearly erroneous if it exceeds the following thresholds:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Regular Trading Hours'' is being renamed from
``Core Session'' in NASDAQ Rule 11890 (a)(2)(B) as the time between
9:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time. According to rules of the primary
listing markets, an individual stock trading pause can be issued
based on a Trigger Trade that occurs at any time between 9:45 a.m.
and 3:35 p.m. Eastern Time. See NASDAQ Rule 4120(a)(11), NYSE Rule
80C, and NYSE Arca Rule 7.11.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Numerical guidelines (subject
                                            transaction's % difference
       Reference price or product         from the trading pause trigger
                                                      price)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than $0.00 up to and including   10
 $25.00.
Greater than $25.00 up to and including  5
 $50.00.
Greater than $50.00....................  3
Leveraged ETF/ETN securities...........  Regular Trading Hours Numerical
                                          Guidelines multiplied by the
                                          leverage multiplier (i.e.,
                                          2x).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to Paragraph (b)
    NASDAQ to be consistent with other exchanges is eliminating
paragraph (b) and adding new paragraphs (b)(i) and (b)(ii) to separate
the System Disruptions from Own Motion situations. Consistent with
other proposals made in this filing, NASDAQ proposes modifying
paragraph (b)(ii) to eliminate the ability of a Senior Official to
deviate from the Numerical Guidelines contained in the Rule other than
under very limited circumstances set forth in paragraph (C)(3).
    New paragraph (b)(i) provides a Senior Official of NASDAQ the
ability on his or her own motion, to review and rule on executions that
result from ``any disruption or a malfunction in the operation of any
electronic communications and trading facilities of NASDAQ, or
extraordinary market conditions or other circumstances in which the
nullification of transactions may be necessary for the maintenance of a
fair and orderly market or the protection of investors and the public
interest exist.''
    New paragraph (b)(ii) is similar to existing Rule 11890(b) and
covers other situations where NASDAQ may act on its own motion. Without
modification, the language ``extraordinary market conditions or other
circumstances* * *'' in current Rule 11890(b) would leave NASDAQ with
broad discretion to deviate from the Numerical Guidelines set forth in
paragraph (C)(1). Thus, NASDAQ proposes narrowing the scope of
paragraph (b) so that it only permits NASDAQ to nullify transactions
consistent with that paragraph (including at a lower Numerical
Guideline) if there is a disruption or malfunction in the use of
NASDAQ's system covered by proposed Rule 11890(b)(i).
    For the same reason, NASDAQ proposes eliminating the words ``use
or'' from the language in paragraph (b) to make clear that the
provision only applies to a disruption or malfunction of the NASDAQ's
system (and not of an NASDAQ user's systems).
    Paragraph (b)(ii) gives a Senior Official of NASDAQ the ability on
his or her own motion to review transactions as potentially clearly
erroneous. Consistent with the goal of achieving more objective and
standard results, NASDAQ proposes deleting language in existing
paragraph (b) that would allow NASDAQ to deviate from the Numerical
Guidelines contained in paragraph (C)(1). In addition, NASDAQ proposes
to make clear that any Senior Official reviewing transactions on his or
her own motion must follow the guidelines set forth in proposed
paragraph (C)(4), if applicable. Accordingly, NASDAQ proposes to modify
paragraph (b)(ii) to state that an officer must rely on paragraphs
(C)(1)-(4) of Rule 11890 when reviewing transactions on his or her own
motion.
Additional Conforming Revisions to Paragraphs (C)(1) and (C)(3)
    Based on proposed paragraph (C)(2), NASDAQ has proposed certain
conforming changes to paragraphs (C)(1) and (C)(3) of the existing
Rule, as described below.
    Under current NASDAQ Rule 11890, a transaction may be found to be
clearly erroneous only if the price of the transaction to buy (sell)
that is the subject of the complaint is greater than (less than) the
Reference Price by an amount that equals or exceeds the Numerical
Guidelines set forth in paragraph (C)(1) of the Rule. The ``Reference
Price'' is currently defined as ``the consolidated last sale
immediately prior to the execution(s) under review except for in
Unusual Circumstances as described in paragraph (C)(2)'' of NASDAQ Rule
11890. NASDAQ proposes modifying paragraph (C)(1) consistent with the
changes described above such that NASDAQ shall use the consolidated
last sale immediately prior to the execution(s) under review as the
Reference Price except for: (A) Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or
more securities, as described in proposed paragraph (C)(2); (B)
transactions not involving a Multi-Stock Event as described in proposed
paragraph (C)(2) that trigger a trading pause and subsequent
transactions, as described in proposed paragraph (C)(4), in which case
the Reference Price shall be determined in accordance with that

paragraph (C)(4); and (C) in other circumstances, such as, for example,
relevant news impacting a security or securities, periods of extreme
market volatility, sustained illiquidity, or widespread system issues,
where use of a different Reference Price is necessary for the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market and the protection of
investors and the public interest. NASDAQ also proposes modifying
paragraph (C)(1) to reduce uncertainty as to the applicability of the
Numerical Guidelines, by requiring a finding that an execution was
clearly erroneous if such execution exceeds the Numerical Guidelines,
subject only to the Additional Factors included n paragraph (C)(3).
Moreover, NASDAQ proposes revising the existing description for Multi-
Stock Events that is contained on the Numerical Guidelines chart to
make clear that different Numerical Guidelines apply for Multi-Stock
Events involving five or more, but less than twenty, securities whose
executions occurred within a period of five minutes or less. In
addition, NASDAQ proposes adding to the Numerical Guidelines chart a
row that contains the Numerical Guidelines (30%) for Multi-Stock Events
involving twenty or more securities whose executions occurred within a
period of five minutes or less.
    NASDAQ proposes clarifying paragraph (C)(3) to make clear that the
additional factors set forth in that paragraph are not intended to
provide any discretion to an NASDAQ official to deviate from the
guidelines that apply to Multi-Stock Events or to transactions in
securities subject to individual stock trading pauses.
    Finally, NASDAQ proposes amending paragraph (c)(1), related to
appeals of clearly erroneous execution decisions by NASDAQ, to preserve
non-appealability of all joint rulings between NASDAQ and one or more
other market centers. NASDAQ believes that certainty and consistency is
critical to reviews of related executions that span multiple market
centers. Accordingly, although NASDAQ has proposed deletion of such
language from existing paragraph (C)(3), NASDAQ proposes adding such
language back in to paragraph (c)(1) to make clear that joint market
rulings are not appealable.
2. Statutory Basis
    Approval of the rule change proposed in this submission is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of
the Act.\5\ In particular, the proposed change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ because it would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change is also designed to support the principles of Section
11A(a)(1)\7\ of the Act in that it seeks to assure fair competition
among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule meets these requirements in that it
promotes transparency and uniformity across markets concerning reviews
of potentially clearly erroneous executions in various contexts,
including reviews in the context of a Multi-Stock Event involving
twenty or more securities and reviews resulting from a Trigger Trade
and any executions occurring immediately after a Trigger Trade but
before a trading pause is in effect on the Exchange. Further, the
Exchange believes that the proposed changes enhance the objectivity of
decisions made by the Exchange with respect to clearly erroneous
executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-076 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-076. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-076 and should be
submitted on or before July 19, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-15543 Filed 6-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15224-15227]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05903]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0415; FRL 9908-16-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Evansville Area; 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter
Maintenance Plan Revision to Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
request by Indiana to revise the 1997 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) maintenance air quality state implementation plan
(SIP) for the Evansville/Southwestern Indiana Area to replace onroad
emissions inventories and motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets)
with inventories and budgets developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle
Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emissions model. Indiana submitted the SIP
revision request for the Evansville Area on July 2, 2013.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective May 19, 2014, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by April 18, 2014. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2013-0415, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2013-0415. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

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

I. What is EPA approving?
II. What is the background for this action?
    a. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity
    b. Prior Approval of Budgets
    c. The MOVES Emissions Model
    d. Submission of MOVES2010a-Based Inventories
III. What are the criteria for approval?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittal?
    a. The Revised Inventories
    b. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-Based Budgets
    c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-Based Budgets
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is EPA approving?

    EPA is approving new MOVES2010a-based onroad emissions inventories
and budgets for the Evansville, Indiana 1997 annual PM2.5
maintenance area that will replace MOBILE6.2-based inventories and
budgets in the SIP. The Evansville, Indiana area is comprised of
Dubois, Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties, Montgomery Township in
Gibson County, Ohio Township in Spencer County, and Washington Township
in Pike County. The area was redesignated to attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard, effective on October 27, 2011 (76 FR
59527). MOBILE6.2-based onroad emissions inventories and budgets were
approved in that action. Upon effective date of approval of the
MOVES2010a-based budgets, they must be used in future transportation
conformity analyses for the area as required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). See the official release of the MOVES2010
emissions model (75 FR 9411-9414) for background, and section II.c.
below for details.

II. What is the background for this action?

a. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit control strategy SIP
revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment and maintenance areas
for a given national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). These SIP
revisions and maintenance plans include budgets of onroad mobile source
emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors.
Transportation plans and projects ``conform'' to (i.e., are consistent
with) the SIP when they will

not cause or contribute to air quality violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS or an interim milestone.

b. Prior Approval of Budgets

    On September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59527), EPA approved MOBILE6.2-based
budgets for the Evansville 1997 annual PM2.5 maintenance
area for direct emissions of PM2.5 and emissions of its
precursor pollutant, nitrogen oxides (NOX). The Evansville
area's PM2.5 maintenance plan established 2015 and 2022
budgets. These budgets demonstrated a reduction in emissions from the
monitored attainment year.

c. The MOVES Emissions Model

    The MOVES model is EPA's state of the art tool for estimating
highway emissions. EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010
(75 FR 9411). Use of the MOVES model is required for regional emissions
analyses for transportation conformity determinations outside of
California that begin after March 2, 2013.
    The MOVES model was used to estimate emissions in the areas for the
same milestone years as the original onroad emissions inventories and
budgets in the SIP. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM) is revising the onroad emissions inventories and budgets using
the latest planning assumptions, including population and employment
updates. In addition, newer vehicle registration data have been used to
update the age distribution of the vehicle fleets. Since future
demonstrations of conformity will use emissions estimates derived with
MOVES, it is appropriate to establish benchmarks based on MOVES. The
interagency consultation groups for these areas have had extensive
consultation on the requirements and need for new budgets.

d. Submission of MOVES2010a-Based Inventories

    Indiana submitted onroad inventories to EPA based on MOVES2010a
that cover the Evansville, Indiana area on July 2, 2013. During the
state public comment period, Indiana did not receive any comments on
its submittal.
    The new MOVES2010a-based budgets taken from these inventories are
for the years 2015 and 2020 for both PM2.5 and
NOX. The budgets for these areas are detailed later in this
notice.

          Table 1--Total Onroad PM2.5 Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions in Evansville, Indiana
                                                 [Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2022
                            Sector                             2005 Attainment    2015 Interim     Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad.......................................................          440.28           199.93           100.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Table 2--Total NOX Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions in Evansville, Indiana
                                                 [Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2022
                            Sector                             2005 Attainment    2015 Interim     Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad.......................................................       12,336.71         5,642.95         3,173.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in tables 1 and 2, the submittal demonstrates that onroad
emissions decrease considerably between the attainment year and the
maintenance year. The submittal demonstrates that the MOVES2010a-based
onroad emissions' rate of decline is greater than the rate of decline
of the originally approved MOBILE6.2-based onroad emissions. No
additional control measures were needed to maintain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard in the Evansville area.

III. What are the criteria for approval?

    EPA requires that revisions to existing SIPs and budgets continue
to meet applicable requirements (e.g., reasonable further progress,
attainment, or maintenance). The SIP must also meet any applicable SIP
requirements under CAA section 110. In addition, adequacy criteria
found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before EPA can find
submitted budgets adequate and approve them for conformity purposes.
    States can revise their budgets and inventories for specific areas
using MOVES without revising their entire SIP if (1) the SIP continues
to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle
emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES base year and milestone,
attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and (2) the state can
document that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor
vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not
change the overall effectiveness of the SIP. The submittal meets this
requirement as described below in the next section.
    For more information, see EPA's latest ``Policy Guidance on the Use
of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other
Purposes'' (April 2012), available online at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm# models.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittal?

a. The Revised Inventories

    The SIP revision request for the area's 1997 annual
PM2.5 maintenance plan seeks to revise only the onroad
mobile source inventories. IDEM has certified that the control
strategies for the area remain the same as in the original SIP, and
that no other control strategies are necessary. IDEM has determined
that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources
(i.e., area, nonroad, and point) have not changed significantly from
the original submittal. This is corroborated by the monitoring data for
the area, which continue to monitor attainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard. IDEM's submittal confirms that in the
revised SIP, onroad emissions in the area continue to decline and
remain below the attainment levels.
    Indiana has submitted budgets taken from the MOVES 2010a-based
onroad inventories for the Evansville area. The revised budgets are
displayed in table 3.

   Table 3--Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MOVES) for the Evansville,
                Indiana 1997 PM2.5 Area in Tons per Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                         2015            2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5...................................          199.93          100.45
NOX.....................................        5,642.95        3,173.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-Based Budgets

    EPA is approving the MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted by Indiana
for use in determining transportation conformity in the Evansville,
Indiana 1997 annual PM2.5 maintenance area. EPA evaluated
the MOVES2010a-based budgets using the adequacy criteria found in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4) and SIP requirements.
    Before submitting the revised budgets, IDEM followed all necessary
conformity procedures. The budgets are clearly identified and precisely
quantified in the submittal. The budgets, when considered with other
emissions sources, are consistent with continued maintenance of the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard. The budgets are clearly related
to the emissions inventories and control measures in the SIP. The
changes from the previous budgets are clearly explained with the change
in the model from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a and the revised and updated
planning assumptions. The inputs to the model are detailed in the
Appendices to the submittal. EPA has reviewed the inputs to the
MOVES2010a modeling and participated in the consultation process. The
Federal Highway Administration and the Indiana Department of
Transportation have taken a lead role in working with the area's
metropolitan planning organization to provide accurate, timely
information and inputs to the MOVES2010a model runs. The state has
documented that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor
vehicle sources (i.e. area, nonroad, and point) continue to be valid
and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.
    Indiana's submittal confirms that the SIP continues to demonstrate
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, and onroad
NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the revised SIP
continue to decrease from the attainment year to the final year of the
maintenance plan for the area, as shown in tables 1 and 2.

c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-Based Budgets

    Upon the effective date of the approval of the revised budgets, the
state's existing MOBILE6.2-based budgets for the area will no longer be
applicable for transportation conformity purposes.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the onroad mobile source emissions inventories and
budgets for the Evansville, Indiana 1997 annual PM2.5
maintenance plan, as submitted on July 2, 2013. We are publishing this
action without prior proposal because we view this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However,
in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed.
This rule will be effective May 19, 2014 without further notice unless
we receive relevant adverse written comments by April 18, 2014. If we
receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw
the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed
in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments,
this action will be effective May 19, 2014.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 19, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter.

    Dated: March 4, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.770 the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding a
new entry in alphabetical order for ``Evansville/Southwest Indiana Area
1997 annual fine particulate matter maintenance plan'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Title                    Indiana date            EPA Approval                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Evansville/Southwest Indiana Area    .................  03/19/14, [INSERT PAGE       Revision to motor vehicle
 1997 annual fine particulate                            NUMBER WHERE THE DOCUMENT    emission budgets.
 matter maintenance plan.                                BEGINS].

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

0
3. Section 52.776 is amended by adding paragraph (v)(5) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.776  Control Strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (v) * * *
    (5) Approval--On July 2, 2013 Indiana submitted a request to revise
the approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in the
1997 annual fine particulate matter maintenance plan for the Evansville
maintenance area. The budgets are being revised with budgets developed
with the MOVES2010a model. The 2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets are
199.93 tpy PM2.5 and 5,642.95 tpy NOX. The 2022
motor vehicle emissions budgets are 100.45 tpy PM2.5 and
3,173 tpy NOX.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-05903 Filed 3-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67093-67097]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9172; Special Conditions No. 23-276-SC]

Special Conditions: DAHER-SOCATA, Model TBM 700; Inflatable Four-
Point Restraint Safety Belt With an Integrated Airbag Device

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the installation of an
inflatable four-point restraint safety belt with an integrated airbag
device at the pilot and copilot seats on the DAHER-SOCATA, Model TBM
700 airplane. These airplanes, as modified by the installation of these
inflatable safety belts, will have novel and unusual design features
associated with the upper-torso restraint portions of the four-point
safety belts, which contain an integrated airbag device. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These 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: The effective date of these special conditions is September 30,
2016. We must receive your comments by October 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-9172
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 of 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 9 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://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.
    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: Mr. Bob Stegeman, Federal Aviation
Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane
Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO; telephone
(816)-329-4140; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), that notice and opportunity for
prior public comment hereon are unnecessary because the substance of
this special condition has been subject to the public comment process
in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The
FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special
conditions effective upon issuance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Special condition No.               Company/airplane model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23-03-01-SC \1\.......................  AMSAFE, Incorporated, Model
                                         CH2000.
23-03-022-SC \2\......................  Goodrich Aircraft Interior
                                         Products, Models AT-401, AT-
                                         402, AT-502, AT-602, and AT-
                                         802.
23-04-01-SC \3\.......................  AMSAFE, Incorporated, Models A1,
                                         A1A, and A1B.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/A5B140165998E8B586256D66005553C5?OpenDocument&Highlight=inflatable%20restraint%20safety%20belt%20with%20an%20integrated%20airbag.
\2\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/8122AF4A25F6F8BE86256C83005FF817?OpenDocument&Highlight=inflatable%20four-point%20restraint%20safety%20belt%20with%20an%20integrated%20airbag.
\3\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/262C53C9CF0F4FFF86256F08004F5D26?OpenDocument&Highlight=inflatable%20restraint%20safety%20belt%20with%20an%20integrated%20airbag.

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 ask
that you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change
these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

    On January 5, 2016, DAHER-SOCATA (SOCATA) applied for FAA
validation for the optional installation of a four-point safety belt
restraint system for the pilot and copilot seats and incorporating
integrated inflatable airbags for both on the Model TBM 700 airplane.
The Model TBM 700 airplane is a single-engine powering a four bladed
turbopropellor. It has a maximum takeoff weight of 6578 pounds (2984
kg). In addition to a pilot and copilot, it can seat up to five
passengers.
    The inflatable restraint systems are four-point safety belt
restraint systems consisting of a lap belt and shoulder harness with an
inflatable airbag attached to the shoulder harness straps. The
inflatable portion of the restraint system will rely on sensors
electronically activating the inflator for deployment.
    If an emergency landing occurs, the airbags will inflate and
provide a protective cushion between the head of the occupant (pilot
and copilot) and the structure of the airplane. This will reduce the
potential for head and torso injury. The inflatable restraint behaves
in a manner similar to an automotive airbag; however, the airbag is
integrated into the shoulder harness straps. Airbags and inflatable
restraints are standard in the automotive industry; the use of an
inflatable restraint system is novel for general aviation.
    The FAA has determined that this project will be accomplished on
the basis of providing the same level of safety as the current
certification requirements of airplane occupant restraint systems. The
FAA has the following two primary safety concerns with the installation
of airbags or inflatable restraints that--
    1. They perform properly under foreseeable operating conditions;
and
    2. They do not perform in a manner or at such times as to impede
the pilot's

ability to maintain control of the airplane or constitute a hazard to
the airplane or occupants.
    The latter point has the potential to be the more rigorous of the
requirements. An unexpected deployment while conducting the takeoff or
landing phases of flight may result in an unsafe condition. The
unexpected deployment may either startle the pilot or generate a force
sufficient to cause a sudden movement of the control yoke. Both actions
may result in a loss of control of the airplane. The consequences are
magnified due to the low operating altitudes during these phases of
flight. The FAA has considered this when establishing these special
conditions.
    The inflatable restraint system relies on sensors to electronically
activate the inflator for deployment. These sensors could be
susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing deployment in a
potentially unsafe manner. The consequences of an inadvertent
deployment must be considered in establishing the reliability of the
system. SOCATA must show that the effects of an inadvertent deployment
in flight are not a hazard to the airplane and that an inadvertent
deployment is extremely improbable. In addition, general aviation
aircraft are susceptible to a large amount of cumulative wear and tear
on a restraint system. The potential for inadvertent deployment may
increase as a result of this cumulative damage. Therefore, the impact
of wear and tear resulting with an inadvertent deployment must be
considered. The effect of this cumulative damage means duration of life
expectations must be established for the appropriate system components
in the restraint system design.
    There are additional factors to be considered to minimize the
chances of inadvertent deployment. General aviation airplanes are
exposed to a unique operating environment, since the same airplane may
be used by both experienced and student pilots. The effect of this
environment on inadvertent deployment must be understood. Therefore,
qualification testing of the firing hardware and software must consider
the following--
    1. The airplane vibration levels appropriate for a general aviation
airplane; and
    2. The inertial loads that result from typical flight or ground
maneuvers, including gusts and hard landings.

Any tendency for the firing mechanism to activate as a result of these
loads or acceleration levels is unacceptable.
    Other influences on inadvertent deployment include High-Intensity
Radiated Fields (HIRF) and lightning. Since the sensors that trigger
deployment are electronic, they must be protected from the effects of
these threats. To comply with HIRF and lightning requirements, the
inflatable restraint system is considered a critical system, since its
inadvertent deployment could have a hazardous affect on the airplane.
    Given the level of safety of the occupant restraints currently
installed, the inflatable restraint system must show that it will offer
an equivalent level of protection for an emergency landing. If an
inadvertent deployment occurs, the restraint must still be at least as
strong as a Technical Standard Order approved belt and shoulder
harnesses. There is no requirement for the inflatable portion of the
restraint to offer protection during multiple impacts, where more than
one impact would require protection.
    Where installed, the inflatable restraint system must deploy and
provide protection for each occupant under an emergency landing
condition. The Model TBM 700 airplane seats are certificated to the
structural requirements of Sec.  23.562; therefore, the test emergency
landing pulses identified in Sec.  23.562 must be used to satisfy this
requirement.
    A wide range of occupants may use the inflatable restraint;
therefore, the protection offered by this restraint should be effective
for occupants that range from the fifth percentile female to the
ninety-fifth percentile male. Energy absorption must be performed in a
consistent manner for this occupant range.
    In support of this operational capability, there must be a means to
verify the integrity of this system before each flight. SOCATA may
establish inspection intervals where they have demonstrated the system
to be reliable between these intervals.
    An inflatable restraint may be armed even though no occupant is
using the seat. While there will be means to verify the integrity of
the system before flight, it is also prudent to require unoccupied
seats with active restraints not pose a hazard to any occupant. This
will protect any individual performing maintenance inside the cockpit
while the aircraft is on the ground. The restraint must also provide
suitable visual warnings that would alert rescue personnel to the
presence of an inflatable restraint system.
    The design must also prevent the inflatable seatbelt from being
incorrectly buckled or installed to avoid hindering proper deployment
of the airbag. SOCATA may show that such deployment is not hazardous to
the occupant and will still provide the required protection.
    The cabins of the SOCATA, Model TBM 700 airplane identified in
these special conditions are confined areas, and the FAA is concerned
that noxious gasses may accumulate if the airbag deploys. When
deployment occurs, either by design or inadvertently, there must not be
a release of hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the
cockpit.
    An inflatable restraint should not increase the risk already
associated with fire. The inflatable restraint should be protected from
the effects of fire to avoid creating an additional hazard such as, a
rupture of the inflator, for example.
    Finally, the airbag is likely to have a large volume displacement,
and possibly impede the egress of an occupant. Since the bag deflates
to absorb energy, it is likely that the inflatable restraint would be
deflated at the time an occupant would attempt egress. However, it is
appropriate to specify a time interval after which the inflatable
restraint may not impede rapid egress. Ten seconds has been chosen as
reasonable time. This time limit offers a level of protection
throughout an impact event.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, SOCATA must show that the
Model TBM 700 airplane continues to meet the applicable provisions of
the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the
type certificate. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type
certificate are commonly referred to as the original type certification
basis.
    The certification basis also includes all exemptions, if any;
equivalent level of safety findings, if any; and special conditions not
relevant to the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action.
    If the Administrator determines that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the inflatable restraint, as installed
on the SOCATA, Model TBM 700 airplane because of a novel or unusual
design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions
of Sec.  21.16.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model TBM 700 airplane 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 section 611 of
Public Law 92-574, the Noise Control Act of 1972.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  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 models 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, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The SOCATA, Model TBM 700 airplane will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design feature: Installation of inflatable four-point
restraint safety belt with an integrated airbag device for the pilot
and copilot seats.

Discussion

    The purpose of the airbag is to reduce the potential for injury in
the event of an accident. In a severe impact, an airbag will deploy
from the shoulder harness in a manner similar to an automotive airbag.
The airbag will deploy between the head of the occupant and airplane
interior structure, which will provide some protection to the head of
the occupant. The restraint will rely on sensors to electronically
activate the inflator for deployment.
    The Code of Federal Regulations states performance criteria for
seats and restraints in an objective manner. However, none of these
criteria are adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning
inflatable restraints. Therefore, the FAA has determined that in
addition to the requirements of part 21 and part 23, special conditions
are needed to address the installation of this inflatable restraint.
    Accordingly, these special conditions are adopted for the SOCATA,
Model TBM 700 airplanes equipped with four-point inflatable restraints.
Other conditions may be developed, as needed, based on further FAA
review and discussions with the manufacturer and civil aviation
authorities.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
SOCATA, Model TBM 700 airplane. Should SOCATA apply at a later date 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 one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability
and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of
these features on the airplane.
    Under standard practice, the effective date of final special
conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
Federal Register; however, as the certification date for the SOCATA,
Model TBM 700 airplane is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause
exists to make these special conditions effective upon issuance.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances, identified above,
and has been derived without substantive change from those previously
issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a
significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore,
notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary
and the FAA finds good cause, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)
and 553(d)(3), making these special conditions effective upon issuance.
The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit
views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior
opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and
21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.

The Special Conditions

    The FAA has determined that this project will be accomplished on
the basis of not lowering the current level of safety of the SOCATA,
Model TBM 700 airplane occupant restraint systems. Accordingly,
pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
following special conditions are issued as part of the type
certification basis for the SOCATA, Model TBM 700 airplane.
    1. Installation of inflatable four-point restraint safety belt with
an integrated airbag device.
    a. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint will deploy and
provide protection under emergency landing conditions. Compliance will
be demonstrated using the dynamic test condition specified in Sec.
23.562(b)(2). It is not necessary to account for floor warpage, as
required by Sec.  23.562(b)(3), or vertical dynamic loads, as required
by Sec.  23.562(b)(1). The means of protection must take into
consideration a range of stature from a 5th percentile female to a 95th
percentile male. The inflatable restraint must provide a consistent
approach to energy absorption throughout that range.
    b. The inflatable restraint must provide adequate protection for
the occupant. In addition, unoccupied seats that have an active
restraint must not constitute a hazard to any occupant.
    c. The design must prevent the inflatable restraint from being
incorrectly buckled and incorrectly installed, such that the airbag
would not properly deploy. It must be shown that such deployment is not
hazardous to the occupant and will provide the required protection.
    d. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint system is not
susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear or
the inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers
(including gusts and hard landings) that are likely to be experienced
in service.
    e. It must be extremely improbable for an inadvertent deployment of
the restraint system to occur, or an inadvertent deployment must not
impede the pilot's ability to maintain control of the airplane or cause
an unsafe condition or hazard to the airplane. In addition, a deployed
inflatable restraint must be at least as strong as a Technical Standard
Order, TSO-C114, certificated belt and shoulder harness.
    f. It must be shown that deployment of the inflatable restraint
system is not hazardous to the occupant or will not result in injuries
that could impede rapid egress. This assessment should include
occupants whose restraint is loosely fastened.
    g. It must be shown that an inadvertent deployment that could cause
injury to a standing or sitting person is improbable. In addition, the
restraint must also provide suitable visual warnings that would alert
rescue personnel to the presence of an inflatable restraint system.
    h. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint will not impede
rapid egress of

the occupants 10 seconds after its deployment.
    i. To comply with HIRF and lightning requirements, the inflatable
restraint system is considered a critical system since its deployment
could have a hazardous affect on the airplane.
    j. It must be shown that the inflatable restraints will not release
hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.
    k. The inflatable restraint system installation must be protected
from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.
    l. There must be a means to verify the integrity of the inflatable
restraint activation system before each flight or it must be
demonstrated to reliably operate between inspection intervals.
    m. A life limit must be established for appropriate system
components.
    n. Qualification testing of the internal firing mechanism must be
performed at vibration levels appropriate for a general aviation
airplane.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 22, 2016.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-23564 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


BALLAST WATER ISSUES DOCKET OW 2003 0071 September 9, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 174, page 53165 A. Federal Register B. Supporting References C. Public Comments Received on W 00 16 OW 2003 0071 Ballast Water Issues I A A. Federal Register 1. Availability of Decision on Petition for Rulemaking to Repeal Regulation Related to Ballast Water, September 9, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 174, page 53165 2. Availability of Draft Ballast Water Report and Request for Comments. September 27, 2001. Volume 66, Number 188. Pages 49381 49382. EDOCKET NO: OW 2003 0071 0002 OW 2003 0071 Ballast Water Issues I B B. Supporting References 1. USEPA. 2001. Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges: Issues and Options. Draft Report for Public Comment. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Wastewater Management. Washington, DC. September 10. 53 pp. ( Http:// www. epa. gov/ owow/ invasive_ species/ petition. html) EDOCKET NO: OW 2003 0071 0003 2. USEPA. 2001. Appendices to Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges: Issues and Options. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. September 10. 85 pp. EDOCKET NO: OW 2003 0071 0004 3. USEPA. 2001. Fact Sheet. Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges. September. 2 pp. EDOCKET NO: OW 2003 0071 0005 4. USEPA. 2001. E mail Memo. From: Craig Vogt. To: Multiple EPA Group Lists. Subject: Announcing the availability of the Ballast Water Report. September 26. 8 pp. EDOCKET NO: OW 2003 0071 0006 5. USCG, 2001 Report to Congress on the Voluntary National Guidelines for Ballast Water Management. November 2001. 80 pp. EDOCKET NO: OW 2003 0071 0007 6. Petition to Repeal 40 CFR 123.( a), dated January 13, 1999, to Carol Browner, Administrator, US EPA from Craig N. Johnson, Attorney for Petitioners, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center and attachments 1) Letter from J. Charles Fox to Craig Johnson, Esq. regarding the letter expressing concern over the introduction of non indigenous species; 2) Letter from Craig Johnson to Dorn Carlson, US EPA regarding the applicability of the CWA to Ballast Water Discharges, dated September 17, 1999; 3) Letter to Carol Browner, US EPA, from Craig Johnston regarding date of original petition to repeal 40 CFR 122.3( a) dated January 5, 2001; 4) Letter from Diane Regas, Acting Assistant Administrator, regarding his letter date January 5, 2001 to Administrator Carol Browner( dated February 7, 2001) EDOCKET NO: OW 2003 0071 0008 7. USCG 2003. Memorandum of Understanding Between The United States Coast Guard, Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection and The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water for EIS Activities under NEPA for NANPCA Rulemaking. August 2003. 6pp. EDOCKET NO: OW 2003 0071 0009 OW 2003 0071 Ballast Water Issues I B 8. Memorandum of Agreement Between The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory and National Exposure Research Laboratory ; Environmental Technology Verification Program and The U. S. Coast Guard on Collaborative Environmental Technology Verification. June 12, 2001.11 pp. EDOCKET NO: OW 2003 0071 0010 9. Correspondence by Email to various persons in EPA on various reports and meetings. November, 2000. 7 pp. EDOCKET NO: OW 2003 0071 0011 10. EPA Current Activities Attachment 3. July 31, 2003. 4 pp. EDOCKET NO: OW 2003 0071 0012 11. Response on Decision for Rulemaking to Repeal 40 CFR 122.3( a), dated September 2, 2003 signed by Marianne Lamont Horinko, Acting Administrator. 18 pp. EDOCKET NO: OW 2003 0071 0013


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22661-22663]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10443]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD18-4-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725G); Comment
Request; Revision

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of revised information collection and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comments on revisions to the information
collection, FERC-725G (Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System:
PRC Reliability Standards) in Docket No. RD18-4-000 and will be
submitting FERC-725G to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review of the information collection requirements.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. RD18-4-000
by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at [email protected], or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725G, Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System:
PRC Reliability Standards.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0252.
    Type of Request: Revision of FERC-725G information collection
requirements.

    Abstract: The information collected by the FERC-725G is required to
implement the statutory provisions of section 215 of the Federal Power
Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824o). Section 215 of the FPA buttresses the
Commission's efforts to strengthen the reliability of the interstate
grid.
    On March 16, 2018, the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC, the Commission-approved ERO) submitted for
Commission approval proposed Reliability Standard PRC-025-2, Generator
Relay Loadability. The PRC-025-2 Reliability Standard addresses setting
load-responsive protective relays associated with generation facilities
at a level to prevent unnecessary tripping of generators during a
system disturbance for conditions that do not pose a risk of damage to
the associated equipment. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-025-2
improves upon currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-025-1 by
addressing certain relay setting application issues and by clarifying
certain terminology and references. NERC requested that the Commission
approve the proposed Reliability Standard and find that the proposed
standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest. NERC also requested that the
Commission approve: (i) The associated Implementation Plan; (ii) the
associated Violation Risk Factors (VRFs) and Violation Severity Levels
(VSLs), which remain unchanged from PRC-025-1; and (iii) the retirement
of currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-025-1.
    NERC proposed that PRC-025-2 shall become effective on the first
day of the first calendar quarter after the effective date of the
applicable governmental authority's order approving the standard.
NERC's Implementation Plan proposed phased-in compliance dates after
the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-025-2.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See NERC's Implementation Plan at https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Project%20201604%20Modifications%20to%20PRC0251%20DL/Project_2016_04_Implementation_Plan_Clean_01092018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 2, 2018, the Commission approved Reliability Standard PRC-
025-2 and the retirement of PRC-025-1.
    Type of Respondents: Generator Owner (GO), Transmission Owner (TO),
and Distribution Provider (DP).
    Estimate of Annual Burden \2\: Details follow on the changes in
Docket No. RD18-4-000 to FERC-725G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \3\ According to the NERC compliance registry as of March 9,
2018, NERC has registered 415 distribution providers (DP), 985
generator owners (GO) and 336 transmission owners (TO). However,
under NERC's compliance registration program, entities may be
registered for multiple functions, so these numbers incorporate some
double counting. The number of unique entities responding will be
approximately 994 entities registered as a transmission owner, a
distribution provider, or a generator owner that is also a
transmission owner and/or a distribution owner. This estimate
assumes all of the unique entities apply load-responsive protective
relays.
    \4\ The hourly cost (for salary plus benefits) uses the figures
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2017, for two positions
involved in the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. These
figures include salary (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) benefits http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm) and are: Engineer: $64.91/hour, and File Clerk:
$31.16/hour. Hourly cost for the engineer are used for the one-time
costs, and hourly cost for the file clerk are used for the ongoing
record retention.
    \5\ GO = Generator Owner, DP = Distribution Provider, TO =
Transmission Owner, each of which applies load-responsive protective
relays at the terminals of the Elements listed in the proposed
standard at section 3.2 (Facilities).
    \6\ The estimated hourly costs (salary plus benefits) are based
on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) information May 2014, (at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm#17-0000) for an electrical
engineer ($59.62/hour for review and documentation), and for a file
clerk ($28.95/hour for record retention). Those figures (and the
number of respondents) were used when the standard was approved and
added to the OMB inventory. Hourly cost for the engineer are used
for the one-time costs, and hourly cost for the file clerk are used
for the ongoing record retention.

                                      FERC-725G, Mandatory Reliability Standard PRC-025-2, in Docket No. RD18-4-000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average  burden      Total annual
                                       Number of       Annual  number of   Annual  number of  hours and cost per   burden hours and        Cost per
             Entity                  respondents 3       responses per         responses        response 4  ($)    total annual cost    respondent  ($)
                                                          respondent                                                      ($)
                                  (1)...............                 (2)     (1) * (2) = (3)  (4)...............  (3) * (4) = (5)...     (5) / (1) = (6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(One-time) Review &               994 GO/TO/DP......                   1                 994  20 hrs.; $1,298.20  19,880 hours;                $1,298.20
 documentation of relay settings                                                                                $1,290,410.80.
 to ensure compliance.
(On-going) Record Retention (of   994 GO/TO/DP......                   1                 994  2 hrs.; $62.32....  1,988 hours;                    $62.32
 compliance records for R1 and                                                                                $61,946.08.
 M1, for 3 years or until
 mitigation complete).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                FERC-725G, Mandatory Reliability Standard PRC-025-1, Retirement in Docket No. RD18-4-000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                       Number of       Annual  number of   Annual  number of    Average  burden    burden hours and        Cost per
             Entity                   respondents        responses per         responses       hours and cost 5    total annual cost   respondent 6  ($)
                                                          respondent                                  ($)                 ($)
                                  (1)...............                 (2)     (1) * (2) = (3)  (4)...............  (3) * (4) = (5)...  (5) / (1) = (6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(One-time) Review &               1,019 GO/DP/TO....                   1               1,019  20 hrs.; $1,192.40  20,380 hours;       $1,192.40
 documentation of relay settings                                                               (reduction).        $1,215,055.60       (reduction).
 to ensure compliance,                                                                                (reduction).
 (reduction).
(On-going) Record Retention (of   1,019 GO/DP/TO....                   1               1,019  2 hrs.; $57.90      2,038 hours;        $57.90
 compliance records for R1 and                                                                 (reduction).        $59,000.10          (reduction).
 M1, for 3 years or until                                                                                (reduction).
 mitigation complete)
 (reduction).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Net Effect to Burden for FERC-725G: Due to the retirement of PRC-
025-1 and implementation of PRC-025-2, the number of respondents is
reduced by 25, and the number of annual burden hours is reduced by 550
hours. (The net changes are due to a change in the number of affected
entities on the NERC Registry.) The burden per respondent for PRC-025-2
remains 22 hours (total for both one-time and ongoing burden, similar
to the now-retired PRC-025-1).
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: May 9, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10443 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P