[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39014-39017]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16778]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0507; FRL-9981-77--Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; NOX Ozone Season Emissions Caps for Non-Trading Large NOX
Units and Associated Revisions to General Administrative Provisions and
Kraft Pulp Mill Regulation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. This revision (Maryland SIP Revision #18-03)
pertains to a new Maryland regulation that establishes ozone season
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions caps and other requirements
for large non-electric generating units (non-EGU) in Maryland and
includes associated revisions to two other Maryland regulations. The
revisions will enable Maryland to meet NOX reduction
requirements related to interstate transport of pollution that
contributes to other states' nonattainment or interferes with other
states' maintenance of the ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 7,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0507 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. 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: Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 15, 2018, the State of Maryland,
through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), submitted for
approval into the Maryland SIP new Code of Maryland Regulation (COMAR)
26.11.40--NOX Ozone Season Emission Caps for Non-Trading Large NOX
Units and revisions to two regulations presently included in the
Maryland SIP, COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>--General Administrative Provisions and
COMAR 26.11.14--Control of Emissions from Kraft Pulp Mills to EPA.

I. Background

    In October 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA finalized the ``Finding of
Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional
Transport of Ozone''--commonly called the NOX SIP Call. The
NOX SIP Call, issued pursuant to Section 110 of the CAA, was
designed to mitigate significant transport of NOX, one of
the precursors of ozone. EPA developed the NOX Budget
Trading Program, an allowance trading program that states could adopt
to meet their obligations under the NOX SIP Call. The
NOX Budget Trading Program allowed electric generating units
(EGUs) greater than 25 megawatts and industrial non-electric generating
units, such as boilers and turbines, with a rated heat input greater
than 250 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr), referred to
as ``large non-EGUs'', to participate in a regional NOX cap
and trade program. The NOX SIP Call also established
specific reduction requirements for other non-EGUs, including cement
kilns and stationary internal combustion (IC) engines. On January 10,
2001 (66 FR 1866), EPA approved two Maryland regulations, COMAR
26.11.29--NOX Reduction and Trading Program, and COMAR
26.11.30--Policies and Procedures Relating to Maryland's NOX
Reduction and Trading Program, into the Maryland SIP as meeting the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call. Under the approved trading
program, large EGUs and large non-EGUs in Maryland participated in a
regional cap and trade program that was administered by EPA.
    On May 12, 2005, (70 FR 25162), EPA promulgated the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to address transported emissions that
significantly contributed to downwind states' nonattainment and
maintenance of the 1997 ozone and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS. CAIR required 28 states, including Maryland,
to reduce emissions of NOX and sulfur dioxide
(SO2), which are precursors to ozone and PM2.5.
Under CAIR, EPA developed separate cap and trade programs for annual
NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2
emissions. On April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25328), EPA also promulgated
federal implementation plans (FIPs) requiring the EGUs in each affected
state, but not large non-EGUs, to participate in the CAIR trading
programs. States could comply with the requirements of CAIR by either
remaining on the FIP, which applied only to EGUs, or by submitting a
CAIR SIP revision that included as trading sources EGUs and the non-
EGUs that formerly traded in the NOX Budget Trading Program
under the NOX SIP Call. EPA discontinued administration of
the NOX Budget Trading Program in 2009 upon the start of the
CAIR trading programs.\1\ The NOX SIP Call requirements
continued to apply, however, and EGUs that were formerly trading under
the NOX Budget Trading Program continued to meet their
NOX SIP Call requirements under the generally more stringent
requirements of the CAIR ozone season trading program. States needed to
assess their NOX SIP Call requirements and take other
regulatory action as necessary to ensure that their obligations for the
large non-EGUs continued to be met either through submission of a CAIR
SIP or other NOX regulation. EPA has implementing
regulations for the NOX SIP Call at 40 CFR 51.121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR was subsequently vacated and remanded. See North
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified by 550 F.3d
1176 (remanding CAIR). CAIR was replaced with the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule, or CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011), which, after
legal challenges, was implemented starting in January 2015. The
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program under CSAPR was replaced
in Maryland and most other states by a new trading program for ozone
season NOX under the CSAPR Update rule in January 2017
(81 FR 74504, October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Maryland, Luke Paper Mill (formerly the Westvaco pulp and paper
mill) was the only facility with non-EGUs that were affected by the
NOX SIP Call and which participated in the NOX
Budget Trading Program. When the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
trading program replaced the NOX Budget Trading Program,
Maryland adopted the CAIR program as it applied to large EGUs, but
chose not to include the non-EGUs at Luke as participants in the CAIR
NOX Ozone Season trading program.\2\ Instead, in 2010,
Maryland adopted COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-Control of Emissions from Kraft Pulp
Mills, which, among other requirements, included provisions that
address the NOX SIP Call non-EGU requirements in Maryland
through a NOX ozone season tonnage cap of 947 tons for the
Luke non-EGUs and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting in
accordance with 40 CFR part 75. EPA conditionally approved COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> into the Maryland SIP on August 30, 2016 (81 FR 59486) and
took final approval on July 17, 2017 (82 FR 32641).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CAIR became obsolete upon implementation of the CSAPR
program. Maryland subsequently took action rescinding its CAIR
regulation (COMAR 26.11.28), and submitted a SIP revision to EPA
which sought removal of the regulation in its entirety from the
approved Maryland SIP. On July 17, 2017 (82 FR 32641), EPA approved
the SIP revision removing the CAIR regulation from Maryland's SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to adoption of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, MDE determined that
additional applicable units have either started operation or were
previously not subject but have become subject to the requirements for
non-EGUs under the NOX SIP Call as the units are greater
than 250 MMBtu/hr. A review of the applicability of the NOX
SIP Call to large non-EGUs in the State showed that there are three
additional facilities having non-EGUs that are covered under the
NOX SIP Call. MDE adopted new regulation COMAR 26.11.40 to
reallocate the NOX emissions cap among the affected sources,
and concurrently revised COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> to reflect a reduced cap for
Luke. The NOX annual emissions cap for Maryland established
for the NOX SIP Call is 1,013 tons per year of
NOX, as established by EPA in 40 CFR part 97, subpart E,
Appendix C.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On May 15, 2018, Maryland, through MDE, submitted for inclusion in
the Maryland SIP new regulation COMAR 26.11.40--NOX Ozone
Season Emission Caps for Non-trading Large NOX Units,

and associated revisions to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>--General Administrative
Provisions, and COMAR 26.11.14--Control of Emissions from Kraft Pulp
Mills.
    New COMAR 26.11.40 establishes NOX ozone season tonnage
caps and NOX monitoring requirements for large non-EGUs in
the State that are not covered under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) to meet requirements of the NOX SIP Call. Regulation
.01 under COMAR 26.11.40 defines the terms used in COMAR 26.11.40,
including ``boiler'', ``combined cycle system'', ``combustion
turbine'', ``fossil-fuel'', ``fossil fuel-fired'', ``new unit'', ``new
unit set-aside'', ``non-trading large NOX unit'', and
``ozone season''. The definition of non-trading large NOX
unit in Regulation .01 lists two categories of sources: (1) Non-EGUs
with a maximum design heat input greater than 250 MMBtu/hr, and (2)
fossil fuel-fired EGUs serving a generator with a nameplate capacity
greater than 25 megawatt output. Maryland explains its intent that
these definitions apply to non-EGUs and EGUs as defined for purposes of
the NOX SIP Call as amended.\3\ In addition to the
definitions of non-trading large NOX unit, Maryland
clarifies its intent by specifically listing in Regulation .02 all
units in the State that currently meet the definitions. Regulation .01
also clarifies that non-EGUs subject to this rule are units that are
not already subject to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program under 40 CFR part 97, subpart EEEEE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The definitions for non-EGUs and EGUs are set forth in the
preamble to the April 2004 NOX SIP Call amendments. See
69 FR 21604 and 21616, April 21, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulation .02 under COMAR 26.11.40 lists the currently affected
non-EGUs meeting the definition of ``non-trading large NOX
unit'' (shown in the following table), and includes a provision that
any new unit installed after May 1, 2018 or an existing unit that is
modified such that it meets the definition of a large non-EGU will
become subject to the requirements of COMAR 26.11.40. Regulation .03
under COMAR 26.11.40 establishes the NOX annual tonnage caps
for each source. The affected units and their NOX ozone
season caps are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             NOX ozone
            Facility                       Unit             season cap
                                                              (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Sugar Refining........  C6.....................              24
Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG.  Frame 5-1 (Turbine                  214
                                  S009), Frame 5-2
                                  (Turbine S010), Frame
                                  7-A, Frame 7-B, Aux.
                                  A, Aux B.
Luke Paper Mill................  24, 25, and 26.........             656
National Institutes of Health..  5-1156.................              23
New unit set-aside.............  .......................              96
                                                         ---------------
    Total......................  .......................           1,013
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulation .03 also establishes a 96 ton set aside for new units or
modified existing units. The total, 1,013 tons of NOX, is
consistent with the portion of the overall Maryland NOX
Budget Trading Program budget for large non-EGUs.\4\ Regulation .03
stipulates that the combined NOX ozone season emissions from
units subject to COMAR 26.11.40 may not exceed 1,013 tons. Regulation
.04 requires continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) of NOX
emissions at affected units in accordance with 40 CFR part 75, subpart
H, as required by 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4),\5\ maintenance of records and
submittal of reports in accordance with 40 CFR part 75, and submittal
of CEMs data to the State on a quarterly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Maryland's NOX Budget Trading Program regulations
included an overall budget of 15,466 tons for EGUs and non-EGUs.
See, e.g., The NOX Budget Trading Program: 2008
Highlights (October 2009) at 10, available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/nox-budget-trading-program-historical-reports. While most
of the overall budget was allocated directly to EGUs and non-EGUs
(those shares were 13,793 tons and 947 tons, respectively), a 726-
ton portion was not assigned to either sector, but instead was
placed in set-asides. To identify the portion of the overall 15,466-
ton budget attributable to non-EGUs that would be an appropriate cap
for its replacement non-EGU rule, Maryland has therefore used the
1,013-ton non-EGU portion of the overall budget of 15,532 tons
established for Maryland's EGUs and non-EGUs under a different
federal rule promulgated contemporaneously with the NOX
SIP Call pursuant to CAA section 126. See 40 CFR part 97, subpart E,
appendix C. In the absence of an express division of the State's
overall NOX Budget Trading Program budget between EGUs
and non-EGUs, EPA believes the State's approach to identifying an
appropriate cap for its replacement non-EGU rule is reasonable.
    \5\ EPA's regulations implementing the NOX SIP Call
are in 40 CFR 51.121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To meet NOX SIP Call requirements and conform to COMAR
26.11.40, Maryland revised regulation .07A of COMAR 26.11.14 Control of
emissions from Kraft Pulp Mills to remove the 947 ton ozone season
NOX cap that originally applied to the Luke Mill. A new
provision in COMAR 26.11.14 establishes Luke's lower NOX cap
via a cross reference to Luke's 636 ton per year cap in COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>. Regulation .07B removes the requirements for an owner or
operator of a kraft pulp mill that exceeds the emission limit(s)
specified in COMAR 26.11.14 to acquire one ozone season NOX
allowance for every ton of NOX emissions over the limits to
demonstrate compliance, and requires compliance instead to be
demonstrated with the 636 ton per year cap via a CEMs meeting 40 CFR
part 75. Maryland removed the provision for paper mills such as Luke
Mill to acquire additional NOX allowances in order for the
sources in the State to remain under Maryland's total NOX
ozone season cap for the NOX SIP Call.
    Correspondingly, Maryland also revised a provision of COMAR
26.11.01--General Administrative Provisions to remove the definition
for ``NOX ozone season allowance'' which is no longer
necessary because the revisions to COMAR 26.11.14 remove the
requirement for fuel burning equipment at Luke to purchase
NOX ozone season allowances for any exceedance over its
specified limits.
    EPA finds that this May 2018 SIP submittal meets Maryland's
NOX SIP Call requirements (including requirements in CAA
section 110 and 40 CFR 51.121) for non-EGUs through: (1) New regulation
COMAR 24.11.40 which updates the State's requirements to include all
currently applicable large non-EGUs and any new non-EGUs under the
NOX SIP Call; (2) the specified state-wide ozone season
NOX emissions cap of 1013 tons which is consistent with the
portion of the overall Maryland NOX emissions budget under
the NOX Budget Trading Program attributable to non-EGUs, and
(3) through the 40 CFR part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements which apply for the affected non-EGUs. In addition, the

revisions remove the ability of kraft pulp mills that exceed their
NOX limits and caps to comply by purchasing or otherwise
acquiring NOX allowances from EPA's ozone season
NOX trading program by removing these provisions in COMAR
26.11.14 and 26.11.01. The removal of the provisions allowing purchase
of additional allowances removes the potential for increased local
NOX emissions.
    The May 15, 2018 Maryland SIP submittal does not result in
increased NOX emissions, and therefore has no impact on any
requirements related to attainment, reasonable further progress, or any
other NAAQS requirements under the CAA. The submittal therefore meets
section 110(l) of the CAA.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of this material indicates that Maryland's May 18,
2018 SIP revision submittal (Maryland SIP Revision #18-03) is
approvable in accordance with CAA section 110. For the reasons noted
previously, EPA is proposing to approve the Maryland SIP revision
submitted on May 15, 2018. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed action, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference new Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.40 and
associated revisions to COMAR 26.11.01 and COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office
(please contact the person identified in the For Further Information
Contact section of this preamble for more information).

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 proposed 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 action proposing approval of Maryland regulation
COMAR 26.11.40 and associated revisions to other COMAR regulations 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: July 24, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-16778 Filed 8-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 34496-34498]
[DOCID:fr17jn10-120]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62288; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt NASD Rule 3210 (Short Sale
Delivery Requirements) as FINRA Rule 4320 in the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook

June 11, 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 May 21, 2010, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. On June 11,
2010, FINRA filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 was a partial amendment that makes minor
clarifications, provides additional detail and makes technical edits
to the purpose section of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 3210 (Short Sale Delivery
Requirements), with minor changes, as FINRA Rule 4320 in the
consolidated FINRA rulebook.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\4\

FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 3210 (Short Sale Delivery
Requirements), with minor changes, as FINRA Rule 4320 in the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 4, 2006, the SEC approved NASD Rule 3210, which applies
short sale delivery requirements to those equity securities not
otherwise covered by the close-out requirements of Regulation SHO. The
Regulation SHO close-out requirements apply only to the equity
securities of ``reporting'' issuers (i.e., issuers that are registered
pursuant to Section 12 of the Act \5\ or that are required to file
reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act \6\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78l.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 3210, among other things, requires participants of
registered clearing agencies to take action on failures to deliver that
exist for 13 consecutive settlement days in certain non-reporting
securities. In addition, if the fail to deliver position is not closed
out in the requisite time period, a participant of a registered
clearing agency or any broker-dealer for which it clears transactions
is prohibited from effecting further short sales in the particular
specified security without borrowing, or entering into a bona fide
arrangement to borrow, the security until the fail to deliver position
is closed out. Pursuant to NASD Rule 3210, FINRA publishes a daily
``Threshold Security List.'' \7\ The rule became effective on July 3,
2006. In adopting NASD Rule 3210, FINRA believed that the rule
represented an important step in reducing long-term fails to deliver in
this sector of the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For purposes of Rule 3210, a non-reporting threshold
security is any equity security that is not a reporting security
and, for five consecutive settlement days, has: (1) Aggregate fails
to deliver at a registered clearing agency of 10,000 shares or more;
and (2) a reported last sale during normal market hours (9:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Eastern Time (ET)) for the security on that settlement
day that would value the aggregate fail to deliver position at
$50,000 or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2009, the SEC adopted the substance of temporary Rule 204T
\8\ under Regulation SHO as a permanent rule, Rule 204 of Regulation
SHO.\9\ This rule is intended to further the goal of reducing fails to
deliver and addressing potentially abusive ``naked'' short selling in
all equity securities by requiring the delivery of securities by
settlement date or, in connection with a short sale, the immediate
purchase or borrow of such securities to close out the fail to deliver
position by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on the
following settlement day.\10\ Notwithstanding the SEC's adoption of
this new rule, proposed FINRA Rule 4320 continues to be necessary to
provide regulatory coverage for fails to deliver in non-reporting over-
the-counter equity securities that pre-exist the SEC's implementation
of temporary Rule 204T in September 2008.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58785 (Oct. 14,
2008), 73 FR 61678 (Oct. 17, 2008).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60388 (July 27,
2009), 74 FR 38266 (July 31, 2009).
    \10\ Rule 204 of Regulation SHO further provides that fails to
deliver resulting from long sales or certain bona fide market making
activity must be closed out by no later than the beginning of
regular trading hours on the third settlement day after settlement
date (i.e., T+6).
    \11\ Likewise, the SEC is retaining Rule 203(b)(3) of Regulation
SHO in order to cover pre-existing temporary Rule 204T fails in
threshold securities as defined in Rule 203(c)(6) of Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 3210 as FINRA Rule
4320 with minor changes to delete language that provided allowances for
``grandfathered'' securities during the initial implementation period
of NASD Rule 3210 and that, therefore, is no longer relevant. The
proposed rule change also clarifies, consistent with Regulation SHO,
the borrowing requirements for clearing agency participants, including
broker-dealers for which they clear transactions, that sell short non-
reporting threshold securities for which a fail to deliver position has
not been closed out in the requisite time. Specifically, if a fail to
deliver position is not closed out in accordance with Rule 4320(a), the
clearing agency participant and any broker-dealer for which it clears,
including market makers otherwise entitled to rely on the Rule
203(b)(2)(iii) exception of Regulation SHO, would not be able to short
sell the non-reporting threshold security either for itself or for the
account of another, unless it has previously arranged to borrow or
borrowed the security, until the participant closes out the fail to
deliver position by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity and
that purchase has cleared and settled at a registered clearing agency.
In addition, the rule change makes certain technical amendments to the
rule, including changing references to ``NASD'' to ``FINRA.''
    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 90 days
following Commission approval. The implementation date will be no more
than 180 days following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that adopting the proposed rules as
part of the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook continues to be necessary to
provide regulatory coverage for fails to deliver in non-reporting over-
the-counter equity securities and will continue to help reduce long-
term fails to deliver in this sector of the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA 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.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    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 Number SR-FINRA-2010-028 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2010-028. 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 FINRA.
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-FINRA-2010-028
and should be submitted on or before July 8, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14609 Filed 6-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 4862]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01428]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-492, OMB Control No. 3235-0549]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule
155.EXT

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

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 155 (17 CFR 230.155) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) provides safe harbors for a registered offering of
securities following an abandoned private offering, or a private
offering following an abandoned a registered offering, without
integrating the registered and private offerings in either case. In
connection with registered offering following an abandoned private
offering, Rule 155 requires an issuer to include in any prospectus
filed as a part of a registration statement disclosure regarding the
abandoned private offering. Similarly, the rule requires an issuer to
provide each offeree in a private offering following an abandoned
registered offering with: (1) information concerning the withdrawal of
the registration statement; (2) the fact that the private offering is
unregistered; and (3) the legal implications of the offering's
unregistered status. All information submitted to the Commission is
available to the public for review. Companies only need to satisfy the
Rule 155 information requirements if they wish to take advantage of the
rule's safe harbors. The Rule 155 information is required only on
occasion. We estimate Rule 155 takes approximately 4 hours per response
to prepare and is filed by 600 respondents annually. We estimate that
50% of the 4 hours per response (2 hours per response) is prepared by
the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 1,200 hours (2 hours
per response x 600 responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by February 24, 2023 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: January 19, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01428 Filed 1-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53536-53537]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24784]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82043; File No. SR-LCH SA-2017-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice
Relating to Wrong Way Risk Margin

November 9, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 30, 2017, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts
business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by LCH SA. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    LCH SA is proposing to amend its Reference Guide: CDS Margin
Framework (``CDSClear Margin Framework'' or ``Framework'') to adjust
the wrong way risk (``WWR'') margin component of the Framework to more
appropriately address offsets between currencies when calculating WWR
margin.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

A. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The WWR component of the Framework is designed to cover the
anticipated financial contagion effect that would arise in case of a
clearing member being declared in default. The current WWR margin
formula acknowledges offsets as between currencies by allowing offset
between WWR and right way risk (``RWR''). Specifically, a WWR currency
offset is applied as the greater of: (x) the WWR amount in Euros minus
the RWR amount in Euros, where non-Euro amounts are converted to Euros
using a foreign exchange (``FX'') rate plus or minus a haircut; and (y)
the WWR amount in Euros multiplied by 1 minus a factor, which
represents the correlation between European and U.S. financial
institutions by calculating the average historical cross correlation of
credit spreads on credit default swaps (``CDS'') in respect of all
pairs of European and U.S. financial institutions that are clearing
members. Under the current calculation, if one currency has WWR and the
other has RWR, LCH SA would compare the WWR amount as offset by the RWR
to the WWR amount as reduced by taking the correlation factor into
account and take the greater of the two. As a result, either the full
amount of RWR is considered as offsetting the WWR, or only a portion of
the WWR is taken into account without any regard to the expected amount
of RWR.
    LCH SA believes that it is appropriate to consider the offset
between the WWR amount and RWR amount but it would not be appropriate
to apply the correlation factor to discount the WWR amount while also
allowing the RWR to offset the WWR amount to its full extent. To be
conservative, LCH SA believes that it is appropriate to apply the
correlation factor to the RWR amount when using RWR to offset the WWR
amount. Accordingly, LCH SA proposes to modify the WWR currency offset
formula in the Framework to be the greater of: (i) the WWR amount in
Euros, where such amounts are converted to Euros using an FX rate plus
or minus a haircut, minus (ii) the RWR amount multiplied by the 10-year
average historical correlation of credit spreads on CDS in respect of
European and U.S. financial institutions; and zero. As of April 2016,
the 10-year average historical correlation of credit spreads on CDS in
respect of European and U.S. financial institutions was set to 48
percent.
    Under this approach, RWR would never completely offset WWR and
instead would be discounted based on the average of observed
correlations of CDS credit spreads in respect of European and U.S.
financial institutions. LCH SA believes that this change rationalizes
the WWR currency offset and results in a more conservative WWR margin
calculation.
2. Statutory Basis
    LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
\3\ (the ``Act'') and the regulations thereunder, including the
standards under Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) and (2).\4\ Specifically, in
accordance with Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F),\5\ LCH SA believes that the
proposed rule change will assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for
which it is responsible, in that the proposed rule change is designed
to rationalize the WWR currency offset and more conservatively
calculate the WWR margin with respect to a clearing member. Therefore,
LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirement of safeguarding securities and funds in Section
17(A)(b)(3)(F) of the Act and the requirements of maintaining margin
and limiting a clearing agency's exposures to potential losses from
participants' defaults under normal market conditions in Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(1) and (2).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1) and (2).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6).\7\ Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(i) and (v) require a covered clearing agency that provides
central counterparty services to cover its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, among
other things, considers and produces margin levels commensurate with,
the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product,
portfolio, and market, and uses an appropriate method for measuring
credit exposure that accounts for relevant product risk factors and
portfolio effects across products.\8\ WWR is an important risk factor
for clearing CDS products. As noted above, the proposed rule change
rationalizes the WWR currency offset and more conservatively calculates
WWR margin.

Therefore, LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\9\ LCH SA does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose burdens on
competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. While the proposed rule change may result in
higher WWR margin charges on participants, the revisions to the margin
methodology will uniformly apply across all participants. In addition,
as stated above, the proposed rule change is consistent with the
applicable requirements of the Act and is appropriate in order to more
conservatively calculate WWR margin. Therefore, LCH SA does not believe
that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by LCH SA.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate 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 or disapprove 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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-009 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-LCH SA-2017-009. 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 LCH SA and on LCH
SA's Web site at http://www.lch.com/asset-classes/cdsclear.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-009 and should
be submitted on or before December 7, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24784 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25595-25598]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0498; Product Identifier 2018-NM-013-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Airbus Model
A330-200 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A330-300 series airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of Angle of Attack (AOA)
blockages not detected by upgraded flight control primary computer
(FCPC) software standards. This proposed AD would require upgrading
certain FCPCs, which would terminate a certain airplane flight manual
revision for certain airplanes. We are proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45
80; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0498; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0498;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-013-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2017-0246R1, dated April 6, 2018 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Airbus Model A330-200 series
airplanes; and Airbus Model A330-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In 2015, occurrences were reported of multiple Angle of Attack
(AOA) blockages. Investigation results indicated the need for AOA
monitoring in order to better detect cases of AOA blockage.
    This condition, if not corrected, could, under specific
circumstances, lead to undue activation of the Alpha protection,
possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed new
FCPC software standards for enhanced AOA monitoring and,
consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0124 (later revised) [related FAA
AD 2016-25-30, Amendment 39-18756, (82 FR 1175, January 5, 2017)
(``AD 2016-25-30'')] to require these software standard upgrades.
    Since EASA AD 2015-0124R3 was issued, it was identified that,
for some cases, AOA blockages were not detected by those FCPC
software standards. Consequently, new FCPC software standards, as
specified in Table 1 of this [EASA] AD, have been developed (Airbus
modification (mod) 206412, mod 206413 and mod 206414) to further
improve the detection of AOA blockage. Airbus issued Service
Bulletin (SB) A330-27-3222 and SB A330-27-3223 to implement these
mods on in-service aeroplanes. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-
0246 to require a software standard upgrade of the three FCPCs,
either by modification or replacement.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that the
Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Emergency Procedure, as previously
required by EASA AD 2014-0267-E [related to FAA AD 2014-25-52,
Amendment 39-18066,(80 FR 3161, January 22, 2015) (``AD 2014-25-
52'')] can also be removed for other AOA sensors and FCPC
configurations. This [EASA] AD revises paragraph (2) accordingly,
also introducing Table 2 for that purpose.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0498.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information:
     Service Bulletin A330-27-3222, dated February 16, 2017.
     Service Bulletin A330-27-3223, dated June 6, 2017.
    This service information describes procedures for upgrading (by
modification or replacement, as applicable) certain FCPCs. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different airplanes in
different configurations. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Related Rulemaking

    AD 2014-25-52 applies to all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, -200,
and -300 series airplanes and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600
series airplanes. AD 2014-25-52 requires revising the airplane flight
manual to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal
Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot). For certain airplanes, accomplishing the
actions specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD would terminate
the AFM requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52.
    AD 2016-25-30 applies to all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter,
and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600
series airplanes. AD 2016-25-30 requires new FCPC software standards.
For certain airplanes, accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph
(h) of this proposed AD would terminate the requirements of paragraph
(g) of AD 2016-25-30.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 103 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification/replacement...........  3 work-hours x $85 per hour              $0            $255         $26,265
                                      = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in
our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in

air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and
procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0498; Product Identifier 2018-NM-013-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 19, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-25-52, Amendment 39-18066 (80 FR 3161,
January 22, 2015) (``AD 2014-25-52'') and AD 2016-25-30, Amendment
39-18756, (82 FR 1175, January 5, 2017) (``AD 2016-25-30'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category,
identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD; all
manufacturer serial numbers; equipped with flight control primary
computers (FCPCs) having software standard P13/M22 (hardware 2K2),
P14/M23 (hardware 2K1) or M23 (hardware 2K0), or earlier standard.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -
342, and -343 airplanes.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: The software standards
specified in paragraph (c) of this AD correspond, respectively, to
part number (P/N) LA2K2B100DG0000, P/N LA2K1A100DF0000 and P/N
LA2K01500AF0000. All affected airplanes should be equipped with this
software, as required by AD 2016-25-30.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of Angle of Attack (AOA)
blockages not detected by upgraded FCPC software standards. We are
issuing this AD to prevent Alpha protection activation due to
blocked AOA probes, which could result in reduced controllability of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definition of Groups

    Group 1 airplanes are those in pre-mod 206412, pre-mod 206413,
or pre-mod 206414 configuration, as applicable. Group 2 airplanes
are those in post-mod (206412, 206413, or 206414, as applicable)
configuration.

(h) Upgrade Flight Control Primary Computer Software

    For Group 1 airplanes: Within 12 months after the effective date
of this AD: Upgrade (by modification or replacement, as applicable)
the three FCPCs, as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k)
of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the applicable service information specified in table 1 to
paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN18.000

(i) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of AD 2014-25-52

    For airplanes with an AOA configuration as identified in figure
1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, or as identified in paragraph (m)(2)
of AD 2016-12-15, Amendment 39-18564 (81 FR 40160, June 21, 2016)
(``AD 2016-12-15''), as applicable: Accomplishing the upgrade
required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of
paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52, and the airplane flight manual (AFM)
procedure required by paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52 may be removed
from the AFM.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN18.001

(j) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of AD 2016-25-30

    Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (h) of this
AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-25-30 for
that airplane.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    Installation of any software or hardware of a version earlier
than the one listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD
is prohibited, as required by paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this
AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Group 1 airplanes: After modification of an airplane as
required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (2) For Group 2 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0246R1, dated April 6,
2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0498.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 23, 2018.
James Cashdollar,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11700 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 46344-46345]
[DOCID:fr08au08-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on May 15, 2008, vol. 73, no. 95, page 28182.
Aircraft operators seeking operational approval to conduct RVSM
operations within the 48 contiguous United States (U.S.), Alaska and a
portion of the Gulf of Mexico must submit an application to the
Certificate Holding District Office.

DATES: Please submit comments by September 8, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: FAA Research and Development Grants.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of an approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0679.
    Forms(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: An estimated 2,275 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 30 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 68,250 hours annually.
    Abstract: Aircraft operators seeking operational approval to
conduct RVSM operations within the 48 contiguous United States (U.S.),
Alaska and a portion of the Gulf of Mexico must submit an application
to the Certificate Holding District Office.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget. Comments should be addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk
Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-18088 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51575-51577]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23048]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0280; FRL-9969-89-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; 2017 Revisions to NR 400 and 406

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) to EPA on May 16, 2017. The revision replaces
the definition of ``emergency electric generator'' with a broader
definition of ``restricted internal combustion engine''. In addition,
the revision makes amendments to procedures for revoking construction
permits as well as language changes and other administrative updates.
Lastly, WDNR is removing from the SIP two Wisconsin Administrative Code
provisions that affect eligibility of coverage under general and
construction permits.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective January 8, 2018, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by December 7, 2017. 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-2017-0280 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. 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 official comment (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: Radhica Kanniganti, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Review of State Submittals
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Review of State Submittals

    This final rulemaking addresses the May 16, 2017, WDNR submittal
for SIP revision, revising the rules in the Wisconsin SIP to align them
with Federal requirements. WDNR's submittal includes changes to the
term ``electric generator'', replacing it with ``restricted internal
combustion engine'' as well as other minor language and administrative
changes. Specifically, NR 400.02(136m) replaces the existing definition
of emergency ``electric generator'' with a broader definition of
``restricted internal combustion engine'' and NR 406.04(1)(w) amends
the exemption language for ``emergency electric generators'', replacing
it with exemption for ``restricted use reciprocating internal
combustion engines''. NR 406.08(1) and NR 406.10 involve minor changes
to language, and NR 406.11(1) amends procedures for revoking
construction permits. These changes serve the purpose of aligning the
state and Federal regulations and are consistent with the Federal
program. WDNR is also requesting the removal of two provisions from the
SIP. NR 406.16(2)(d) and NR 406.17(3)(e) affect the eligibility of
coverage under general and registration construction permits based on
whether the project constituted a Type 2 action under the previous ch.
NR 150. However, the current ch. NR 150 was amended and no longer
defines or sets requirements for Type 2 actions. Removing these
provisions from Wisconsin's SIP ensures consistency with Wisconsin
Environmental Protection Act (WEPA)

laws and does not affect consistency with the CAA. It is also
consistent with Section 110(l) of the CAA. Sources covered under
registration and general permits are still subject to all emission caps
and applicable requirements set out in those permits.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving revisions to Wisconsin's rules NR 400 and NR 406.
EPA finds WDNR's submittal to be consistent with the CAA and applicable
Federal requirements. WDNR's May 16, 2017, submittal requests that EPA
approve the following rules into Wisconsin's SIP: (1) NR 400.02(136m),
NR 406.04(1)(w), NR 406.08(1), NR 406.10 and NR 406.11(1). The
submittal also requests removal of NR 406.16(2)(d) and NR 406.17(3)(e)
from the SIP.
    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 January 8, 2018
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by December 7, 2017. 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
January 8, 2018.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Wisconsin
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region
5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     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).
    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 January 8, 2018. 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 this 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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: October 6, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting 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. Section 52.2570 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(113)(i)(D) and
by adding paragraph (c)(137) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2570   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (113) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) NR 400.02(73m) and (131m), 406.02(1) and (2), 406.04(2m), NR
406.11(1)(g)(1), 406.11(3), 406.16, 406.17, 406.18, 407.02(3m),
407.105, 407.107, 407.14 Note, 407.14(4)(c), 407.15(8)(a) and
410.03(1)(a)(6) and (7) as created and published in the (Wisconsin)
Register, August 2005, No. 596, effective September 1, 2005. Sections
NR 406.16(2)(d) and NR 406.17(3)(e) were repealed in 2015 and are
removed without replacement; see paragraph (c)(137) of this section.
* * * * *
    (137) On May 16, 2017, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources submitted a request to revise Wisconsin's air permitting
rules NR 400.02(136m), NR 406.04(1)(w), NR 406.08(1), NR 406.10 and NR
406.11(1). These revisions replace the existing definition of
``emergency electric generator'' with a broader definition of
``restricted internal combustion engine'', amend procedures for
revoking construction permits and include minor language changes and
other administrative updates to ensure consistency with State and
Federal regulations. Wisconsin has also requested to remove from the
SIP NR 406.16(2)(d) and NR 406.17(3)(e), provisions affecting
eligibility of coverage under general and registration construction
permits, previously approved in paragraph (c)(113) of this section.
This action ensures consistency with Wisconsin Environmental Protection
Act (WEPA) laws.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 400.02(136m) as published in
the Wisconsin Administrative Register November 2015 No. 719A1,
effective December 1, 2015.
    (B) Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 406.04(1)(w), NR 406.08(1),
NR 406.10 and NR 406.11(1) as published in the Wisconsin Administrative
Register November 2015 No. 719A1, effective December 1, 2015.
    (ii) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2017-23048 Filed 11-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47943-47945]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2015-0018: OMB No. 1660-0024]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Federal Assistance for Offsite Radiological Emergency
Preparedness and Planning

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice seeks comments concerning revising a currently approved
information collection to incorporate existing information collections
in use without an OMB control number representing all information
collections related to FEMA Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program
requirements described in 44 CFR parts 350 and 352.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2015-0018. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schafer, Chief, Engineering and
Technology Section, Professional Services and Integration,
Technological Hazards Division, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may contact the
Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of
information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA's Radiological Emergency Preparedness
(REP) Program coordinates the national effort to provide State, Tribal
and local governments with relevant and executable planning, training,
and exercise guidance and policies necessary to ensure that adequate
capabilities exist to prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects
of, respond to, and recover from incidents involving commercial nuclear
power plants (NPPs).
    The REP Program assists State, Tribal and local governments in the
development and conduct of off-site REP emergency planning and
preparedness activities within the emergency planning zones (EPZs) of
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed commercial nuclear power
facilities.
    Sec. 109 of the NRC Authorization Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-295)
directed the NRC to establish emergency preparedness as a criterion for
licensing commercial NPPs. Specifically, section 109 of Public Law 96-
295 directed the NRC to establish through rulemaking, (a) standards,
developed with FEMA, for the evaluation of State and local government
radiological emergency planning and preparedness; and (b) a requirement
that the NRC will issue operating licenses. Before issuing a license
the NRC also must determine that there is (i) a State or local
emergency response plan compliant with the standards developed with
FEMA or (ii) in the absence of such a plan, a State, local, or utility
emergency response plan that provides reasonable assurance that public
health and safety is not endangered by the NPP's operation. See Public
Law 96-295, Sec.  109(b)(1)(A)-(B)). The NRC revised its regulations in
Part 50 of Title 10 of the CFR to incorporate additional emergency
preparedness requirements, including 16 planning standards for onsite
and offsite emergency plans as required by PL 96-295. FEMA mirrors
these 16 planning standards in part 350, specifically at 44 CFR 350.5.
    In the communities surrounding commercial NPPs, 44 CFR 350.5(b)
directs FEMA's REP Program to review offsite radiological emergency
plans and preparedness. Approved plans and preparedness ``must be
determined to adequately protect the public health and safety by
providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can
be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency.''
    FEMA defines reasonable assurance as a determination that State,
Tribal, local, and utility offsite plans and preparedness are adequate
to protect public health and safety in the emergency planning areas of
commercial NPPs. FEMA will consider plans, procedures, personnel,
training, facilities, equipment, drills, and exercises, which in its
professional judgment are important to the effective implementation of
protective measures offsite in the event or any incident at a
commercial NPP. FEMA will make its adequacy determination, supported by
other Federal agencies, as necessary, by conducting inspections,
providing Staff Assistance Visits (SAVs), organizing, conducting and
reviewing training, participating in, observing and evaluating drills
and exercises, and by being an engaged partner with Federal, State,
Tribal, and local government officials and industry stakeholders.
    State, Tribal, or local government participation in offsite
radiological emergency planning and preparedness is voluntary. However,
participation in the REP planning and preparedness process necessitates
adherence to the program requirements as set forth in 44 CFR part 350,
the joint NRC/FEMA document NUREG-0645/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, ``Criteria
for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans
and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants'' (and
supplements), and the REP Program Manual (RPM). If State, Tribal, or
local governments choose not to participate in REP planning, 44 CFR
part 352 outlines the licensee's obligation to develop offsite plans/
procedures to protect the public health and safety in accordance with
the requirements in Executive Order 12657, as amended.

Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Assistance for Offsite Radiological Emergency
Preparedness and Planning.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0024.
    FEMA Forms: There are no forms. There are no forms for this
collection; rather the regulatory text details the content in which
information is transmitted to FEMA.
    Abstract: The intent of this request is to revise a currently
approved information collection to incorporate existing information
collections in use without an OMB control number representing all
information collections related to FEMA REP Program requirements
described in 44 CFR parts 350 and 352. Currently, only the 44 CFR part
352 collections is included under OMB Control #1660-0024.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government; and business
and other for profits.
    Number of Respondents: 153.
    Number of Responses: 153.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,321.
    Estimated Cost: $216,219.98.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: July 31, 2015.
Janice Waller,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2015-19591 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-21-P