[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25315-25318]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11322]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85944; File No. SR-FICC-2019-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the GSD and MBSD
Methodology Documents and the MBSD Clearing Rules

May 24, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On April 5, 2019, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ proposed rule change SR-
FICC-2019-001. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on April 23, 2019.\3\ The Commission did not
receive any comment letters on the proposed rule change. For the
reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85676 (April 17, 2019),
84 FR 16921 (April 23, 2019) (SR-FICC-2019-001) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the
meaning assigned to such terms in the FICC Government Securities
Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``GSD Rules'') and the FICC Mortgage-
Backed Securities Division (``MBSD,'' and together with GSD, the
``Divisions'') Clearing Rules (``MBSD Rules''), as applicable,
available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC proposes to amend the GSD Methodology Document--GSD Initial
Market Risk Margin Model (``GSD QRM Methodology Document'') \5\ and the
MBSD Methodology and Model Operations Document--MBSD

Quantitative Risk Model \6\ (``MBSD QRM Methodology Document,'' and
together with the GSD QRM Methodology Document, the ``QRM Methodology
Documents'' \7\) to (i) modify the look-back periods for the Margin
Proxy of GSD and MBSD,\8\ and the GSD Haircut Rates, (ii) make
clarifications, corrections, and technical changes to the GSD QRM
Methodology Document, and (iii) make clarification and technical
changes to the MBSD QRM Methodology Document. FICC also proposes to
make clarifying changes to the MBSD Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FICC filed the GSD QRM Methodology Document as a
confidential exhibit in the rule filing and advance notice for GSD
sensitivity VaR. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83362 (June
1, 2018), 83 FR 26514 (June 7, 2018) (SR-FICC-2018-001) (``GSD
Approval Order'') and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83223 (May
11, 2018), 83 FR 23020 (May 17, 2018) (SR-FICC-2018-801) (``GSD
Advance Notice'').
    \6\ FICC filed the MBSD QRM Methodology Document as a
confidential exhibit in the rule filing and advance notice for MBSD
sensitivity VaR. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79868
(January 24, 2017), 82 FR 8780 (January 30, 2017) (SR-FICC-2016-007)
(``MBSD Approval Order'') and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
79843 (January 19, 2017), 82 FR 8555 (January 26, 2017) (SR-FICC-
2016-801) (``MBSD Advance Notice'').
    \7\ FICC requested confidential treatment of the QRM Methodology
Documents and has filed them separately with the Secretary of the
Commission. See 17 CFR 240-24b-2.
    \8\ FICC has adopted procedures that would govern in the event
that the vendor fails to provide risk analytics data used by FICC to
calculate the VaR Charge (which is defined in GSD Rule 1 and MBSD
Rule 1). Supra note 4. These procedures include the application of
the Margin Proxy. Specifically, each Division's Margin Proxy would
be applied as an alternative volatility calculation for the VaR
Charge (subject to the VaR Floor) if FICC determines that the data
disruption will extend beyond five (5) business days. For more
detailed and complete information about the GSD and the MBSD Margin
Proxy, see GSD Approval Order and MBSD Approval Order, supra notes 5
and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Replacing Specific References to the Look-Back Periods for the
Margin Proxy of GSD and MBSD and the GSD Haircut Rates With More
General Language in the QRM Methodology Documents

    FICC is proposing to amend the QRM Methodology Documents to remove
the specific references to the current look-back periods in use and
replace them with general language that would (i) refer to a monthly
parameter report, (ii) state that the look-back period would not be
less than one year, and (iii) specify the governance around changing
the look-back periods.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Notice, supra note 3, at 16922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The QRM Methodology Documents provide the methodology by which FICC
calculates the GSD and MBSD VaR Charges.\10\ Specifically, the QRM
Methodology Documents specify model inputs, parameters, and
assumptions, among other information.\11\ With respect to the Margin
Proxy, which is an alternative volatility calculation of GSD and MBSD,
each of the QRM Methodology Documents refers to specific look-back
periods, which are in use today.\12\ Similarly, the GSD QRM Methodology
Document refers to the specific look-back periods for the two haircut
rates that form the basis of the GSD haircut charge.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id. FICC states that, occasionally, portfolios contain
classes of securities that reflect market price changes that are not
consistently related to historical risk factors. FICC further states
that the value of these securities is often uncertain because the
securities' market volume varies widely, thus the price histories
are limited. Because the volume and price information for such
securities is not robust, a historical simulation approach would not
generate VaR Charge amounts that adequately reflect the risk profile
of such securities. FICC utilizes a haircut method (hereinafter
referred to as the ``GSD haircut charge'') based on the volatility
of historic index returns for any security that lacks sufficient
historical data to be incorporated into the sensitivity approach.
See GSD Approval Order and MBSD Approval Order, supra notes 5 and 6.
The GSD haircut charge consists of two haircut rates: (i) The
haircut rate for mortgage-backed securities (``MBS'') pools without
sensitivity analytics data and (ii) the haircut rate for Treasury
and Agency bonds without sensitivity analytics data (hereinafter,
the ``GSD Haircut Rates''). The proposal applies to the look-back
periods for the GSD Haircut Rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, if FICC observes material differences between the Margin
Proxy calculations and the aggregate Clearing Fund requirement
calculated using the proposed VaR model (i.e., the sensitivity
approach), or if the Margin Proxy's backtesting results do not meet
FICC's 99 percent confidence level, management may recommend remedial
actions to the Model Risk Governance Committee (``MRGC''), and to the
extent necessary the Management Risk Committee (``MRC''), such as
increasing the look-back period and/or applying an appropriate
historical stressed period to the Margin Proxy calibration.\14\ In
addition, the GSD Rules provide that the Margin Proxy shall cover such
range of historical market price moves and parameters as FICC from time
to time deems appropriate.\15\ With respect to the GSD haircut charge,
the GSD QRM Methodology Document provides that certain key model
parameters, including the look-back periods for the GSD Haircut Rates,
are subject to periodic review and recalibration.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Notice, supra note 3, at 16922; see Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 82588 (January 26, 2018), 83 FR 4687, 4692 (February 1,
2018) (SR-FICC-2018-001) (``Notice of GSD Rule Filing''); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 79491 (December 7, 2016), 81 FR 90001,
90005 (December 13, 2016) (SR-FICC-2016-007) (``Notice of MBSD Rule
Filing''); MBSD Approval Order, supra note 6, at 8782-8783.
    \15\ GSD Rules, Rule 1--Definitions, supra note 4.
    \16\ Notice, supra note 3, at 16922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, the QRM Methodology Documents would provide
that the look-back periods for the Margin Proxy and the two GSD Haircut
Rates would be tracked in a monthly parameter report. The QRM
Methodology Documents would also provide that these look-back periods
shall not be less than one year. Finally, the QRM Methodology Documents
would state that any changes to these look-back periods would be
subject to the governance process set forth in the Clearing Agency
Model Risk Management Framework (the ``Framework'').\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.; see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81485 (August
25, 2017), 82 FR 41433 (August 31, 2017) (SR-DTC-2017-008; SR-FICC-
2017-014; SR-NSCC-2017-008) (``Framework Approval Order''). In
general, the Framework describes the model risk management practices
adopted by FICC, National Securities Clearing Corporation, and The
Depository Trust Company. FICC states that the Framework is designed
to help identify, measure, monitor, and manage the risks associated
with the design, development, implementation, use, and validation of
quantitative models. The Framework describes (i) governance of the
Framework; (ii) key terms; (iii) model inventory procedures; (iv)
model validation procedures; (v) model approval process; and (vi)
model performance procedures. Framework Approval Order, at 41435.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Framework provides that the Model Validation and Control Group
(``MVC'') prepares Model performance monitoring reports on both a
monthly and daily basis.\18\ On a monthly basis, MVC (i) performs
sensitivity analysis on each of FICC's Models,\19\ (ii) reviews key
parameters and assumptions for backtesting, and (iii) considers
modifications to ensure that the backtesting practices of FICC are
appropriate for determining the adequacy of its applicable margin
resources.\20\ The Framework states that MRGC will review the Model
performance monitoring, which includes review of risk-based Models used
to calculate margin requirements and relevant parameters/threshold
indicators, sensitivity analysis, and Model backtesting results, and
serious performance concerns will be escalated to the MRC.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Notice, supra note 3, at 16922.
    \19\ Id. The term ``Model'' refers to a quantitative method,
system, or approach that applies statistical, economic, financial,
or mathematical theories, techniques, and assumptions to process
input data into quantitative estimates. Framework Approval Order,
supra note 17, at 41433.
    \20\ Notice, supra note 3, at 16922; Framework Approval Order,
supra note 17, at 41435.
    \21\ Notice, supra note 3, at 16922; Framework Approval Order,
supra note 17, at 41435.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clarifications, Corrections, and Technical Changes to the GSD QRM
Methodology Document

    First, FICC would make certain clarifications to the GSD QRM
Methodology Document.\22\ In the section of the GSD QRM Methodology
Document that describes key parameters (where the look-back periods are
currently listed), FICC proposes to

rearrange the list so that the look-back periods associated with
sensitivity VaR are grouped together and the look-back periods for GSD
Haircut Rates are grouped together.\23\ FICC also proposes to add sub-
headings to enhance readability and clarity.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Notice, supra note 3, at 16923.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in the section of the GSD QRM Methodology Document
that describes key parameters, FICC would amend the language describing
the GSD Haircut Rates to correspond to the language used in later
sections for clarity and consistency.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the GSD QRM Methodology Document references the governance
practice regarding the review and recalibration of the look-back
periods, FICC also proposes to specifically reference the
Framework.\26\ FICC would provide additional clarity by adding language
describing types of data that would be used to determine key model
parameters.\27\ FICC would also clarify the GSD QRM Methodology
Document by adding language stating that management may implement any
approved changes by MRGC or MRC.\28\ Currently, the GSD QRM Methodology
Document states that if the Margin Proxy's backtesting results do not
meet FICC's 99 percent confidence level, management may recommend
remedial actions to MRGC, and to the extent necessary the MRC, such as
increasing the look-back period and/or applying an appropriate
historical stressed period to the Margin Proxy calibration.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Notice, supra note 3, at 16922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the descriptions of some of the GSD Haircut Rates,
FICC would add clarifying terminology and delete duplicative
explanations and replace them with a cross-reference to the appendix,
which contains the same explanation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Notice, supra note 3, at 16923.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, FICC proposes to make certain corrections to the GSD QRM
Methodology Document.\31\ FICC would correct a typographical error in
the description of key parameters by revising a reference from MBSD to
MBS.\32\ In addition, to correct what FICC states is an omission in the
GSD QRM Methodology Document, FICC would add that if FICC observes
material differences between the Margin Proxy calculations and the
aggregate Clearing Fund requirement calculated using the VaR model,
management may recommend remedial actions (as was stated in the GSD
sensitivity VaR rule filing).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FICC proposes to make certain technical changes (e.g.,
word usage, spacing corrections, grammar changes, and revising certain
references from singular to plural) to the GSD QRM Methodology
Document.\34\ For example, for consistency, FICC proposes to revise a
reference from ``window'' to ``period'' in the description of key
parameters and all references from ``lookback'' to ``look-back'' and
from ``TBA/pool'' to ``Pool-TBA.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Clarification and Technical Changes to the MBSD QRM Methodology
Document

    FICC proposes to clarify the MBSD QRM Methodology Document by
adding language stating that management may implement any approved
changes by MRGC or MRC.\36\ Currently, the MBSD QRM Methodology
Document states that if FICC observes material differences between the
Margin Proxy calculations and the aggregate Clearing Fund requirement
calculated using the VaR model, or the Margin Proxy's backtesting
results do not meet FICC's 99 percent confidence level, management may
recommend remedial actions to the MRGC, and to the extent necessary the
MRC, such as increasing the look-back period and/or applying an
appropriate historical stressed period to the Margin Proxy
calibration.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Notice, supra note 3, at 16922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FICC proposes to make certain technical changes to the
MBSD QRM Methodology Document (e.g., grammar changes and revising
certain references from singular to plural).\38\ FICC would also revise
a reference from ``lookback'' to ``look-back'' for consistency.\39\
FICC would remove the revision history because it is solely
administrative and would not affect the calculation of margin or
Clearing Members' substantive rights or obligations.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Notice, supra note 3, at 16923.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Clarifications to the MBSD Rules

    FICC proposes to make certain clarifications to the MBSD Rules.\41\
Specifically, FICC would add a definition of ``Margin Proxy'' and use
such term in the definition of ``VaR Charge.'' \42\ In addition, FICC
would clarify the definition of ``VaR Charge'' in the MBSD Rules by
adding the word ``Clearing'' before the word ``Members.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \44\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. After carefully considering the proposed rule
change, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to FICC. In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) \45\ of the Act and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii)
thereunder.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \46\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of a clearing agency be designed ``to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the
clearing agency or for which it is responsible.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, as described above in Section II.A., the proposed rule
change would amend the QRM Methodology Documents to remove specific
references (and explanations relating thereto) to the look-back periods
for (1) the Margin Proxy of GSD and MBSD and (2) the two GSD Haircut
Rates, and replace them with more general language. The proposed rule
change would state that the specific look-back periods would be tracked
in the monthly parameter report, any changes to the look-back periods
would not be less than one year, and any changes would be subject to
the governance process set forth in the Framework.\48\ The Commission
believes that such change, which is subject to the minimum look-back
period and the governance process, would help FICC to better cover its
credit exposures to its Members because the changes would help FICC to
more accurately adjust the look-back periods under the following
circumstances:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Notice, supra note 3, at 16922; Framework Approval Order,
supra note 17.

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

     When FICC observes material differences between the Margin
Proxy calculations and the aggregate Clearing Fund requirement
calculated using the VaR model;
     when the Margin Proxy's backtesting results do not meet
FICC's 99 percent confidence level; or
     when FICC observes that the asset class backtesting
performance associated with the GSD Haircut Rates is not at the 99
percent confidence level.
    The Commission believes that the changes would help enhance FICC's
ability to calculate and collect adequate margin from its Clearing
Members and Netting Members, and in turn, better manage the risks
associated with losses arising from member defaults, protecting non-
defaulting Clearing Members and Netting Members from such losses.
Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposed rule changes to
the look-back periods would allow FICC to effectively cover its losses,
and assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of FICC or for which it is responsible, consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, as described above in Sections II.B. and II.C., the
proposed rule change would clarify, correct, and technically change the
GSD QRM Methodology Document, and clarify and technically change the
MBSD QRM Methodology Document to state how FICC would calculate the
components of the margin calculation. The Commission believes that the
changes described in Sections II.B. and II.C. would help enhance the
clarity of the QRM Methodology Documents for FICC. FICC states that the
QRM Methodology Documents are used by FICC Risk Management personnel to
calculate margin requirements. Accordingly, helping to enhance the
clarity of the QRM Methodology Documents would help FICC Risk
Management personnel to accurately understand and implement the
margining process, charge an appropriate level of margin, and in turn,
allow FICC to better manage its risks from loss events. Therefore, the
Commission believes that the changes described in Sections II.B. and
II.C. would assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are
in the custody or control of FICC or for which it is responsible,
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, as described in Section II.D., the proposed rule change
would add and clarify certain definitions. The Commission believes that
the proposed clarifications to Rule 1 of the MBSD Rules would help
ensure that the calculation of margin is clear and transparent to
Clearing Members and FICC, and thereby help ensure that FICC calculates
and collects adequate margin from Clearing Members, and that Clearing
Members understand the relevant definition. Therefore, the Commission
believes that the proposed clarifications to Rule 1 of the MBSD Rules
would also assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in
the custody and control of FICC or for which it is responsible,
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act requires that a covered
clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide sufficient
information to enable participants to identify and evaluate the risks,
fees, and other material costs they incur by participating in the
covered clearing agency.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above in Section II.D., the proposal would help to
clarify Rule 1 of the MBSD Rules, which in turn, would help ensure that
the calculation of margin is transparent and clear to Clearing Members,
thereby enabling Clearing Members to better understand the calculation
of margin, as well as providing them with increased predictability and
certainty regarding their obligations. As such, the Commission believes
that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
\54\ and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\55\ that proposed rule change SR-FICC-2019-001, be, and hereby is,
APPROVED.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \56\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \57\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\57\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11322 Filed 5-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                             National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 2000 Traverwood Drive                                  Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-2498

September 24, 2020

MEMORANDUM

             SUBJECT:	Meeting with National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) Mobile Sources and Fuels Committee -- August 25, 2020

             FROM:	Bryan Manning, General Engineer               	Assessment and Standards Division              Office of Transportation and Air Quality              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

TO:	Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0276

On August 25, 2020, representatives from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) Mobile Sources and Fuels Committee met via conference call with a representative of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the subject of the recently proposed rulemaking for airplane greenhouse gas emission standards.  A list of attendees is provided below.  The EPA presented a summary of the proposed rulemaking during this meeting, and the presentation is attached.

The meeting attendees included:

EPA  Bryan Manning        NACAA Nancy Kruger (Deputy Director) NACAA Headquarters representatives (names of individual representatives were not provided)

NACAA Member Agencies (names of agency representatives were not provided)  Alabama California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Illinois Maine Maryland Michigan Minnesota Nebraska Nevada New York Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Washington Wisconsin Clark County, NV Louisville, KY Maricopa County, AZ Mecklenburg County, NC Placer County, CA

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association Representatives (names of individual representatives were not provided)

Attachments:   EPA presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25086-25087]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11729]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33109]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

May 25, 2018.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of May
2018. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's
website by searching for the file number, or for

an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each
application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing.
    Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by
writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the
relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail.
Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on June 19,
2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in
the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Davis, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; SEC, Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-8010.

Alpine Equity Trust [File No. 811-05684]

Alpine Income Trust [File No. 811-21210]

Alpine Series Trust [File No. 811-10405]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. Applicants transferred their assets to the
Aberdeen Funds and, on May 7, 2018, made final distributions to their
shareholders based on net asset value. Aggregate expenses of $704,589
incurred in connection with the reorganizations were paid by the
applicants' investment adviser and the acquiring funds' investment
adviser.
    Filing Dates: The applications were filed on May 11, 2018, and
amended on May 23, 2018.
    Applicants' Addresses: 2500 Westchester Avenue, Suite 215,
Purchase, New York 10577.

Bond Portfolio II [File No. 811-23008]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 21, 2016, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
No expenses were incurred in connection with the liquidation.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 5, 2017, and amended
on May 1, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: Two International Place, Boston, Massachusetts
02110.

Compass Strategic Investments Fund [File No. 811-09021]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering. Applicant will continue to operate in reliance
on Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act, or another applicable
exclusion or exemption.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on April 5, 2018, and
amended on May 18, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: MIO Partners, Inc, 245 Park Avenue, 13th
Floor, New York, New York 10167.

Partners Income Fund [File No. 811-06708]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant
has transferred its assets to Compass Special Situations Fund LLC, and,
on November 1, 2006, made a final distribution to its shareholders
based on net asset value. Expenses of $42,065 incurred in connection
with the reorganization were paid by the acquiring fund.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on April 5, 2018, and
amended on May 18, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: MIO Partners, Inc, 245 Park Avenue, 13th
Floor, New York, New York 10167.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11729 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 44306-44307]
[DOCID:fr28jy10-137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 223: Airport Surface
Wireless Communications

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 223: Airport Surface Wireless
Communications meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 223: Airport Surface Wireless
Communications.

DATES: The meeting will be held August 17-18, 2010 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the NASA Glenn Research Center,
21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, OH 44135, Host: Jim Budinger--(Office)
216-443-3496: (Mobile)<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Notes

     Please confirm attendance via SC-223 Workspace link by COB
Friday 13 August 2010. If you receive an Outlook Meeting Invitation,
please reply to that as well. The list of acceptances will be used to
generate the Official NASA Visitors Request Form for preparation of
badges. Your access to the meeting location will be delayed
significantly if your visit is not pre-authorized.
     If you would like to attend but are not a U.S. citizen and
have not already provided your personal information to NASA, please
contact Jim Budinger.
     Please See SC-223 Workspace for lodging options and
detailed directions around the NASA main gate during construction.
     Please allow up to 20 minutes for badging and driving to
the meeting locations on both days. No escort will be needed for U.S.
citizens.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a RTCA Special Committee 223: Airport Surface
Wireless Communications meeting. The agenda will include:

Tuesday, August 17, 2010--Building 54 Room 101

     0900 a.m.--Opening Plenary.
     Welcome, Introductions, Administrative Remarks, Approve/
Review Meeting 4 Summary, RTCA Paper No. 099-10/SC223-009).
     Welcome from NASA Glenn Research Center Management: Dr.
Gary Seng.
     Special Committee Leadership.
     Designated Federal Official (DFO): Mr. Brent Phillips.
     Co-Chair: Mr. Aloke Roy, Honeywell International.
     Co-Chair: Mr. Ward Hall, ITT Corporation.
     0915 a.m.--Agenda Overview.
     Fill out lunch orders.
     0930 a.m.--AeroMACS Profile Working Group Status (Mr. Art
Ahrens).
     0940 a.m.--AeroMACS User Services & Applications Ad-Hoc
Working Group Status (Mr. Chris Wargo).
     0950 a.m.--4th Plenary meeting action item status.

     1010 a.m.--Break.
     1020 a.m.--Status of AeroMACS planning within FAA--Mr.
Brent Phillips.
     1030 a.m.--EUROCONTROL/EUROCAE WG-82 status and inputs--
Mr. Luc Lommaert.
     1100 a.m.--NASA GRC C-band interference modeling and
simulation results--Dr. Jeffrey Wilson.
     1115 a.m.--Ohio University grant findings and
recommendations--Dr. David Matolak.
     1135 a.m.--Proposed additional topics.
     Lunch 1200 p.m.--(brought in to B54-R101).

Profiles WG Breakout Session

     1230 p.m.--Technical work on AeroMACS Profile (Mr. Art
Ahrens).
     1300 p.m.--WiMAX Forum perspective and guidance (Mr.
Edward Agis, Certification Working Group Chair, WiMAX Forum).

User Services & Applications (USAS) Breakout Session

     1330 p.m.--User services and applications definition (Mr.
Chris Wargo).
     1700 p.m.--Adjourn.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010--(Note: Different Location)

AeroMACS Testing and Demonstrations--Building 110 Room 313

     Fill out lunch orders.
     0900 a.m.--Overview of AeroMACS test and evaluation
results summary--Mr. Ward Hall.
     0930 a.m.--Selected AeroMACS fixed and mobile services
presentations/demonstrations.
     Lunch 1230 p.m. (brought in to Building 54-Room 101).

Reconvene Plenary--Building 54 Room 101

     1300 p.m.--Profiles WG Status Report and Plenary Guidance.
     1330 p.m.--USAS WG Status Report and Plenary Guidance.
     1400 p.m.--Establish Agenda for joint plenary meeting in
Brussels Belgium 28-30 September 2010.
     1410 p.m.--Establish Agenda for joint plenary meeting for
AeroMACS MOPS in Washington DC.
     1420 p.m.--Review of Meeting summary report.
     1500 p.m.--Adjourn.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2010.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-18477 Filed 7-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 247 (Thursday, December 26, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70913-70916]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27765]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0513; FRL-10003-57-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Transport State Implementation
Plan for the 2008 Ozone Standard

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 Connecticut that addresses the interstate transport of air
pollution requirements of the Clean Air Act for the 2008 ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (i.e., ozone transport SIP). The
intended effect of this action is to propose approval of the transport
SIP as a revision to the Connecticut SIP. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2019-0513 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the 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. The 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1684, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Submittal
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 15, 2015, the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of an interstate transport SIP for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This interstate transport SIP, which we are
herein proposing to approve, was submitted to address the
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act).
    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the level of the primary ozone
standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm, based on a three-year average of
the annual

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average. See 73 FR 16436. Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to address a new or
revised NAAQS within three years after promulgation of a standard, or
within a shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists
the elements that new SIPs must address, as applicable, including
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to interstate transport of
certain emissions.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four elements related to the
evaluation of impacts of interstate transport of air pollutants; in
this rulemaking, we are addressing the first two elements; EPA
addressed all other infrastructure SIP elements under section 110(a)(2)
for Connecticut for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in separate
rulemakings.\1\ Specifically, the portions that we are proposing to
approve pertain to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): (1) Significant
contribution to nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS in any other state
(commonly called ``prong 1''); and (2) interference with maintenance of
the ozone NAAQS (commonly called ``prong 2'') by any other state. These
two provisions (or ``prongs'') are commonly referred to as the ``good
neighbor'' provisions of the CAA. The first provision requires that a
state's SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate measures to
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in the state
from emitting pollutants in amounts that will ``contribute
significantly'' to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state. The
second provision requires that a state's SIP prohibit any source or
other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting pollutants
in amounts that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable
NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 80 FR 54471 (September 10, 2015); 81 FR 35636 (June 3,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA's Analysis Related to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS

    EPA developed technical information and related analyses to assist
states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through SIPs and, as appropriate, to provide
backstop federal implementation plans (FIPs) in the event that states
failed to submit approvable SIPs.\2\ On October 26, 2016, EPA took
steps to develop this backstop role with respect to eastern states \3\
by finalizing an update to the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(2011 CSAPR) ozone-season program that addresses good neighbor
obligations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\4\ The
CSAPR Update established statewide nitrogen oxides (NOX)
budgets for certain affected electricity generating units (EGUs) in 22
eastern states for the May through September ozone season to reduce the
interstate transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States,
and, thereby, help downwind states and communities meet and maintain
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74506. The rule also determined
that emissions from 14 states (including Connecticut) would not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states. Accordingly, EPA determined
that it did not need to require further emission reductions from
sources in those states to address the good neighbor provision as to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability on August 4,
2015, requesting comment on the modeling platform and air quality
modeling results that were used for the proposed Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update. See 80 FR 46271.
    \3\ For purposes of the CSAPR Update, ``eastern'' states refer
to all contiguous states fully east of the Rocky Mountains (thus not
including the mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, or New
Mexico).
    \4\ See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals,
Final Rule (2011 CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update),
81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303 (D.C.
Cir. 2019) upheld certain aspects of the CSAPR Update and remanded
others to EPA but did not vacate the rule. Our proposed approval of
Connecticut's Transport SIP relies in part on EPA's finding in the
CSAPR Update that emissions from Connecticut do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in any downwind state. See 84 FR at 40346-47 (citing 81 FR
at 74506). No party challenged that aspect of the CSAPR Update and
nothing in the court's opinion overturned that finding or called it
into doubt. Consequently, Wisconsin does not impact EPA's reliance on
the finding in the CSAPR Update to support approval of Connecticut's
Transport SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    The CSAPR Update used the same framework that was used by EPA in
developing 2011 CSAPR.\5\ Through several previous rulemakings,\6\ EPA,
working in partnership with states, established a four-step interstate-
transport framework to address the requirements of the ``good
neighbor'' provision for the ozone NAAQS.\7\ The four steps are: Step
1--identify downwind receptors that are expected to have problems
attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; step 2--determine which upwind
states contribute enough to these identified downwind air quality
problems to warrant further review and analysis; step 3--identify the
emissions reductions necessary to prevent an identified upwind state
from contributing significantly to those downwind air quality problems;
and step 4--adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Key elements of the four-step interstate transport framework
have been upheld by the Supreme Court in EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489 (2014).
    \6\ NOX SIP Call. 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005); Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 75 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); and
CSAPR Update. 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
    \7\ The four-step interstate framework has also been used to
address requirements of the good neighbor provision for some
previous particulate matter (PM) NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To apply the first and second steps of the four-step interstate-
transport framework to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA evaluated modeling
projections for air-quality monitoring sites in 2017 and considered
current (at the time) ozone monitoring data at these sites to identify
receptors \8\ anticipated to have problems attaining or maintaining the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Next, EPA used air-quality modeling to assess
contributions from upwind states to these downwind receptors and
evaluated the contributions relative to a screening threshold of one
percent (1%) of the 2008 NAAQS (i.e., 0.75 parts per billion (ppb)).
States with contributions that equaled or exceeded the 1% threshold
were identified as warranting further analysis for ``significant
contribution to nonattainment'' or ``interference with maintenance'' of
the NAAQS. In the CSAPR Update, EPA found that Connecticut did not
contribute at or above the 1% threshold to any downwind nonattainment
or maintenance receptor. See 81 FR 74506. Therefore, EPA did not issue
FIP requirements for sources in Connecticut

as part of CSAPR Update. See id. at 74553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Within the CSAPR framework, the term ``receptor'' indicates
a monitoring site. Under CSAPR Update, nonattainment receptors are
downwind monitoring sites that are projected to have an average
design value that exceed the NAAQS and that have a current monitored
design value above the NAAQS, while maintenance receptors are
downwind monitoring sites that are projected to have maximum design
values that exceed the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Submittal

    On December 28, 2012, CT DEEP submitted most of its infrastructure
SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to EPA. On June 3, 2016, EPA fully
approved most, and conditionally approved some portions, of that
submittal. See 81 FR 35636. However, that submittal did not include the
``good neighbor'' provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On June 15,
2015, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision to address this unmet SIP
obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In today's action, we are
proposing to approve that submittal.
    In its June 2015 submittal, Connecticut examined the results of
EPA's transport modeling for 2017 and ambient monitoring data at key
downwind sites to demonstrate that the state meets its good neighbor
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. CT DEEP referenced modeling
results for EPA's 2011 CSAPR, which showed that emissions from
Connecticut were projected to have a maximum impact in 2018 of 0.41 ppb
at the monitor in Suffolk County, NY, with impacts at all other
monitors of concern being 0.08 ppb or less, well below the 1% screening
threshold of 0.75 ppb for the 2008 NAAQS.
    EPA's August 2016 CSAPR Update Modeling TSD also projected the
largest contributions of emissions from Connecticut to nonattainment
and maintenance receptors at well below the threshold of 1% of the
NAAQS. Specifically, this modeling indicated that Connecticut's largest
impact on any projected downwind nonattainment receptor in 2017 was
0.00 ppb and the largest impact on any projected downwind maintenance-
only site was 0.46 ppb.\9\ As a result, in the CSAPR Update, EPA
``determined that emissions from [Connecticut] do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in downwind states'' and that EPA ``need not require
further emission reductions from sources in [Connecticut] to address
the good neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.'' 81 FR at
74506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD at Table 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Connecticut examined the results of EPA's transport modeling for
2017 and CT DEEP projected state-emissions trends to demonstrate that
the state meets its good-neighbor requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Based on their analysis, total NOX emissions are
projected to decline 18% between 2017 and 2025. CT DEEP also expects
additional NOX emission reductions in the post-2017 period
because their analysis did not include the state's recent revisions to
its low emission vehicle (LEV) regulations, EPA's Tier 3 vehicle and
fuel standards, and updates to its NOX RACT regulations.
These additional NOX reductions expected to occur in future
years (described below) further help to ensure that the state will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.
    CT DEEP identified regulations that have been approved into the
Connecticut SIP to provide for the control of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the primary
precursors to the formation of ground level ozone. Reasonably available
control technology (RACT) has been required for major sources of
NOX in Connecticut since 1996, with multiple updates since.
On July 31, 2017, EPA approved Connecticut's Regulations of State
Agencies (RCSA) sections 22a-174-22e, Control of nitrogen oxides
emissions, -22f, High daily NOX emitting units at non-major
sources of NOX, and -38, Municipal Waste Combustors. See 82
FR 35454.
    In addition to these programs, CT DEEP noted that it implements
regulations modeled after California's LEV program, has established a
stringent new motor vehicle control program, and implements a statewide
vehicle emission inspection and maintenance program and state and
federal incentive programs for diesel vehicle retrofits and
replacements. Connecticut also implements a variety of energy
efficiency strategies, including its Comprehensive Energy Strategy20.
    In light of the EPA's determination made in the CSAPR Update
finding that emissions from Connecticut will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in downwind states, we propose that Connecticut has met its
CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' SIP obligation for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's June 15, 2015, SIP
submission as meeting the CAA requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters.\10\ These comments will be considered before
taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ However, the EPA notes that it is not, in this action,
reopening for public comment or otherwise reconsidering the analytic
analysis conducted for or the determinations made in the final CSAPR
Update rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 18, 2019.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-27765 Filed 12-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71778-71781]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1999; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00697-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly
Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2021-02-18, which applies to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model
CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes and Model C-
295 airplanes. AD 2021-02-18 requires repetitive inspections for
cracking or broken rivets of certain left- and right-hand stringers and
surrounding structure, and repair if necessary. Since the FAA issued AD
2021-02-18, a modification was developed to reinforce the structure in
the affected area, providing terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by AD 2021-02-18. This proposed AD continues to
require the actions in AD 2021-02-18 and proposes to require the new
terminating action for the repetitive inspections, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for
incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 4,
2023.

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 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.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1999; or in person at

Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. It is also
available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1999.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1999; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00697-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2021-02-18, Amendment 39-21401 (86 FR 10740,
February 23, 2021) (AD 2021-02-18), for all Airbus Defense and Space
S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes and
Model C-295 airplanes. AD 2021-02-18 was prompted by an MCAI originated
by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union. EASA issued AD 2020-0159, dated July 16, 2020 (EASA AD
2020-0159), to correct an unsafe condition.
    EASA AD 2020-0159 requires repetitive inspections for cracking or
broken rivets of certain left- and right-hand stringers and surrounding
structure, and repair if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2021-02-18 to
address such cracking in the stringers, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2021-02-18 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2021-02-18, EASA superseded EASA AD 2020-
0159 and issued EASA AD 2023-0103, dated May 23, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-
0103) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-200, and CN-
235-300 airplanes and Model C-295 airplanes. The MCAI states that since
EASA AD 2020-0159 was issued, a modification was developed to reinforce
the structure in the affected area, which is a terminating action for
the repetitive inspections required by EASA AD 2020-0159. The MCAI does
not include Model CN-235-100 airplanes since a determination was made
that the only remaining airplanes in service are operated by a
government military service. The FAA has determined that since these
models remain on the FAA type certificate data sheet that AD action is
necessary to address the unsafe condition. Therefore, this proposed AD
includes this model in the AD applicability and provides corrective
actions to address the unsafe condition.
    FAA AD 2021-02-18 explained that the requirements were ``interim
action,'' and further rulemaking was being considered. The FAA has now
determined that further rulemaking is necessary, and this proposed AD
follows from that determination.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to prevent cracks on certain left- and
right-hand stringers in the area of frame (FR) 43 of the fuselage. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1999.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2023-0103 specifies procedures for detailed visual (DET) or
high frequency eddy current inspections of the stringer P0a and P0a' at
the riveted line of the attachment to the gusset and along the stringer
head, in particular at the area of the last attachment of the gusset to
the stringer in the midpoint between FR43 and FR44, DET inspections for
fatigue cracks of the fuselage skin, along the stringers' footprint and
surrounding structure and the attachment of the gusset to the FR43; DET
inspections for fatigue cracks of the actuator bracket on FR43, along
the radius of the vertical nerves, inner lug holes, and attachment
holes of the bracket to FR43; DET inspections for fatigue cracks or
broken rivets in the web and joint clips to skin and stringer of both
sides of the frame between stringer P1d and P1d' (two stringers for
each side from the central stringer P0a); DET inspections for fatigue
cracks or broken rivets of the gussets, along the flange which joins
FR43; and repair of any cracking or broken rivets.
    EASA AD 2023-0103 also specifies procedures for modifying
structures between frames FR43 and FR44, on stringers STGR0A and
STGR0A': Replacing supports, formers, installing fittings, radius
guards, and hardware attachments.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2021-02-
18. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2023-0103 described previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2023-0103 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2023-0103 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0103 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2023-
0103. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0103 for compliance
will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1999
after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 10 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                    Parts cost              Cost per product        Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 17 work-hours x $85 per    Up to $14,002............  Up to $15,447............  Up to $154,470.
 hour = Up to $1,445.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-02-18, Amendment 39-21401
(86 FR 10740, February 23, 2021); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones
Aeronauticas, S.A.): Docket No. FAA-2023-1999; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00697-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by December 4, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2021-02-18, Amendment 39-21401 (86 FR 10740,
February 23, 2021) (AD 2021-02-18).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235,
CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes and Model C-295
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by cracks found on certain left- and right-
hand stringers in the area of frame (FR) 43 of the fuselage. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address such cracking in the stringers, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2023-0103, dated May 23, 2023 (EASA AD
2023-0103).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0103

    (1) Where EASA AD 2023-0103 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0103.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2023-0103 specifies ``The SB: Airbus DS
Service Bulletin (SB) SB235-53-0070C (for CN-235, CN-235-200 and CN-
235-300 aeroplanes) and SB295-53-0025C (for C-295 aeroplanes), as
applicable,'' for this AD replace those words with ``The SB: Airbus
DS Service Bulletin (SB) SB235-53-0070C (for CN-235, CN-235-200 and
CN-235-300 aeroplanes), SB235-53-0070M (for CN-235-100 aeroplanes),
and SB295-53-0025C (for C-295 aeroplanes), as applicable.''
    (4) Where EASA AD 2023-0103 specifies ``Groups: Group 1
aeroplanes are CN-235, CN-235-200 aeroplanes. Group 2 aeroplanes are
CN-235-300 and C-295 aeroplanes,'' for this AD replace those words
with ``Groups: Group 1 aeroplanes are CN-235, CN-235-100, and CN-
235-200 aeroplanes. Group 2 aeroplanes are CN-235-300 and C-295
aeroplanes.''
    (5) Where the column header of Table 1 of EASA AD 2023-0103 is
titled ``Accumulated Flight Hours (FH) and Flight Cycles (FC)'', for
this AD replace those words with ``Accumulated Flight Hours (FH) and
Flight Cycles (FC), as of March 30, 2021 (the effective date of AD
2021-02-18).''
    (6) Where EASA AD 2023-0103 specifies a compliance time of
``During the next A-check, or within 300 FH after 30 July 2020 [the
effective date of EASA AD 2020-0159], whichever occurs later,'' for
this AD replace those words with ``Within 300 FH after March 30,
2021 (the effective date of AD 2021-02-18).''
    (7) Where EASA AD 2023-0103 specifies a compliance time of
``Within 50 FH or 50 FC, whichever occurs first after 30 July 2020
[the effective date of EASA AD 2020-0159],'' for this AD replace
those words with ``Within 50 FH or 50 FC, whichever occurs first
after March 30, 2021 (the effective date of AD 2021-02-18).''
    (8) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2023-0103 specifies to
``contact Airbus DS for approved instructions and accomplish those
instructions accordingly'' if discrepancies are detected, for this
AD if any cracking is detected, the cracking must be repaired before
further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-0103
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s
EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information referenced
in EASA AD 2023-0103 contains paragraphs that are labeled as RC, the
instructions in RC paragraphs, including subparagraphs under an RC
paragraph, must be done to comply with this AD; any paragraphs,
including subparagraphs under those paragraphs, that are not
identified as RC are recommended. The instructions in paragraphs,
including subparagraphs under those paragraphs, 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 instructions identified as RC can
be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
Any substitutions or changes to instructions identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0103,
dated May 23, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2023-0103, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 11, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-22885 Filed 10-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P