[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72740-72743]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28646]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73719; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-76]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
Anti-Internalization Functionality for Registered Market Makers on the
PHLX Options Market

December 2, 2014.
    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 November 28, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx,'' ``PHLX,'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt anti-internalization functionality
for registered market makers on the PHLX Options Market.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on or before January
15, 2015.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
Rule 1080. Phlx XL and Phlx XL II
    (a)-(o) No Change.
    (p) Execution Protections
    (1) Acceptable Trade Range.
    (A) After the opening, the System will calculate an Acceptable
Trade Range to limit the range of prices at which an order or quote
(except an All-or-none order) will be allowed to execute. The
Acceptable Trade Range is calculated by taking the Reference Price,
plus or minus a value to be determined by the Exchange. (i.e., the
Reference Price - (x) for sell orders/quotes and the Reference Price +
(x) for buy orders/quotes). Upon receipt of a new order/quote, the
Reference Price is the National Best Bid (``NBB'') for sell orders and
the National Best Offer (``NBO'') for buy orders/quotes or the last
price at which the order/quote is posted whichever is higher for a buy
order/quote or lower for a sell order/quote.
    (B) If an order/quote reaches the outer limit of the Acceptable
Trade Range (the ``Threshold Price'') without being fully executed, it
will be posted at the Threshold Price for a brief period, not to exceed
one second (``Posting Period''), to allow more liquidity to be
collected, unless a Quote Exhaust has occurred, in which case the Quote
Exhaust process in Rule 1082(a)(ii)(B)(3) will ensue, triggering a new
Reference Price. Upon posting, either the current Threshold Price of
the order or an updated NBB for buy orders or the NBO for sell orders
(whichever is higher for a buy order/lower for a sell order) then
becomes the Reference Price for calculating a new Acceptable Trade
Range. If the order/quote remains unexecuted, a New Acceptable Trade
Range will be calculated and the order/quote will execute, route, or
post up to the new Acceptable Trade Range Threshold Price, unless a
member organization has requested that their orders be returned if
posted at the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade Range (in which case,
the order will be returned). This process will repeat until either (i)
the order/quote is executed, cancelled, or posted at its limit price or
(ii) the order has been subject to a configurable number of instances
of the Acceptable Trade Range as determined by the Exchange (in which
case it will be returned).
    (C) During the Posting Period, the Exchange will disseminate as a
quotation: (i) The Threshold Price for the remaining size of the order
triggering the Acceptable Trade Range and (ii) on the opposite side of
the market, the best price will be displayed using the ``non-firm''
indicator message in accordance with the specifications of the network
processor. Following the Posting Period, the Exchange will return to a
normal trading state and disseminate its best bid and offer.
    (2) Anti-Internalization--Quotes and orders entered by Specialists
and Registered Options Traders (as defined in Rule 1014) using the same
Phlx badge will not be executed against quotes and orders entered on
the opposite side of the market using the same badge. In such a case,
the System will cancel the resting quote or order back to the entering
party prior to execution. This functionality shall not apply in any
auction or with respect to complex transactions.
    (3) Order Price Protection (``OPP''). OPP is a feature of Phlx XL
that prevents certain day limit, good til cancelled, immediate or
cancel, and all-or-none orders at prices outside of pre-set standard
limits from being accepted by the system. OPP applies to all options
but does not apply to market orders, stop limit orders, Intermarket
Sweep Orders or complex orders.
    (A) OPP is operational each trading day after the opening until the
close of trading, except during trading halts. The Exchange may also
temporarily deactivate OPP from time to time on an intraday basis at
its discretion if it determines that volatility warrants deactivation.
Members will be notified of intraday OPP deactivation due to volatility
and any subsequent intraday reactivation by the Exchange through the
issuance of system status messages.
    (B) OPP will reject incoming orders that exceed certain parameters
according to the following algorithm.

    (i) If the NBBO on the contra-side of an incoming order is greater
than $1.00, orders with a limit more than 50% through such contra-side
NBBO will be rejected by Phlx XL upon receipt. For example, if the NBBO
on the offer side is $1.10, an order to buy options for more than $1.65
would be rejected. Similarly, if the NBBO on the bid side is $1.10, an
order to sell options for less than $0.55 will be rejected.
    (ii) If the NBBO on the contra-side of an incoming order is less
than or equal to $1.00, orders with a limit more than 100% through such
contra-side NBBO will be rejected by Phlx XL upon receipt. For example,
if the NBBO on the offer side is $1.00, an order to buy options for
more than $2.00 would be rejected. However, if the NBBO of the bid side
of an incoming order to sell is less than or equal to $1.00, the OPP
limits set forth above will result in all incoming sell orders being
accepted regardless of their limit. To illustrate, if the NBBO on the
bid side is equal to $1.00, the OPP limits provide protection such that
all orders to sell with a limit less than $0.00 would be rejected.
    (iii) For purposes of this rule, the NBBO is defined as the PBBO
for singly-listed issues.
    Commentary .01-.06 No Change.
    [Commentary .07--Order Price Protection (``OPP''). OPP is a feature
of Phlx XL that prevents certain day limit, good til cancelled,
immediate or cancel, and all-or-none orders at prices outside of pre-
set standard limits from being accepted by the system. OPP applies to
all options but does not apply to market orders, stop limit orders,
Intermarket Sweep Orders or complex orders.
    (a) OPP is operational each trading day after the opening until the
close of trading, except during trading halts. The Exchange may also
temporarily deactivate OPP from time to time on an intraday basis at
its discretion if it determines that volatility warrants deactivation.
Members will be notified of intraday OPP deactivation due to volatility
and any subsequent intraday reactivation by the Exchange through the
issuance of system status messages.
    (b) OPP will reject incoming orders that exceed certain parameters
according to the following algorithm.
    (i) If the NBBO on the contra-side of an incoming order is greater
than $1.00, orders with a limit more than 50% through such contra-side
NBBO will be rejected by Phlx XL upon receipt. For example, if the NBBO
on the offer side is $1.10, an order to buy options for more than $1.65
would be rejected. Similarly, if the NBBO on the bid side is $1.10, an
order to sell options for less than $0.55 will be rejected.
    (ii) If the NBBO on the contra-side of an incoming order is less
than or equal to $1.00, orders with a limit more than 100% through such
contra-side NBBO will be rejected by Phlx XL upon receipt. For example,
if the NBBO on the offer side is $1.00, an order to buy options for
more than $2.00 would be rejected. However, if the NBBO of the bid side
of an incoming order to sell is less than or equal to $1.00, the OPP
limits set forth above will result in all incoming sell orders being
accepted regardless of their limit. To illustrate, if the NBBO on the
bid side is equal to $1.00, the OPP limits provide protection such that
all orders to sell with a limit less than $0.00 would be rejected.
    (iii) For purposes of this rule, the NBBO is defined as the PBBO
for singly-listed issues.]
    Commentary .08--Renumbered as Commentary .07.
    Commentary .09--Renumbered as Commentary .08.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    PHLX is proposing to provide anti-internalization (``AIQ'')
functionality to Specialists and Registered Options Traders on the PHLX
Options Market.\3\ Anti-internalization functionality is widely
available and has been for many years.\4\ It is designed to assist
market participants in complying with certain rules and regulations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (``ERISA'') that preclude
and/or limit managing broker-dealers of such accounts from trading as
principal with orders generated for those accounts. It can also assist
market makers in reducing trading costs from unwanted executions
potentially resulting from the interaction of executable buy and sell
trading interest from the same firm when performing the same market
making function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See PHLX Rule 1014. The category of Specialist and
Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') as defined in Rule 1014 are
all considered market makers on the Exchange. This category includes
the subcategories of Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs''), Remote
Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs''), and Non-SQT ROTs, all of which
have market making obligations also defined in Rule 1014.
    \4\ See, e.g., NASDAQ Rule 4757(a)(4), NASDAQ Options Market
Rule Chapter VI, Section 10(6), NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(qq)(2),
and BATS Rule 11.9(f)(2). PSX Rule 3307(c) governing trading on the
PHLX equity facility provides similar self-match prevention for
equities trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, quotes and orders entered by Specialists and
Registered Options Traders using the same PHLX badge will automatically
be prevented from interacting with each other in the System. Rather
than executing quotes or orders from the same badge, the System will
instead cancel the resting quotes and orders back to the entering
party. PHLX uses ``badges'' to identify the party or parties entering
trades into the System, similar to Market Participant Identifiers
(MPIDs) and other mnemonic devices used at other exchanges. Because
firms have multiple badges associated with multiple functions, linking
AIQ to specific badges ensures that the functionality will be limited
to the appropriate function, as explained in more detail below. Tying
AIQ to specific PHLX badges will also enable market participants to
carefully and systematically target the orders that should be prevented
from interacting.
    AIQ will apply in the PHLX XL system with respect to simple orders
only; it will not apply in any auction or with respect to complex
transactions. AIQ is difficult to apply during auctions, and there is
limited benefit in doing so. The difficulty stems from the need to
freeze the order book and quickly arrange and match large quantities of
orders based upon simple instructions. Even if that could be
accomplished, there is limited benefit because, generally speaking,
auctions do not raise the same policy concerns for wash sales and ERISA
due to the semi-random manner in which trades are matched.\5\ AIQ is
unnecessary with respect to complex orders due to the highly
specialized nature of such orders and the high level of control that
market participants exercise over complex orders. In addition, owing to
the number of different legs involved in complex orders, applying AIQ
to complex orders would also require freezing the book, which market
participants and PHLX view as detrimental to the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(qq).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Anti-internalization functionality was requested by Specialists and
Registered

Options Traders on PHLX. Anti-internalization processing is available
only to market makers and only on an individual badge basis.
Specialists and Registered Options Traders that conduct order entry
business via alternative badges will not be afforded the protection of
AIQ functionality with respect to such alternative badges. PHLX
considered making AIQ functionality available to other participants,
but rejected that approach. Limiting AIQ to Specialists and Registered
Options Traders also helps to maintain simplicity of System
processing.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ If demand should arise from other participants, PHLX will
reconsider providing this functionality to all participants at that
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHLX notes that use of the functionality does not relieve or
otherwise modify the duty of best execution owed to orders received
from public customers. Options market makers generally do not display
customer orders in market making quotations, opting instead to enter
customer orders using separate identifiers. In the event that an
options market maker opts to include a customer order within a market
making quotation, the market maker must take appropriate steps to
ensure that public customer orders that do not execute due to anti-
internalization functionality ultimately receive the same execution
price (or better) they would have originally obtained if execution of
the order was not inhibited by the functionality.
    Finally, the Exchange is proposing to combine several existing
price protection mechanisms in Rule 1080(p) and to rename that
subsection as ``Execution Protections, [sic] PHLX believes the rules
will become clearer by adding AIQ and moving current Commentary .07
governing Order Price Protection to existing Rule 1080(p) governing the
Acceptable Trade Range. As a result, PHLX will renumber existing
Commentaries .08 and .09 as Commentaries .07 and .08. The proposed
changes will not impact the substance and operation of the existing
functionality of the Acceptable Trade Range, Order Price Protection or
Commentaries .08 and .09.
2. Statutory Basis
    PHLX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, PHLX believes
that the change, which is responsive to member input, will facilitate
transactions in securities and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market by providing Specialists and Registered Options Traders with
additional functionality that will assist them with managing the book
of orders that they submit to PHLX and the associated execution costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHLX believes the proposal is consistent with the Act because it
provides tools for Specialists and Registered Options Traders to comply
with existing rules against internalization in certain circumstances.
Limiting AIQ to Specialists and Registered Options Traders is
consistent with the Act because inadvertent internalization is much
more likely to impact market makers than other participants and
offering AIQ more broadly would burden the System and provide little or
no offsetting regulatory benefit. Finally, PHLX believes that it is
reasonable to limit AIQ to simple options orders, as opposed to complex
options and auctions, because the execution risk is much lower with
respect to complex options and auctions and because those functions
operate quite differently than individual orders in simple options.

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

    PHLX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, by
providing market participants additional tools to prevent inadvertent
internalization of orders submitted to PHLX, the change has the
potential to improve the trading environment on the Exchange, which
will enhance PHLX's competitiveness with respect to other trading
venues, thereby promoting greater competition. Moreover, the change
does not burden competition in that it will be provided at no
additional cost to members.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) [sic] of the Act \9\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii) [sic].
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-76 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-Phlx-2014-76. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-76,
and should be submitted on or before December 29, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28646 Filed 12-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41380-41381]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0040; Notice 1]

Michelin North America Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc., (MNA), has determined that
certain Michelin X Multi D+ replacement tires do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic
Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds), Specialty Tires, and Tires for Motorcycles. MNA filed
an original noncompliance report dated March 25, 2022. MNA subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on April 19, 2022, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This document announces receipt of MNA's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before August 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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 comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: MNA determined that certain Michelin X Multi D+
replacement tires do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS
No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more
than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), Specialty Tires, and Tires for
Motorcycles. (49 CFR 571.119).
    MNA filed an original noncompliance report dated March 25, 2022,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. MNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on April 19, 2022, for
an

exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of MNA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Tires Involved: Approximately 160 Michelin X Multi D+,
size11R22.5, replacement tires, manufactured between May 26, 2019, and
June 29, 2019, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: MNA explains that the noncompliance was due to
a mold error in which the subject tires are missing the letter
designating the tire load range as required by paragraph S6.5(j) of
FMVSS No. 119. Specifically, the sidewalls of the subject tires omit
the designated load range letter ``H.''
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS No. 119 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. The subject tires are
required to be marked on each sidewall with the tire load range letter.
    V. Summary of MNA's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of MNA's Petition,'' are the
views and arguments provided by MNA. They have not been evaluated by
the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. MNA describes
the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    MNA explains that the noncompliance was found when a Michelin Field
Engineer was notified that some of the subject tires ``had a different
tread pattern than the customer was accustomed to.'' MNA explains that
the subject tires were intended for the Asia and India tire markets,
yet were certified to the applicable U.S. FMVSS, and properly labeled
with the certification symbol ``DOT.'' MNA states that the tires
``entered the U.S. through channels outside of Michelin's control.''
MNA says that the subject tires have not been sold through MNA's sales
or distribution channels. MNA also states that it has taken corrective
measures to prevent the shipping or sale of the tires by blocking the
SKUs in its internal databases.
    MNA claims that the subject tires were manufactured as a load index
148 single/145 dual tire with a maximum single load rating of 3150
kilograms or 6940 pounds at 830 kPa or 120 psi cold inflation pressure
and a maximum dual load rating of 2900 kilograms or 6395 pounds at 830
kPa or 120 psi cold inflation pressure. In regard to operational
safety, MNA asserts that it tested the subject tires and found that
they comply with the necessary performance requirements required by
FMVSS No. 119. Except for the subject noncompliance, MNA also claims
that the subject tires meet all marking requirements and ``are also
marked with load indices for single and dual applications,'' which MNA
contends will ``provide both dealers and consumers with the necessary
information to enable proper selection and application of the tires.''
    MNA states that it has blocked the SKU for the subject tires in its
systems to prevent shipment to the U.S. and sale through MNA. MNA also
states that the molds will be updated to include the required load
range letter designation and until then, the SKU will remain blocked in
its systems.
    MNA says that NHTSA has previously granted petitions which it
believes are similar to the subject petition. MNA refers to the
granting of the petition submitted by China Manufacturers Alliance,
LLC, for 1,753,089 truck & bus radial replacement tires that were
missing the letter marking that designates the tire load range on the
tire sidewall.
    MNA concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject tires that MNA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve tire
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after MNA
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-14767 Filed 7-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46672-46676]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19171]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0444; FRL-9711-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Fredericksburg 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area Revision to
Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Virginia's
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on September 26, 2011. The SIP revision
consists of updating the 2009 and 2015 motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) in the Fredericksburg 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area
(Fredericksburg Area) by replacing the previously approved MVEBs with
budgets developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
emissions model (MOVES2010a). This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 5,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0444 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0444, Donna Mastro, Acting Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0444. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov
Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA
without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background for this action?
    A. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity
    B. Prior Approval of Budgets
    C. The MOVES Emissions Model and Regional Transportation
Conformity Grace Period
    D. Submission of New Budgets Based on MOVES2010a
III. What are the Criteria for approval?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's Submittal?
    A. The Revised Inventories
    B. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-Based Budgets
    C. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-Based Budgets
V. What are the effects of EPA's proposed action?
VI. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve new MOVES2010a-based motor vehicle
emission budgets (``budgets'') for the Fredericksburg Area. If EPA
finalizes this proposed approval, the newly submitted MOVES2010a
budgets will replace the existing, MOBILE6.2-based budgets in
Virginia's SIP and must then be used in future transportation
conformity analyses for the area according to the transportation
conformity rule (40 CFR 93.118). At that time, the previously approved
budgets would no longer be applicable for transportation conformity
purposes.
    If EPA approves the MOVES2010a-based budgets, the regional
transportation conformity grace period for using MOVES2010a for the
pollutants included in these budgets will end for the Fredericksburg
Area on the effective date of that final approval. See 75 FR 9411,
March 2, 2010, for background and Section II.C for details.

II. What is the background for this action?

A. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment
and maintenance areas for a given national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g.,
reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration SIP revisions)
and maintenance plans include budgets of on-road mobile source
emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address
pollution from cars, trucks, and other on-road vehicles. SIP budgets
are the portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to
on-road vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in
the area, will provide for attainment or maintenance. The budget serves
as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system.
For more information about budgets, see the preamble to the November
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule. 58 FR 62188.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and transportation projects
must ``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP before they can
be adopted or approved. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or an
interim milestone. The transportation conformity regulations can be
found at 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93.
    Before budgets can be used in conformity determinations, EPA must
affirmatively find the budgets adequate. However, adequate budgets do
not supersede approved budgets for the same CAA purpose. If the
submitted SIP budgets are meant to replace budgets for the same CAA
purpose and year(s) addressed by a previously approved SIP, as is the
case with Virginia's MOVES2010a nitrogen oxides (NOX) motor
vehicle emission budgets, EPA must approve the revised SIP and budgets
and can affirm the budgets are adequate at the same time. Once EPA
approves the SIP, the revised budgets must be used by state and Federal
agencies in determining whether transportation activities conform to
the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive
criteria for determining the adequacy of budgets are set out in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4).

B. Prior Approval of Budgets

    EPA had previously approved the 1997 ozone NAAQS Fredericksburg
maintenance plan and redesignation request into the Virginia SIP on
December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76165). EPA also approved the MVEBs for
NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOC) during the
rulemaking notice. The SIP's budgets were based on EPA's MOBILE6.2
emissions model. The approval identified NOX and VOC MVEBs
for transportation conformity purposes for the years 2004, 2009 and
2015. VADEQ chose 2009 as an interim year in the 10-year maintenance
demonstration period to demonstrate that the VOC and NOX
emissions were not projected to increase above the 2004 attainment
level during the time of the 10-year maintenance period. The 2004, 2009
and 2015 MVEBs for the Fredericksburg area were approvable because the
MVEBs for NOX and VOC

including the allocated safety margins continued to maintain the total
emissions at or below the attainment year inventory levels as required
by the transportation conformity regulations.

C. The MOVES Emissions Model and Regional Transportation Conformity
Grace Period

    The MOVES model is EPA's state-of-the-art tool for estimating
highway emissions. The model is based on analyses of millions of
emission test results and considerable advances in EPA's understanding
of vehicle emissions. MOVES incorporates the latest emissions data,
more sophisticated calculation algorithms, increased user flexibility,
new software design, and significant new capabilities relative to those
reflected in MOBILE6.2.
    EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR 9411).
EPA subsequently released two minor model revisions: MOVES2010a in
September 2010 and MOVES2010b in April 2012. Both of these minor
revisions enhance model performance and do not significantly affect the
criteria pollutant emissions results from MOVES2010.
    MOVES will be required for new regional emissions analyses for
transportation conformity determinations (``regional conformity
analyses'') outside of California that begin after March 2, 2013 (or
when EPA approves MOVES-based budgets, whichever comes first).\1\ The
MOVES grace period for regional conformity analyses applies to both the
use of MOVES2010 and approved minor revisions (e.g., MOVES2010a and
MOVES2010b). For more information, see EPA's ``Policy Guidance on the
Use of MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Model Revisions for State
Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other
Purposes'' (April 2012), available online at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm#models (hereafter MOVES2010 Policy
Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Upon the release of MOVES2010, EPA established a two-year
grace period before MOVES is required to be used for regional
conformity analyses (75 FR 9411). EPA subsequently promulgated a
final rule on February 27, 2012 to provide an additional year before
MOVES is required for these analyses (77 FR 11394).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA encouraged areas to examine how MOVES would affect future
transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations so, if necessary,
SIPs and budgets could be revised with MOVES or transportation plans
and TIPs could be revised (as appropriate) prior to the end of the
regional transportation conformity grace period. EPA also encouraged
state and local air agencies to consider how the release of MOVES would
affect analyses supporting SIP submissions under development (77 FR
9411 and 77 FR 11394).

D. Submission of New Budgets Based on MOVES2010a

    On September 26, 2011, VADEQ submitted a new SIP with budgets based
on MOVES2010a for the years 2009 and 2015 to help ensure that the
Fredericksburg area can demonstrate transportation conformity using
MOVES2010a once the grace period expires. Table 1 compares the
NOX MVEBs developed using MOBILE6.2 to the inventories
developed using MOVES2010a.

    Table 1--Fredericksburg Maintenance Area Mobile Source Emissions
                         Comparison Tons NOX/Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                MOBILE6.2
                    Year                         MVEB *      MOVES2010a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004........................................        19.742        24.064
2009........................................        13.062        17.615
2015........................................         7.576         9.933
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes conformity buffers

III. What are the criteria for approval?

    EPA has always required under the CAA that revisions to existing
SIPs continue to meet applicable requirements (i.e., reasonable further
progress, attainment, or maintenance). States that revise their
existing SIPs to include MOVES budgets must therefore show that the SIP
continues to meet applicable requirements with the new level of motor
vehicle emissions contained in the budgets. The SIP must also meet any
applicable SIP requirements under CAA section 110.
    In addition, the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iv)) requires that ``the motor vehicle emissions
budget(s), when considered together with all other emissions sources,
is consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further
progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant to the
given implementation plan submission).'' This and the other adequacy
criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before EPA can
find submitted budgets adequate or approve them for conformity
purposes.
    In addition, EPA has stated that areas can revise their budgets and
inventories using MOVES without revising their entire SIP if: (1) The
SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor
vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES base year and
milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and (2) the
state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for
non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do
not change the overall conclusions of the SIP. For example, the first
criterion could be satisfied by demonstrating that the emissions
reductions between the base year and attainment or maintenance year are
the same or greater using MOVES than they were previously. For more
information, see EPA's MOVES2010 Policy Guidance.

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

A. The Revised Inventories

    Virginia included the updated 2004, 2009, and 2015 NOX
MVEBs calculated using the latest planning assumptions for the
Fredericksburg area and MOVES2010a in Table 2 below. Since existing VOC
MVEBs using MOBILE6.2 allow a seamless transportation conformity
process when using MOVES2010a, the existing VOC MVEBS were not revised
in this SIP revision. More detailed information on the assumptions used
in the MOVES2010a modeling, including growth assumptions, can be found
in the docket prepared for this rulemaking action.

 Table 2--NOX Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Calculated With MOVES2010a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          NOX  Emissions
                          Year                               tons/day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Attainment year....................................          24.064
2009 Predicted Emissions................................          17.615
Conformity Buffers......................................           2.000
2009 Interim Budget Year................................          19.615
2015 Predicted Emissions................................           9.933
Conformity Buffers......................................           3.000
2015 Final Budget.......................................          12.933
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its September 26, 2011 SIP revision submission, Virginia
demonstrated how future emissions of NOX would not exceed
the level of the attainment inventory for a 10-year period following
redesignation in Table 3 below. The projected emissions for the point
and area source categories reflect the expected ozone season daily
emissions based on the best available growth rates and projections used
in the 1997 ozone NAAQS Fredericksburg maintenance plan. The nonroad
category reflects emissions estimated using NONROAD2008a. More detailed
information on the analyses showing

that the projected emissions from the point and area source categories
do not need to be updated and continue to demonstrate that air quality
will remain compliant with the 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2015 and beyond
can be found in the docket prepared for this rulemaking action.

                          Table 3--Fredericksburg Area NOX Emissions From 2004 to 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NOX in tons/day
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                     Point         Area \1\         Nonroad       Mobile \2\         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2004.......................           0.179           3.465           4.950          24.064          32.658
Year 2009.......................           0.180           3.926           4.286          19.615          28.007
[Delta] 2004-2009...............           0.001           0.461          -0.664          -4.449          -4.651
Year 2015.......................           0.182           4.742           2.953          12.933          20.810
[Delta] 2004-2015...............           0.003           1.277          -1.997         -11.131         -11.848
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes selected local controls (open burning).
\2\ Includes conformity buffers identified in Table 2.

B. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-Based Budgets

    EPA is proposing to approve the MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted
by Virginia for use in determining transportation conformity in the
Fredericksburg area. EPA is making this proposal based on our
evaluation of these budgets using the adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and our in-depth evaluation of Virginia's submittal and
compliance with SIP requirements. EPA has determined, based on its
evaluation, that the area's SIP would continue to serve its intended
purpose with the submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets and that the
budgets themselves meet the adequacy criteria in the conformity rule at
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Specifically:
     The submitted SIP was endorsed and subject to a state
public hearing ((e)(4)(i));
     Before the submitted SIP was submitted to EPA,
consultation among Federal, state, and local agencies occurred, and
full documentation was provided to EPA ((e)(4)(ii));
     The budgets are clearly identified and precisely
quantified ((e)(4)(iii));
     The budgets, when considered together with all other
emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for
reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance ((e)(4)(iv));
     The budgets are consistent with and clearly related to the
emissions inventory and control measures in the submitted SIP
((e)(4)(v)); and
     The revisions explain and document changes to the previous
budgets, impacts on point and area source emissions, changes to
established safety margins, and reasons for the changes (including the
basis for any changes related to emission factors or vehicle miles
traveled) ((e)(4)(vi)).
    The SIP revision satisfies all of the above criteria for adequacy.
The updated NOX MVEBs presented in Table 2 show that air
quality in the Fredericksburg area will continue to maintain compliance
with the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Similar to the previously approved budgets,
the 2009 and 2015 MVEBs for the Fredericksburg area are approvable
because the MVEBs for NOX including the allocated safety
margins continue to maintain the total emissions at or below the
attainment year inventory levels as required by the transportation
conformity regulations. The updated NOX MVEBs using
MOVES2010a will not negatively affect the Fredericksburg area's ability
to comply with the 1997 ozone standard.
    EPA has always required under the CAA that revisions to existing
SIPs and budgets continue to meet applicable requirements (e.g.,
reasonable further progress or attainment). Therefore, states that
revise existing SIPs with MOVES must show that the SIP continues to
meet applicable requirements with the new level of motor vehicle
emissions calculated by the new model.
    To that end, Virginia's submitted SIP meets EPA's two criteria for
revising budgets without revising the entire SIP because: (1) The SIP
continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor
vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES2010a base year
and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and (2)
Virginia can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for
non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do
not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.
    The VADEQ September 26, 2011 SIP revision submission updates the
2009 and 2015 MVEBs using the MOVES2010a model. EPA has articulated its
policy regarding the use of MOVES2010a in SIP development in its
MOVES2010 Policy Guidance. EPA's review of VADEQ's submittal indicates
that Virginia has appropriately applied this policy and meets the two
criteria for revising budgets without revising the entire SIP. EPA
policy guidance also requires that Virginia consider whether growth and
control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources (i.e.,
point, area, and non-road mobile sources) are still accurate at the
time the proposed revision is developed. Virginia reassessed the growth
and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources and
concluded that these assumptions will continue to remain compliant with
the 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2015 and beyond for the Fredericksburg
area. Based on our review of the SIP and the new budgets provided, EPA
is proposing that the SIP will continue to meet its requirements if the
revised motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with
MOVES2010a inventories.

C. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-Based Budgets

    Pursuant to Virginia's request, EPA is proposing that, if we
finalize the approval of the revised budgets, the state's existing
MOBILE6.2 budgets will no longer be applicable for transportation
conformity purposes upon the effective date of that final approval. In
addition, once EPA approves the MOVES2010a-based budgets, the regional
transportation conformity grace period for using MOVES2010 (and
subsequent minor revisions) for the pollutants included in these
budgets will end for the Fredericksburg area on the effective date of
that final approval.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For more information, see EPA's MOVES2010 Policy Guidance
(April 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What are the effects of EPA's proposed action?

    EPA is proposing in this action that the Fredericksburg's area
existing approved budgets for NOX be replaced with new
budgets based on the

MOVES2010a emissions model. If this proposal is finalized, future
transportation conformity determinations would use the new, MOVES2010a-
based budgets and would no longer use the existing MOBILE6.2-based
budgets for applicable years. EPA is also proposing that the
Fredericksburg area would continue to meet its requirements under the
CAA when these new budgets are included.

VI. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude Virginia from enforcing its program
consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has
also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can
affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

VII. 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 proposes to approve 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to Virginia's update of
the Fredericksburg area motor vehicle emission budgets based on
MOVES2010a, 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile organic
compounds.

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

    Dated: July 26, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-19171 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29210-29212]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11492]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1327; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-091-AD;
Amendment 39-17048; AD 2012-09-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A330-200 freighter series airplanes; Model A330-200 and -
300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes.
This AD was prompted by a report of corrosion found on the main fitting
of the nose landing gear (NLG) leg in the vicinity of the dowel pin
bushes retaining the lower steering flange. This AD requires modifying
the NLG main fitting by adding primer paint to the cadmium around the
dowel bush holes. We are issuing this AD to prevent NLG main fitting
rupture, which could result in an NLG collapse.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 21, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 21,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-
1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2011
(76 FR 81884). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Corrosion has been found on the main fitting of the NLG leg in
the vicinity of the dowel pin bushes retaining the lower steering
flange on A330/A340 aeroplanes. The majority of parts have been
reworked and returned to service.
    This corrosion, if not avoided, could lead to the NLG main
fitting rupture, possibly resulting in a NLG collapse, which would
constitute an unsafe condition.
    In order to maintain the structural integrity of the NLG, this
[EASA] AD requires the accomplishment of a modification which
consists in adding primer paint to the cadmium around the dowel bush
holes on the main fitting, in order to provide further protection
against cadmium degradation.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (76 FR 81884, December 29,
2011) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Changes to the AD

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-32-3241 and
A340-32-4282, both Revision 01, both including Appendix 01, both dated
October 6, 2011, which correct certain aircraft maintenance manual
references. We referred to Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-32-
3241 and A340-32-4282, both dated November 26, 2010, as the appropriate
sources of service information for doing the actions specified in the
NPRM (76 FR 81884, December 29, 2011). We have updated paragraphs (g)
and (j) of this AD to refer to Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-
32-3241 and A340-32-4282, both Revision 01, both including Appendix 01,
both dated October 6, 2011. We have also added new paragraph (h) to
this AD to give credit for actions done before the effective date of
this AD in accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-32-
3241 and A340-32-4282, both dated November 26, 2010, and updated
subsequent paragraph identifiers accordingly.
    We also added a reference to Model A330-200 freighter series
airplanes in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (76 FR 81884, December 29, 2011) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 81884, December 29, 2011).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 55 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 66 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $10,000 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $858,550, or $15,610 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 81884, December 29,
2011), 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-09-13 Airbus: Amendment 39-17048. Docket No. FAA-2011-1327,
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-091-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 21,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-223F, -243F, -201, -202, -
203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and
-343 airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313
airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial
numbers, except airplanes on which Airbus modification 200616 has
been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of corrosion found on the main
fitting of the nose landing gear (NLG) leg in the vicinity of the
dowel pin bushes retaining the lower steering flange. We are issuing
this AD to prevent NLG main fitting rupture, which could result in
an NLG collapse.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done

(g) Modification

    At the later of the times specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2),
or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable: Modify the NLG main fitting by
adding primer paint to the cadmium around the dowel bush holes, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A330-32-3241, Revision 01, including Appendix 01,
dated October 6, 2011 (for Model A330-200 and -300 airplanes, and
Model A330-200 freighter series airplanes); or Airbus

Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4282, Revision 01, including
Appendix 01, dated October 6, 2011 (for Model A340-200 and -300
airplanes).
    (1) Within 60 months since first flight of the NLG on any
airplane.
    (2) Within 60 months since first flight of the NLG on any
airplane after the most recent overhaul of the NLG.
    (3) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A330-32-3241, dated November 26, 2010 (for Model A330-200 and -300
airplanes, and Model A330-200 freighter series airplanes); or A340-
32-4282, dated November 26, 2010 (for Model A340-200 and -300
airplanes).

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0032, dated March 1, 2011, and the
service information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of
this AD, for related information.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3241, Revision 01,
including Appendix 01, dated October 6, 2011.
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4282, Revision 01,
including Appendix 01, dated October 6, 2011.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3241, Revision 01,
including Appendix 01, dated October 6, 2011.
    (ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4282, Revision
01, including Appendix 01, dated October 6, 2011.
    (2) 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_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 1, 2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-11492 Filed 5-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14852-14853]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05489]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA R9-2021-07; FRL-9389-01-R9]

CERCLA Cashout Settlement Agreement for the C-Brite Removal Site
in Harbor City; Los Angeles County, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''), notice
is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has
entered into a proposed settlement, embodied in a Cashout Settlement
Agreement for Ability to Pay Peripheral Parties (``Settlement
Agreement''), with the Laffey Family Trust, dated August 6, 2001 (and
amended January 24, 2013), and Virginia Laffey (collectively,
``Settling

Parties''), owners of the real property located at 1213 253rd Street,
Harbor City, Los Angeles County, California, known as the Former C-
Brite Metal Finishing Facility Site (``C-Brite Site'' or ``Site''). C-
Brite Metal Finishing, Inc. operated a plating business at the Site
from 1966 to 2017 and abandoned the property thereafter. Under the
Settlement Agreement, the Settling Parties' CERCLA liability will be
resolved in exchange for a lump sum payment of $100,000, which will be
placed in a special account and used to fund response actions at the
Site.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments relating to the
Settlement Agreement until April 15, 2022. EPA will consider all
comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the
Settlement Agreement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations that indicate it is inappropriate, improper, or
inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Please contact Harry Allen at [email protected] or (415)
218-7406 to request a copy of the Settlement Agreement. Comments on the
Settlement Agreement should be submitted in writing to Mr. Allen at
[email protected]. Comments should reference the C-Brite Site and
the EPA Docket Number for the Settlement Agreement, EPA R9-2021-07. If
for any reason you are not able to submit a comment by email, please
contact Mr. Allen at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make alternative arrangements
for submitting your comment. EPA's response to comments received may be
obtained by contacting Mr. Allen at [email protected] or (415) 218-
7406.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Allen, On-Scene Coordinator
(SFD-9-2), Superfund Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105; email: [email protected]; phone: (415) 218-
7406.

    Dated: March 9, 2022.
Michael Montgomery,
Director, Superfund and Emergency Management Division, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-05489 Filed 3-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 36798]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15182]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC14-83-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company, Nevada Sun-Peak Limited
Partnership.
    Description: Clarification to May 2, 2014 Nevada Power Company and
Nevada Sun-Peak Limited Partnership Section 203 Application.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG14-67-000.
    Applicants: RE Astoria LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of RE Astoria LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: EG14-68-000.
    Applicants: RE Astoria 2 LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of RE Astoria 2 LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5128
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: EG14-69-000.
    Applicants: Ector County Energy Center LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Ector County Energy Center LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/20/14.
    Accession Number: 20140620-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2087-002.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: OATT--CORRECTED Revise Attachment K, TCC Rate Update
to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2225-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2014-06-19 GIDAP Reassessment Initiative to be
effective 9/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2226-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2891 AECC and Entergy Arkansas Attachment AO to be
effective 6/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/20/14.
    Accession Number: 20140620-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2227-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Housekeeping Updates--MBR to be effective 8/19/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/20/14.
    Accession Number: 20140620-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2228-000.
    Applicants: Broad River Energy LLC.
    Description: Normal Correct Format to be effective 6/21/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/20/14.
    Accession Number: 20140620-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2229-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of KCPL-GMA Firm Point-To-Point
Transmission Service Agreement SA 1797 of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/20/14.
    Accession Number: 20140620-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2230-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Midwest Energy Firm Point-
To-Point Transmission Service Agreement SA 1874 of Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/20/14.
    Accession Number: 20140620-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2231-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of KCPL Firm Point-To-Point
Transmission Service Agreement SA 1796 of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/20/14.
    Accession Number: 20140620-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES14-43-000.
    Applicants: Indianapolis Power & Light Company.
    Description: Amendment to June 5, 2014 Application of Indianapolis
Power & Light Company under FPA Section 204 for an Order Authorizing
the Issuance of Short-Term Debt Instruments.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC14-15-000.
    Applicants: East Durham Wind, LP.
    Description: Notification of Self-Certification of Foreign Utility
Company Status of East Durham Wind, LP.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 20, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15182 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P