[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32382-32383]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty-Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 225 (SC-225)
Rechargeable Lithium Battery and Battery Systems

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

ACTION: Notice of Twenty-Third RTCA Special Committee 225 Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Twenty-Third RTCA Special Committee 225 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 23, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held virtually at https://rtca.webex.com/rtca/j.php?MTID=m8be8b59d4641b8884a97bf7c861e464e,
Meeting number 636 711 821, Meeting password Batteries1; or join by
phone at 1-877-668-4493 call-in toll-free number (US/Canada), 1-650-
479-3208 call-in toll number (US/Canada), Access code 636 711 821.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Jennifer Iversen, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(202) 330-0662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 225. The agenda
will include the following:

Thursday, June 23, 2016

1. Introductions and administrative items (including DFO & RTCA
Statement) (15 min)
2. Review agenda (10 min)
3. Review and approve summary from the last Plenary (10 min)
4. Review and approve White Paper regarding Probability analysis
substitution for formal physical testing of critical design features
5. Ensure all items assigned to the working group are complete (<3 hrs)
6. Approve document for Final Review and Comment (FRAC) (15 min)
7. Establish Agenda, location, and time for next Plenary (10 min)
8. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be
provided upon request. Persons who wish 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 May 17, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-12125 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21422-21426]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0303; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-214-AD;
Amendment 39-16939; AD 2012-02-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-
200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR,
and 747SP series airplanes. That AD currently requires an inspection of
the No. 2 and No. 3 windows on the left and right sides of the airplane
to determine their part numbers, related investigative and corrective
actions if necessary, and repetitive inspections of single pane
windows. This new AD requires installing dual pane No. 2 and No. 3
windows. This new AD also removes certain airplanes from the
applicability. This AD was prompted by loss of a No. 3 window in
flight, which could result in consequent rapid loss of cabin pressure.
Loss of the window could also result in crew communication difficulties
or incapacitation of the crew. We are issuing this AD to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 15, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 15, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in the AD as of
September 4, 2007 (72 FR 41438, July 30, 2007; as corrected by 72 FR
53923, September 21, 2007).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone: 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced 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>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan P. Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-
917-6428; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2007-15-10, Amendment 39-15139 (72 FR 41438,
July 30, 2007; as corrected by 72 FR 53923, September 21, 2007). That
AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on April 7, 2011 (76 FR 19278). That NPRM proposed to
continue to require certain requirements of AD 2007-15-10, and proposed
to require installing dual pane No. 2 and No. 3 windows. That NPRM also
proposed to prohibit installed dual structural glass pane windows from
being replaced with single structural glass pane windows and to add a
definition of ``non-clear damage,'' which the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1, dated
August 12, 2010, use as criteria for window replacement. Additionally,
that NPRM also proposed removing airplanes having line numbers 1418 and
on from the applicability.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011)

    British Airways Engineering (British Airways) stated that it
supports the intent of the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) to replace
glass number 2 and 3 windows with dual structural ply windows.

Request To Add an Airplane System To Alert the Air Traffic Control
Tower When the Tower Is Unresponsive

    An anonymous commenter requested that we change the NPRM (76 FR
19278, April 7, 2011) to add a system in the airplane to sound an alarm
in the air traffic control tower when the tower fails to respond. The
change is requested due to a concern of sleeping air traffic
controllers.
    We disagree with the request. The suggested change would alter the
actions currently required by this AD, so additional rulemaking would
be required. We find that delaying this action would be inappropriate
in light of the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this
final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Add a Statement in the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011)
That Acrylic Windows Are Unaffected

    United Airlines (United) requested we add a statement to the NPRM
(76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) indicating that not all acrylic windows
are affected by this NPRM, or the six-year threshold for replacing the
windows does not apply if an all-acrylic window is installed.
Additionally, United requested clarification as to whether an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) is required if an installed new
window specified by the NPRM is replaced by an all-acrylic window, or
if this is an acceptable procedure. As justification for its request,
United stated that Boeing Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1,
dated August 12, 2010, which was referenced in the NPRM as the
appropriate source of service information for window replacement,
states that if the window is replaced with an all-acrylic window such
as part number (P/N) 65B07639-( ) or P/N 65B07640-( ), no more work is
necessary.
    We partially agree. Certain acrylic windows provide an equivalent
level of safety as compared to the dual pane windows. We have changed
paragraph (i) of this AD to include Boeing-supplied acrylic windows
having P/N 65B07639-( ) and P/N 65B07640-( ) as allowable replacements
for the discrepant windows. The FAA has found these windows provide an
equivalent level of safety. Any other windows will need to be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis, and any operator may request approval of an
AMOC to use these windows as replacements under the provisions of
paragraph (l) of this AD. Sufficient data must be submitted to
substantiate that the window would provide an acceptable level of
safety.
    We disagree with adding a statement to the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April
7, 2011) regarding the six-year threshold. This is already addressed in
table 1 of Paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-56A2012, dated August 24, 2006, and Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010, which state
that no further action is required if acrylic window part numbers are
found. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Change Window Replacement Compliance Times

    Japan Airlines requested a compliance time exception be added to
paragraph (i) of the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) that would allow
replacement of single pane windows with dual pane windows within 22,000
flight hours, in addition to the compliance time of within 6 years
after the effective date of the AD. We infer that Japan Airlines
requests that the compliance time for single pane window replacement be
changed to within 22,000 flight hours after new P/N 65B27042-( ) or P/N
65B27046-( ) windows were installed or within 6 years after the
effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later. Japan Airlines stated
its justification for this change with three reasons. First, during the
repetitive inspections, it is almost impossible to detect and correct
the moisture ingression into the window, which can contribute to
interlayer cracks. Therefore, there are no significant issues that
could result in loss of the window. The second reason is the economic
impact. The parts price of dual structural glass pane windows is almost
twice that of single pane windows. The third reason is that the
operational history of the dual pane windows is unknown, and it will be
difficult to know how durable the dual pane windows will be compared to
the existing single pane windows.
    We disagree with changing the compliance time. We concur with the
manufacturer's compliance time stated in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
56A2012, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010, for dual pane window
replacement. Fleet data do not support the existence of difficulties
with inspection for moisture ingression. Once

we issue this AD, any operator may request approval of an AMOC for a
change of compliance time under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this
AD. Sufficient data must be submitted to substantiate that the
compliance time change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We
have not changed the AD in this regard.
    We acknowledge the costs of the modification. However, to reduce
the reliance on long-term inspections, the modification is necessary to
meet an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this
regard.

Support for the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) and a Request To
Exempt Certain Windows From the NPRM

    British Airways requested that the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7,
2011) be revised to exempt windows produced by GKN under European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
EASA.A.S02838 from the six-year window replacement action specified in
paragraph (i) of the NPRM. British Airways also recommended that no
replacement timescale be applied to these EASA-approved parts and to
allow replacement by attrition. British Airways justified its request
by stating that these GKN windows were developed to replace the
discrepant windows that the NPRM proposed to replace. British Airways
stated that the GKN windows have the problematic PVB or PU/PVB
interlayers removed, and have had zero removals since 2007 due to
failing the inspection standards specified in Boeing Service Bulletin
747-56A2012, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010. British Airways also
stated that in over 15 years of experience with GKN windows, the
interlayer has not exhibited cracking at the hot and cold temperatures
experienced by the windows under service conditions. British Airways
identified certain part numbers of the EASA-approved GKN windows and
the corresponding Boeing part numbers to provide assistance to the FAA.
    We disagree with exempting windows produced by GKN from
replacement. British Airways has provided useful data in support of its
request. However, we need additional information to exempt these
windows from the AD. Once we issue this AD, any operator may request
approval of an AMOC for GKN window substitution under the provisions of
paragraph (l) of this AD. Sufficient data must be submitted to
substantiate that the GKN windows would provide an acceptable level of
safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Certain Wording in NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011)

    The Boeing Company requested that we clarify certain statements in
the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) by changing the wording in
paragraph (i) of the NPRM from ``Part 3--Window Replacement'' to ``Work
Instructions, Part 3--Window Replacement;'' and the wording in
paragraph (j) of the NPRM from ``Part 2 of the Work Instructions of''
to ``Work Instructions, Part 2--Window Inspection.''
    We agree to revise the references for consistency. We have changed
the wording in paragraph (i) and paragraph (j) of this AD.

Explanation of Additional Changes Made to This AD

    We have revised certain paragraph headers throughout this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that
these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 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 19278, April 7, 2011).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 144 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on
                  Action                              Labor cost            Parts cost    Cost per       U.S.
                                                                                product     operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection to determine window part         4 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $0         $340      $48,960
 numbers; retained from existing AD.         $340.
Detailed inspection, if necessary;          1 work-hour x $85 per hour =             0           85       12,240
 retained from existing AD.                  $85.
Dual pane window replacement; new action..  16 work-hours x $85 per hour        44,014       45,374    6,533,856
                                             = $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                     Action                                   Labor cost               Parts cost      product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Window replacement..............................  16 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $44,014       $45,374
                                                   $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 have 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 DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2007-15-10, Amendment 39-15139 (72 FR 41438, July 30, 2007; as
corrected by 72 FR 53923, September 21, 2007), and adding the following
new AD:

2012-02-16 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16939; Docket No. FAA-
2011-0303; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-214-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 15, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2007-15-10, Amendment 39-15139 (72 FR
41438, July 30, 2007; as corrected by 72 FR 53923, September 21,
2007).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in
any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-56A2012,
Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 56, Windows.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by loss of a No. 3 window in flight, which
could result in consequent rapid loss of cabin pressure. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the fail-safe
interlayer of certain No. 2 and No. 3 glass windows, which could
result in loss of the window and consequent rapid loss of cabin
pressure. Loss of the window could also result in crew communication
difficulties or incapacitation of the crew.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Requirements With New Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2007-15-10, Amendment 39-15139 (72 FR 41438, July 30, 2007; as
corrected by 72 FR 53923, September 21, 2007), with new service
information. Inspect the No. 2 and No. 3 windows on the left and
right sides of the airplane to determine their part numbers, and do
all the applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by
accomplishing all of the actions specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, dated
August 24, 2006; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1,
dated August 12, 2010; except as required by paragraph (j) of this
AD; as applicable. Do all of these actions at the compliance times
specified in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, dated August 24, 2006; or Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010; as
applicable; except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. A review
of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of the
inspection if the part numbers of the windows can be conclusively
determined from that review. Repeat the related investigative and
corrective actions thereafter at the interval specified in Table 2
or 3 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-56A2012,
dated August 24, 2006; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-56A2012,
Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010; except as required by paragraph
(h) of this AD, as applicable. As of the effective date of this AD,
only Boeing Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1, dated August
12, 2010, except as required by (j) of this AD, may be used.
Replacing a window in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD
terminates the requirements of this paragraph for that window.

(h) Retained Exception to Compliance Times

    This paragraph restates the exceptions to the compliance times
specified in paragraph (g) of AD 2007-15-10, Amendment 39-15139 (72
FR 41438, July 30, 2007; as corrected by 72 FR 53923, September 21,
2007). Where Tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, dated August 24, 2006, specify
counting the compliance time from ``* * * after the date on this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires counting the compliance time
from September 4, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-15-10,
Amendment 39-15139 (72 FR 41438, July 30, 2007; as corrected by 72
FR 53923, September 21, 2007)). After replacing a discrepant window
with a new window having part number (P/N) 65B27042-( ), 65B27043-(
), 65B27046-( ), or 65B27047-( ), do the initial detailed inspection
required in paragraph (g) of this AD of the new window at the
applicable compliance time: (1) Within 5,500 flight hours after
installing P/N 65B27042-( ) or 65B27043-( ), or (2) Within 22,000
flight hours after installing P/N 65B27046-( ) or 65B27047-( ).

(i) New Requirements of This AD: Window Replacement

    Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, replace all
No. 2 windows having P/N 65B27042-( ) or 65B27046-( ) with windows
having P/N 141U4821-( ), 141U4822-( ), or 65B07639-( ); and replace
all No. 3 windows having P/N 65B27043-( ) or 65B27047-( ) with
windows having P/N 141U4831-( ), 141U4832-( ), or 65B07640-( ), in
accordance with ``Work Instructions, Part 3--Window Replacement,''
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
56A2012, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010. Doing this replacement
for all windows terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this AD.

(j) New Requirements of This AD: Non-Clear Damage Definition and Action

    Where Step 4.e., ``Work Instructions, Part 2--Window
Inspection,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010, specifies
``non-clear damage'' as a criterion for window replacement, this AD
defines non-clear damage to be any degradation of the transparency
of the window, which would hinder the internal or external detailed
inspections for fail-safe interlayer cracks, glass pane cracks and
chips, and indications of electrical arcing. Replacement for non-
clear damage is required by this AD only if the non-clear damage
hinders the inspection for fail-safe interlayer cracks, glass pane
cracks and chips, or indications of electrical arcing.

(k) Parts Installation

    As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any No. 2 or
No. 3 window having P/N 65B27042-( ), 65B27043-( ), 65B27046-( ), or
65B27047-( ) that is not new or on which the window flight hours are
not known, on any airplanes, unless the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD are done.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs previously approved in accordance with AD 2007-15-10,
Amendment 39-15139 (72 FR 41438, July 30, 2007; as corrected by 72
FR 53923, September 21, 2007), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD except previous AMOCs approving
window replacement that do not specify installing dual structural
glass pane windows are not considered approved for corresponding
inspection methods required by this AD.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Nathan P. Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
    (2) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
May 15, 2012.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1, dated
August 12, 2010.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 4, 2007 (72 FR 41438, July 30, 2007; as corrected by 72 FR
53923, September 21, 2007).
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, dated August 24,
2006.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone: 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (6) You may review copies of the referenced 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>.
    (7) 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 January 23, 2012.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-8452 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


below where we can clearly observe a slightly decreasing yet consistent
level of volatility in the Bitcoin market based on daily and hourly
returns across the considered exchanges. Again, this further supports
the argument that the Bitcoin market has exhibited significant
improvements in terms of price discovery over time, irrespective and
despite of the volatility of the asset itself, which can be attributed
to efficient arbitrage operations.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY23.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY23.035

    One factor that has contributed to the overall efficiency of, and
improved price discovery within the Bitcoin market is the increase in
the number of participants, and subsequently, the total dollar amount
allocated to this market. This can be illustrated by the following
chart, which shows the number of wallet addresses holding Bitcoin from
January 2016 to February 2023.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY23.036

    The large number of participants in the Bitcoin market has
manifested itself in high liquidity in the market. This is exhibited in
the following chart, which shows the daily aggregated dollar notional
of the bid and ask order books within the first 100 price levels across
several of the largest centralized crypto exchanges from February 2022
to January 2023. Specifically, the dollar notional that is allocated
closest to the mid price has hovered between $2.6 million and $12
million over that period.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY23.037

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C
    An increased notional order book suggests that there is a higher
degree of consensus among investors regarding the price of Bitcoin.
Moreover, this market characteristic hampers any attempt of price
manipulation by any single large entity.
    As a robustness check, the Sponsor investigates whether the dollar
notional in the order book changes significantly prior to and post an
extreme price event. Specifically, for events constituting large
increases in the price of Bitcoin, if the ask (or sell) side of the
order book

experiences a significant shrinkage in the dollar notional right before
the event, then this may be an indication of market manipulation
whereby the ask-side of the order book becomes sufficiently thin for a
large order to move the price upward. Similarly, for events
constituting large decreases in the price of Bitcoin, if the bid (or
buy) side of the order book experiences a significant shrinkage in the
dollar notional prior to such events, then this may be an indication of
market manipulation whereby the thinner bid-side of the order book may
potentially lead to significant downward price movements.
    Using the top and bottom 0.1% of hourly price changes from February
2022 to February 2023 as events of extreme upward and downward market
movements, respectively, the Sponsor plotted the bid (left charts) and
ask (right charts) dollar notional of the Bitcoin order book within a
six-hour window around these events in the chart below, which shows the
results for extreme upward price movements. The extreme price events
(indicated by the dashed green lines) perfectly coincide with the
decrease in dollar notional of the ask-side of the order book. This is
indicative of an efficient market, whereby large market movements are
quickly and dynamically absorbed by a thick orderbook. Moreover, the
dollar notional on the ask side after the event is replenished back to
its pre-event level, which implies that market participants' reactions
are quick to restore the market back to its equilibrium level.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY23.038

    The same results and conclusions are found for extreme downward
price movements. The charts below show that such price events perfectly
coincide with shrinkages on the bid side of the order book (left
charts), indicating an

efficient and dynamic Bitcoin market. Moreover, the bid-side of the
order book after the event is also restored back to its pre-event
level, which suggests that the market is symmetrically efficient in
moving back to equilibrium.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY23.039

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C
    Finally, offering only in-kind creation and redemption will provide
unique protections against potential attempts to manipulate the Shares.
While the Sponsor believes that the Index which it uses to value the
Trust's bitcoin is itself resistant to manipulation based on the
methodology further described below, the fact that creations and
redemptions are only available in-kind makes the manipulability of the
Index significantly less important. Specifically, because the Trust
will not accept cash to buy bitcoin in order to create new shares or,
barring a forced redemption of the Trust or under other extraordinary
circumstances, be forced to sell bitcoin to pay cash for redeemed
shares, the price that the Sponsor uses to value the Trust's bitcoin is
not particularly important.\86\ When authorized participants are
creating with the Trust, they need to deliver a certain number of
bitcoin per share (regardless of the valuation used) and when they're
redeeming, they can similarly expect to receive a certain number of
bitcoin per share. As such, even if the price used to value the Trust's
bitcoin is manipulated (which the Sponsor believes that its methodology
is resistant to), the ratio of bitcoin per Share does not change and
the Trust will either accept (for creations) or distribute (for
redemptions) the same number of bitcoin regardless of the value. This
not

only mitigates the risk associated with potential manipulation, but
also discourages and disincentivizes manipulation of the Index because
there is little financial incentive to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ While the Index will not be particularly important for the
creation and redemption process, it will be used for calculating
fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Designed To Protect Investors and the Public Interest
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is designed to protect
investors and the public interest. Over the past several years, U.S.
investor exposure to bitcoin through OTC Bitcoin Funds has grown into
the tens of billions of dollars and more than a billion dollars of
exposure through Bitcoin Futures ETFs. With that growth, so too has
grown the quantifiable investor protection issues to U.S. investors
through roll costs for Bitcoin Futures ETFs and premium/discount
volatility and management fees for OTC Bitcoin Funds. The Exchange
believes that the concerns related to the prevention of fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices have been sufficiently addressed to be
consistent with the Act and, to the extent that the Commission
disagrees with that assertion, also believes that such concerns are now
outweighed by these investor protection concerns. As such, the Exchange
believes that approving this proposal (and comparable proposals)
provides the Commission with the opportunity to allow U.S. investors
with access to bitcoin in a regulated and transparent exchange-traded
vehicle that would act to limit risk to U.S. investors by: (i) reducing
premium and discount volatility; (ii) reducing management fees through
meaningful competition; (iii) reducing risks and costs associated with
investing in Bitcoin Futures ETFs and operating companies that are
imperfect proxies for bitcoin exposure; and (iv) providing an
alternative to custodying spot bitcoin.
Commodity-Based Trust Shares
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the
Shares will be listed on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and
continued listing criteria in Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(4). The Exchange
believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly
monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading
sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the
applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the
Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for
derivative products, including Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The issuer
has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any
failure by the Trust or the Shares to comply with the continued listing
requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under section 19(g)(1)
of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the
continued listing requirements. If the Trust or the Shares are not in
compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will
commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12. The Exchange
may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and listed
bitcoin derivatives via the ISG, from other exchanges who are members
or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a
comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
Availability of Information
    The Exchange also believes that the proposal promotes market
transparency in that a large amount of information is currently
available about bitcoin and will be available regarding the Trust and
the Shares. In addition to the price transparency of the Index, the
Trust will provide information regarding the Trust's bitcoin holdings
as well as additional data regarding the Trust. The Trust will provide
an IIV per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the
Exchange or a third-party financial data provider during the Exchange's
Regular Trading Hours (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. E.T.). The IIV will be
calculated by using the prior day's closing NAV per Share as a base and
updating that value during Regular Trading Hours to reflect changes in
the value of the Trust's bitcoin holdings during the trading day.
    The IIV disseminated during Regular Trading Hours should not be
viewed as an actual real-time update of the NAV, which will be
calculated only once at the end of each trading day. The IIV will be
widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the
Exchange's Regular Trading Hours by one or more major market data
vendors. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line
information services.
    The website for the Trust, which will be publicly accessible at no
charge, will contain the following information: (a) the current NAV per
Share daily and the prior business day's NAV and the reported closing
price; (b) the BZX Official Closing Price in relation to the NAV as of
the time the NAV is calculated and a calculation of the premium or
discount of such price against such NAV; (c) data in chart form
displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the
Official Closing Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges for
each of the four previous calendar quarters (or for the life of the
Trust, if shorter); (d) the prospectus; and (e) other applicable
quantitative information. The Trust will also disseminate the Trust's
holdings on a daily basis on the Trust's website. The price of bitcoin
will be made available by one or more major market data vendors,
updated at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours.
Information about the Index, including key elements of how the Index is
calculated, will be publicly available at https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/digital-assets/sp-bitcoin-index/.
    The NAV for the Trust will be calculated by the Administrator once
a day and will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the
same time. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares
will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA.
    Quotation and last sale information for bitcoin is widely
disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors, including
Bloomberg and Reuters, as well as the Index. Information relating to
trading, including price and volume information, in bitcoin is
available from major market data vendors and from the exchanges on
which bitcoin are traded. Depth of book information is also available
from bitcoin exchanges. The normal trading hours for bitcoin exchanges
are 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
    For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the
Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the
proposed rule change, rather will facilitate the listing and trading of
an additional exchange-traded product that will enhance competition
among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of
investors and the marketplace.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2023-028 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-CboeBZX-2023-028. 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 website (https://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 website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do
not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2023-028 and
should be submitted on or before June 5, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10244 Filed 5-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54725-54728]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22864]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0704; FRL-9933-62-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve some elements of state implementation plan (SIP)
submissions from Wisconsin regarding the infrastructure requirements of
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone, 2010
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. The

proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was published on
April 20, 2015, and EPA received no comments during the comment period,
which ended on May 20, 2015.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0704. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Eric Svingen,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

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

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

A. What state submissions does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses June 20, 2013, submissions and a January
28, 2015, clarification from the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) intended to address all applicable infrastructure
requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?

    Under section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the
applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications
that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS already meet those requirements.
    EPA has highlighted this statutory requirement in multiple guidance
documents. The most recent, entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2)'', was published on September 13, 2013.

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Wisconsin that address
the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The
requirement for states to make SIP submissions of this type arises out
of CAA section 110(a)(1), which states that states must make SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)
as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as SIP submissions that address the nonattainment planning requirements
of part D and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, and ``regional haze SIP''
submissions required to address the visibility protection requirements
of CAA section 169A.
    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas because they
are not integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submissions:
(i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (''SSM'') at sources, that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP
approved emissions limits with limited public notice or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA;
and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement
Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526
(June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA has the authority to
address each one of these substantive areas in separate rulemakings. A
detailed history, interpretation, and rationale as they relate to
infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May 13, 2014,
proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008
Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this rulemaking?''
(see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245).

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve most elements of submissions
from Wisconsin certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet
the required infrastructure elements under section 110(a)(1) and (2)
for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was
published on April 20, 2015 (75 FR 21685), and EPA received no comments
during the comment period, which ended on May 20, 2015. EPA is
therefore taking final action to approve, as proposed, most elements of
Wisconsin's submissions.
    EPA's actions for the state's satisfaction of infrastructure SIP
requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are contained
in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2008
               Element                   Ozone     2010  NO2   2010  SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)--Emission limits and other                A           A           A
 control measures...................
(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/          A           A           A
 data system........................
(C)1--Program for enforcement of              A           A           A
 control measures...................
(C)2--PSD...........................         NA          NA          NA
(D)1--I Prong 1: Interstate                  NA           A          NA
 transport--significant contribution
(D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate                  NA           A          NA
 transport--interfere with
 maintenance........................
(D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate                 NA          NA          NA
 transport--prevention of
 significant deterioration..........
(D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate                  A           A           A
 transport--protect visibility......
(D)5--Interstate and international            A           A           A
 pollution abatement................
(E)1--Adequate resources............          A           A           A
(E)2--State board requirements......         NA          NA          NA
(F)--Stationary source monitoring             A           A           A
 system.............................
(G)--Emergency power................          A           A           A
(H)--Future SIP revisions...........          A           A           A
(I)--Nonattainment planning                  NA          NA          NA
 requirements of part D.............
(J)1--Consultation with government            A           A           A
 officials..........................
(J)2--Public notification...........          A           A           A
(J)3--PSD...........................         NA          NA          NA
(J)4--Visibility protection.........          A           A           A
(K)--Air quality modeling/data......          A           A           A
(L)--Permitting fees................          A           A           A
(M)--Consultation and participation           A           A           A
 by affected local entities.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the above table, the key is as follows:

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

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

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 10, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 27, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. Section 52.2591 is amended by adding paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.2591  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) Approval--In a June 20, 2013, submission with a January 28,
2015, clarification, Wisconsin certified that the state has satisfied
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through
(H), and (J) through (M) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We are not taking
action on the prevention of significant deterioration requirements
related to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), the transport
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and the state board
requirements of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a
separate action.
    (h) Approval--In a June 20, 2013, submission with a January 28,
2015, clarification, Wisconsin certified that the state has satisfied
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through
(H), and (J) through (M) for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
NAAQS. We are not taking action on the prevention of significant
deterioration requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
and (J), and the state board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address
these requirements in a separate action.
    (i) Approval--In a June 20, 2013, submission with a January 28,
2015, clarification, Wisconsin certified that the state has satisfied
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through
(H), and (J) through (M) for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2)
NAAQS. We are not taking action on the prevention of significant
deterioration requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
and (J), the transport provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and
the state board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address these
requirements in a separate action.
[FR Doc. 2015-22864 Filed 9-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P