[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 141 (Friday, July 23, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43069-43072]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17969]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0431; FRL-9179-1]

Approval of One-Year Extension for Attaining the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard in the Baltimore Moderate Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to extend the attainment
date from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011 for the Baltimore
nonattainment area, which is classified as moderate for the 1997 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This extension is
based in part on air quality data for the 4th highest daily 8-hour
monitored value during the 2009 ozone season. Accordingly, EPA is
revising the table in our regulations concerning the 8-hour ozone
attainment dates in the State of Maryland. EPA is approving the
extension of the attainment date for the Baltimore moderate ozone
nonattainment area in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on September 21, 2010
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by
August 23, 2010. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0431. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection 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
Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Request for Attainment Date Extension for the Baltimore
Nonattainment Area

    On March 12, 2010, the State of Maryland requested a one-year
attainment date extension for the Baltimore nonattainment area which is
classified as moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Baltimore
nonattainment area consists of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll,
Harford, and Howard Counties and Baltimore City. Since this area was
classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment area, the statutory ozone
attainment date, as prescribed by section 181(a) of the CAA, is June
15, 2010. The State of Maryland's request is that the attainment date
be extended to June 15, 2011.

II. CAA Requirements and EPA Actions Regarding One-Year Extensions

    Section 172(a)(2)(C) of subpart 1 of the CAA provides for EPA to
extend the attainment date for an area by one year if the State has
complied with all the requirements and commitments pertaining to the
area in the applicable implementation plan and no more than a minimal
number of exceedances of the NAAQS has occurred in the attainment year.
Up to two one-year extensions may be issued for a single nonattainment
area. Section 181(a)(5) of subpart 2 contains a similar provision for
the ozone NAAQS, but instead of providing for an extension where there
has been a ``minimal'' number of exceedances, it allows an extension
only if there is no more than one exceedance of the NAAQS in the year
proceeding the extension year. However, the language in section
181(a)(5) reflects the form of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and not the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.907 sets forth how sections 172(a)(2)(C)
and 181(a)(5) apply to an area subject to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Under 40 CFR 51.907, an area will meet the requirement of section
172(a)(2)(C)(ii) or 181(a)(5)(B) of the CAA pertaining to one-year
extensions of the attainment date if:
    (a) For the first one-year extension, the area's 4th highest daily
8-hour average in the attainment year is 0.084 parts per million (ppm)
or less,
    (b) For the second one-year extension, the area's 4th highest daily
8-hour value, averaged over both the original attainment year and the
first extension year, is 0.084 ppm or less.
    (c) For purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the
area's 4th highest daily 8-hour average shall be from the monitor with
the highest 4th highest daily 8-hour average of all the monitors that
represent that area.
    EPA's review of the actual ozone air quality data in the Air
Quality System shows that the 4th highest daily average 8-hour ozone
concentrations for the 2009 attainment year ozone season, for all
monitors in the Baltimore moderate ozone nonattainment area are
measured at 0.084 ppm or less (Table 1), as required by 40 CFR
51.907(a). The monitoring data has been quality controlled and quality
assured.

                  Table 1--Monitoring Data for 8-Hour Ozone in the Baltimore Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                4th Max 8-HR
                   Site ID                             County/State                 Year              (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-003-0014.................................  Anne Arundel, MD..............              2009             0.070
24-005-1007.................................  Baltimore, MD.................              2009             0.068
24-005-3001.................................  Baltimore, MD.................              2009             0.071
24-013-0001.................................  Carroll, MD...................              2009             0.068
24-025-1001.................................  Harford, MD...................              2009             0.083
24-025-9001.................................  Harford, MD...................              2009             0.069
24-510-0054.................................  Baltimore (City), MD..........              2009             0.066
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has determined that the requirements for a one-year extension
of the attainment date have been fulfilled as follows:
    (1) The State of Maryland has complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable ozone
implementation plan; and
    (2) The Baltimore nonattainment area's 4th highest daily 8-hour
monitored value during the 2009 ozone season is 0.084 ppm or less.
    Therefore, EPA approves Maryland's attainment date extension
request for the Baltimore moderate ozone nonattainment area. As a
result, the chart in 40 CFR 81.321 entitled ``Maryland--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is being modified to reflect EPA's approval of Maryland's
attainment date extension request.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the attainment date extension from June 15, 2010
to June 15, 2011 for the Baltimore nonattainment area, which is
classified as moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is
publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed.
This rule will be effective on September 21, 2010 without further
notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 23, 2010. If EPA
receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This
action merely finds that an area has qualified for a one-year extension
of the attainment date of a previously established NAAQS, and imposes
no additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule does not impose any
additional enforceable duties, it 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). This rule
also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely determines that each of two areas has attained a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    This rule does not involve establishment of technical standards,
and thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the
``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive
order.
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this direct final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The rulemaking does not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment because extending the
attainment date does not alter the emission reduction measures that are
required to be implemented in the Baltimore Area, which is classified
as moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 69 FR
at 23909 (April 30 2004). Additionally, if the Baltimore Area were not
granted an extension of its attainment date, EPA's recourse would be to
initiate a reclassification of the Baltimore Area from its current
classification of moderate nonattainment to serious nonattainment,
pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA. Because the Baltimore area
was formerly a severe nonattainment area under the revoked 1-hour ozone
standard (see, 56 FR at 56773, November 6, 1991), it is required to
continue to implement severe area requirements pursuant to EPA's
interpretation of ``anti-backsliding'' provision of section 172(e) of
the CAA. See 69 FR at 23973, April 30, 2004, South Coast Air Quality
Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006), modified and
rehearing den., 489 F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2007). The severe area
requirements are more stringent than both the moderate and serious area
requirements set forth in Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 of the CAA.
Therefore, even if EPA were to not grant the attainment date extension
and instead move to reclassify the area to serious nonttainment, no
additional emission reduction measures would be required to implemented
in the Baltimore area through a 181(b)(2) reclassification.
    The extension of the attainment deadline for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: July 6, 2010.
W. C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  81.321, the table entitled ``Maryland--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for Baltimore, MD (Anne
Arundel County, City of Baltimore, Baltimore County, Carroll County,
Harford County, and Howard County) to read as follows:

Sec.  81.321  Maryland.

* * * * *

                                                 Maryland--Ozone
                                                [8-Hour standard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Designation \a\                      Category/Classification
       Designated Area        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \1\            Type            Date \1\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore, MD:
    Anne Arundel County        ................  Nonattainment...  ................  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
    City of Baltimore          ................  Nonattainment...  ................  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
    Baltimore County           ................  Nonattainment...  ................  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
    Carroll County             ................  Nonattainment...  ................  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
    Harford County             ................  Nonattainment...  ................  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
    Howard County              ................  Nonattainment...  ................  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Effective April 15, 2008.
\3\ November 22, 2004.

\4\ Attainment date extended to June 15, 2011.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-17969 Filed 7-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	February 12, 2019

SUBJECT:	Costs/Impacts 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts KKKK and SSSS Monitoring Review Revisions

FROM:	Paula Hirtz, OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

TO:		Metal Can and Metal Coil Dockets

As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the testing and monitoring requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Surface Coating of Metal Can (40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK) and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil (subpart SSSS) and identified a testing deficiency in both subparts. For facilities that comply with the standards by using emission capture systems and add-on controls, each subpart currently requires an initial performance test during which control device efficiency is measured and the operating limits for the emission capture system and add-on control device are established. Additional periodic performance tests are not required by either subpart, however, they are required by some state and local permitting authorities as part of the 40 CFR part 70 operating permits renewal process.
The EPA is proposing a requirement for facilities that comply with the standards by using emission capture systems and add-on controls to conduct periodic air emissions performance testing, with the first of the periodic performance tests to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards and thereafter no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test. The 5-year period would correspond to the renewal period for the facility's 40 CFR part 70 operating permits.
The addition of periodic performance testing to these federal regulations will require all facilities to conduct periodic testing to ensure that emission control systems are checked and properly maintained over time. Periodic testing of control devices ensures the emission control technology remains effective, over and above the parametric monitoring that is currently required by the NESHAP, thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes and non-compliance.
This proposal would require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device, or control device outlet concentration of organic HAP, once every 5 years for existing and new surface coating affected sources using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. Emissions would be measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either Method 25 or 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
Note that these subparts specify some emissions limits in terms of organic HAP concentrations or organic HAP destruction efficiencies measured using EPA test methods 25 or 25A. These test methods measure unspeciated total organic compounds. However, most surface coating operations emit volatile organic compounds that are not HAP as well as HAP. We are also aware of situations where the measured gas stream from a coating operation may contain measurable amounts of methane, which is also not a HAP, from natural gas combustion. Using Method 25 or 25A alone in that situation could result in a facility demonstrating non-compliance due to the non-HAP organic compound or methane emissions, although we expect this to be unlikely based on available compliance data from facilities using add-on controls. (These compliance data show facilities using add-on controls with a sufficient margin between the emission limit and their actual emission rates that they should be able to rely on just VOC destruction to demonstrate compliance.) To avoid this potential problem, several NESHAP that cover coating operations contain a provision to use EPA Test Method 18 to measure organic HAP emissions (40 CFR Part 63 subparts EE (Magnetic Tape Manufacturing), GG (Aerospace), JJ (Wood Furniture Manufacturing),  and VVVV (Boat Manufacturing)), or to simultaneously measure methane emissions along with the total organic compound emissions, and allow the methane emissions to be subtracted from the total organic compound emissions measured using Methods 25 or 25A (40 CFR Part 63 subpart KKKK (Metal Can Coating)). We are proposing to add the option of conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 to Subpart SSSS to either specifically measure organic HAP emissions, or to subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. We think the decision to use the method will be made on a site-specific basis, and based on our knowledge of the industries affected by the two subparts, that the decision to use Method 18 will rarely be necessary. Because it is being proposed as an optional method, we did not include the costs associated with the method in this analysis. Facilities performing testing using EPA Methods 25 or 25A are required to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 to measure gas flow rate, molecular weight, and moisture content. These methods are included in this analysis.
The estimated costs associated with a periodic testing requirement in this analysis for subparts KKKK and SSSS are incremental costs (i.e., the additional cost associated with complying with an additional requirement beyond that required under the current subpart MACT).
We identified the facilities for which periodic testing would be a new requirement by reviewing the most current operating permits for the known major source facilities in each source category and identifying those with add-on controls and using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option in each subpart. We also used the permits to identify how many add-on controls were used by each facility. Some facilities had multiple add-on controls, e.g., one for each coating line.
Emissions compliance testing costs were treated as capital costs because facilities routinely contract with a company specializing in emissions testing to perform the tests. Consistent with the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, the capital costs were annualized at 5.25 percent over the 5-year testing period. Appendix A presents estimated emissions testing costs as facility-specific and nationwide equivalent annualized costs (EAC) for each of the NESHAP. The basis for the testing costs is presented in Appendix B. The one-time estimated cost per add-on control range from approximately $18,500 to $18,750 for Method 25 and 25A, and assumes that emissions are measured simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the control device to measure destruction efficiency. The one-time estimated costs to conduct Method 18 (manual or direct) are also included. (We assumed that facilities would not use EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and not subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. EPA Method 18 is currently listed in subpart KKKK and is being added to subpart SSSS in this proposed action.) These costs were annualized with an interest rate of 5.25 percent resulting in an equivalent annualized cost of about $4,300 per add-on control per facility. These costs also assume that the associated emission capture systems meet the design criteria for a permanent total enclosure in EPA Method 204, so that capture efficiency does not need to be measured.
We applied a 25-percent discount to the cost of testing each additional device at a facility to account for the fact that the testing contractor was already on site and would have no additional travel costs and would have some reduced set up and take down costs. That is, testing the second, third or fourth device at a facility would be $14,060 instead of $18,750, and an equivalent annualized cost of about $3,200 instead of $4,300.
These testing cost estimates were based on conditions in the facility operating permits requiring periodic testing on a specified frequency (annually, every four years, every five years). We did not account for "as-needed" periodic emissions testing required by the permitting authority to measure control device efficiency as part of renewing their operating permits. If a facility had more than one control device (e.g., for two separate coating lines) we assumed that each device would be tested independently.
The total estimated equivalent annualized cost of periodic testing for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans industry (subpart KKKK) is about $11,000. Three metal can surface coating facilities have two or more control devices per facility. One of the three facilities is not using the controls to comply with the NESHAP and the two other facilities are already required to perform testing as a condition of their 40 CFR part 70 operating permits. Therefore, only one of the five facilities is affected by this requirement since it is not currently required to perform testing as part of renewing its 40 CFR part 70 operating permit according to state regulations. Based on recent information, the facility changed ownership and is currently operating three of the four control devices at the facility.
The total estimated equivalent annualized cost of periodic testing for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil industry (subpart SSSS) is about $130,000. There are 48 facilities subject to 40 CFR 63 Subpart SSSS. A review of 46 permits revealed that 5 facilities do not use add-on control devices, 20 facilities use add-on controls and are already required to conduct periodic performance testing for VOC/HAP destruction efficiency, and 21 facilities use add-on controls but are not required to conduct periodic performance testing. These 21 facilities have 30 add-on control devices that will require periodic testing as a result of this proposed amendment. Since it is assumed that 5% of performance tests will need to be repeated, calculations for capital costs for testing include the costs of 30 performance tests plus 2 re-tests in year 3. Nine of the 21 facilities have two add-on control devices, and EPA assumes that both devices will be tested during one visit by the testing company. For the coil coating source category, we also assumed a 5 percent testing failure rate, which would mean two additional tests that would have to be conducted at a later date at a cost of $18,750 per test, for a total of $37,500 and an equivalent annualized cost of $8,600.

Appendix A: Equivalent Annualized Costs (EAC) with Interest Rates by Facility and Industry Sector
                            Facility (City, State)

                             Process/ Description
                                    Control
                         Do we have operating permit?
                  Is periodic testing required by the permit?
                            Estimated testing costs
                       EAC with 5.25% Interest (5 year)
                           Metal Can Surface Coating
Rocky Mountain Metal Container (Miller-Coors), Golden CO
Can coating includes can lines C04, C05, C24, CX3.

2 Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer, but not using add-on controls to comply.
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
                                       _
BWAY Packaging, Homerville, GA
Can coating includes lithographic printing and coating lines which are subject to both KKKK and MMMM; no controls on the can line subject to only KKKK.

1 Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
BWAY Corp, Chicago, IL
Can coating lithography lines.
1 Thermal Oxidizer and 1 Catalytic Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _

Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation, Findlay, OH

Can coating lines 1 and 2 (2-Piece aluminum beverage cans) and can line 3 (2-piece steel food cans).

                                       _
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
                                       _
Ball Metal Food Container Corp, Weirton, WV
(Facility closed in 2017 and a portion was sold and reopened as Maple Manufacturing.)
Sheet Coaters C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4; LTG-1, Sheet coaters C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, and C-10; Sheet coating Lines PC-3, PC-4, PC-5, PC-6, and PC-7.

4 Thermal Oxidizers, but only 3 are currently needed.

                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $46,900
                      ($18,750 for one thermal oxidizer.
                                    $10,830
                      ($4,360 for one thermal oxidizer.)
                          Metal Coil Surface Coating
Agfa Corporation (NJ)
Coil coating units U6 OS1, U6 OS3, U6 OS5, U6 OS6.
2 Thermal Oxidizers
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $32,800
                                    $7,630
AK Steel - Zanesville Works (OH)
Coil Coating Lines #7 and #15.
_
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                       _
                                       _
ALCOA INC Riverdale (IA)
Electrostatic Lube  -  Treatment Line (EU ELUBE01) and 14
Slitter (EU ELUBE02).
                                       _
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                       _
                                       _
ALCOA INC. - WARRICK OPERATIONS (IN)
Electrocoat coil coating line CPL6; coil coating line CCL2; and coil coating line CCL3.
2 Thermal Oxidizers
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
Aleris Rolled Products, Inc. (KY)
Area 6 Coil Coating/Finishing (IDs 68, 83, 84, 98, and 104).
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
Aleris Rolled Products, Inc. (OH)
Wide line primer coating line and wide line finish coating line.
2 Thermal Oxidizers
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $32,800
                                    $7,630
ALUMAX MILL PROD INC/MILL PROD (PA)
Sixty-inch coil coating/annealing line.
2 Thermal Oxidizers
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $32,800
                                    $7,630
BRIGHTSMITH LLC (PA)
Coil coating operations include prime and finishing lines.
2 Thermal Oxidizers
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
Centria (OH)
McKay Coil Coating Paint Line, 60" width.
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $18,750
                                    $4,360
CONSOLIDATED SYSTEMS, INC (now Precoat Metals) (SC)
Coil coating application with primer coater and a finish coater.
1 Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
CONSTELLIUM (Wise Alloys LLC ) (AL)
High speed cleaning and coating lines.
2 Thermal Oxidizers
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $32,800
                                    $7,630
Crown Cork & Seal (OH)
Two 36 in coil coating lines K004 and K005.
2 Catalytic Incinerators
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
EDCO Products Inc (MN)
Two coil coating lines.
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $18,750
                                    $4,360
EDCOAT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (IN)
Upper and Lower Coil Coating lines.
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
FUJI FILM INC P PLANT (SC)
Coil coating and drying operations in series P-Plant Emission units 02 and K-Plant Emission unit 09.
2 Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
JUPITER ALUMINUM CORPORATION JUPITER (IN)
Aluminum coil coating lines #1 and #2.
1 Direct Flame Incinerator and 1 Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
Logan Aluminum Inc (KY)
Aluminum Coil Coating Line 1.
1 Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
Material Sciences Corp (IL)
Coil coating emission units include Coating Line #2 and Coating Line #4, and Line #4 Mezzanine.
5 Thermal Oxidizers
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
Metal Coaters (MS)
Coil Coating Operation.
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $18,750
                                    $4,360
Metal Coaters (OH)
Coil Coating Line with four coating stations.
2 Thermal Oxidizers and a rotor VOC concentrator with a catalytic oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                 Yes, partial
                                    $32,800
                                    $7,630
MSC Walbridge Coatings Inc (OH)
Coil coating with prime paint roll coating application and finish paint roll coating application.
2 Thermal Oxidizers
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $32,800
                                    $7,630
NCI GROUP INC., DBA, METAL COATERS OF CA (CA)
_
_
                                      No
                                       _
                                       _
                                       _
NICHOLS ALUMINUM - DAVENPORT - ROCKINGHAM RD (IA)
Coil coating with Prime and Finish Roll Coaters.
1 Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $18,750
                                    $4,360
Novelis Corporation (OH)
Aluminum/metal coil coating K002 Prime & Finish Coating Operation.
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $18,750
                                    $4,360
Ply Gem (OH)
Coil coating consists of K001, 39" Line and K002, 54" Line.
1 Thermal oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $18,750
                                    $4,360
Precoat Metals (AR)
Coil coating with Prime and Finish lines.
2 Thermal Oxidizers

                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
Precoat Metals (IL)
Coil coating Line 3 consisting of a Prime Coating Section and Finish Coating Section.
2 Thermal Oxidizers
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
Precoat Metals (Hawkesville, KY)
Metal coil manufacturing and coating operation includes prime coating and finish coat roll coating processes.
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
Precoat Metals (MS)
Coil coating lines with Prime and Finish Coaters (AD-000) and Prime and Finish Curing Ovens (AC-000).
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $18,750
                                    $4,360
Precoat Metals (WV)
Metal coil coating line with prime and finish coating sections.
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
Precoat Metals a Division of Sequa Corp (Portage, IN)
Coil coating with prime coating section and finish coat section.
1 Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer and 1 Recuperative Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes

                                       _
                                       _
Precoat Metals Corp. (La Port, IN)
Coil coating Line 5.
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
PRECOAT METALS DIVISION OF SEQUA CORP (AL)
Metal coil surface coating operation consisting of a prime roll coater and a finish roll coater.
1 Thermal Oxidizer
and 1 Afterburner
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $32,800
                                    $7,630
PRECOAT METALS DIVISION SEQUA COATINGS (Greenfield, IN)

Metal coil coating Lines 1 and 2.
2 Thermal Oxidizers
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
PRECOAT METALS HOUSTON (TX)
PROCCL5  -  Coil coating process includes prime and finish coating sections.
1 Thermal oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $18,750
                                    $4,360
PRECOAT METALS (MO)
Two continuous metal coil surface coating lines. Coil Line 1 and Coil Line 2.
2 Thermal Oxidizers

                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $32,800
                                    $7,630
Signode Corp (IL)
Magnus 4 strapping line (i.e., paint dip tank (M4-3), electric paint drying oven (M4-4), wax applicator/electric dryer (M4-5)).
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $18,750
                                    $4,360
SOUTHWIRE COMPANY COPPER ROD MILL (GA)

UV light cured ink application systems.
                                       _
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                       _
                                       _
SPRINGS WINDOW FASHIONS, MONTGOMERY PLT (PA)
                                       _
                                       _
                                      No
                                       _
                                       _
                                       _
USG Interiors, Inc., American Metals Corp., Westlake (OH)
Coil coating lines K001, K002, K003 and K005.

1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $18,750
                                    $4,360
USS MON VALLEY WORKS - IRVIN PLANT (PA)
Continuous galvanizing and aluminum coating line no. 2.
                                       _
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                       _
                                       _
VULCRAFT OF NEW YORK INC (NY)
Coating Lines P-00001 and P-00002 using waterborne coatings.
                                       _
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                       _
                                       _
Wheeling Corrugating Company (now Jupiter Aluminum Corp and BDC) (WV)
Coating Line #1 and Coating Line #2
2 Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $32,800
                                    $7,630
Vorteq (formerly Wismarq Corporation) (IL)
Coil coating line with prime and finish application and ovens.
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
Wismarq Corporation (WI)
Two (2) metal coil surface coating lines. Line #1 has two coating stations and Line # 2 has one coating station.
1 Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
WOLVERINE ADVANCED MATERIALS  -  BLACKSBURG (VA)
Coil Coating consists of two metal coil coating lines (CL2 and CL4).
1 Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                    $18,750
                                    $4,360
WOLVERINE ADVANCED MATERIALS - CEDAR RUN (VA)
Two metal coil coating lines to coat metal with organic coatings rubber coatings, graphite coatings, and/or adhesives.
2 Catalytic Oxidizers and 1 Thermal Incinerator
                                      Yes
                                    partial
                                    $18,750
                                    $4,360
WOLVERINE ADVANCED MATERIALS LLC (FL)
Coil Coating operation for rubber coated sealing materials used in the automotive industry.
1 Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       _
                                       _
                 Testing Costs for All Coil Coating Facilities
                                   $520,200
                                   $121,000
Cost For Two Repeat Tests as a Result of Not Passing Test (Assuming a 5% Failure Rate)
                                    $37,500
                                    $8,700
Total Testing Costs Including Repeat Tests (Rounded to Two Significant Figures)
                                   $560,000
                                   $130,000

        Appendix B: Detailed Information for Testing Methodology Costs
                 Testing to Determine Destruction Efficiency
                Required Tests: EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, and 25
(EPA Method 25 is Total Gaseous Non-Methane Organics reported as Carbon (TGNMOC) manual sample collection and analysis)
Control device inlet and outlet testing conducted simultaneously, three complete test sets at one hour each.
                                    Element
                                     Cost
                                  Assumptions
Labor  -  Preparation and Staging
   P4 = 8 hours
   P2 = 16 hours
   P1 = 4 hours
                                    $2,168
Test plan/QAPP preparation, equipment preparation, calibrations (pitots, thermocouples, dry gas meters, etc.), packing
Labor  -  Travel to and Set-up
   P4 = 20 hours
   P2  -  20 hours
                                    $3,860
Use of local testing company so travel is minimized. Travel by truck/company vehicle. Set-up of equipment in preparation for first test completed.
Labor  -  Testing
   P4 = 16 hours
   P2  -  16 hours
                                    $3,088
All three test runs at inlet and outlet conducted in one day.
Labor  -  Travel from and Break-down
   P4 = 20 hours
   P2  -  20 hours
                                    $3,860
Use of local testing company so travel is minimized. Travel by truck/company vehicle. Break-down of equipment after last test run completed.
Labor  -  Recovery
   P2  -  12 hours
                                     $660
Equipment unloading, repair, and post-test calibration checks.
Labor  -  Reporting
   P4 = 6 hours
   P1 = 4 hours
                                    $1,012
Test report preparation including all field data and destruction efficiency determinations.
M25 Equipment
   6 samples ($75/sample)
                                     $450
Trap and tank including pre-cleaning, blanking, and evacuation.
M25 Sample Analysis
   6 samples ($250/sample)
                                    $1,500
TGNMOC from trap and tank
Miscellaneous Expendable Supplies
                                     $500
Fuel, Ice, Dry Ice, Fittings, Hardware, etc.
Shipping: 6 samples ($30/ sample)
                                     $180
Samples to M25 specialty lab for analysis
Lodging: 4 people, 2 nights each ($109/night)
                                     $872
Lodging at site
Meals: 4 people, 3 days each ($51/day)
                                     $612
Meals at site
                                                                          TOTAL
                                    $18,762

P4 - $138/hour, P2 - $55/hour, P1 - $46/hour
                 Testing to Determine Destruction Efficiency
                Required Tests: EPA Method 1, 2, 3, 4, and 25A
                 (EPA Method 25A is TGNMOC direct measurement)
Control device inlet and outlet testing simultaneously, three complete test sets at one hour each.
                                    Element
                                     Cost
                                  Assumptions
Labor  -  Preparation and Staging
   P4 = 8 hours
   P2 = 18 hours
   P1 = 4 hours
                                    $2,278
Test plan/QAPP preparation, equipment preparation, calibrations (pitots, thermocouples, dry gas meters, field VOC analyzer, etc.), packing
Labor  -  Travel to and Set-up
   P4 = 22 hours
   P2  -  22 hours
                                    $4,246
Use of local testing company so travel is minimized. Travel by truck/company vehicle. Set-up of equipment in preparation for first test completed.
Labor  -  Testing
   P4 = 16 hours
   P2  -  16 hours
                                    $3,088
All three test runs at inlet and outlet conducted in one day.
Labor  -  Travel from and Break-down
   P4 = 20 hours
   P2  -  20 hours
                                    $3,860
Use of local testing company so travel is minimized. Travel by truck/company vehicle. Break-down of equipment after last test run completed.
Labor  -  Recovery
   P2  -  16 hours
                                     $880
Equipment unloading, repair, and post-test calibration checks.
Labor  -  Reporting
   P4 = 6 hours
   P1 = 4 hours
                                    $1,012
Test report preparation including all field data and destruction efficiency determinations.
M25A Equipment
   2 field VOC analyzers ($300/unit)
                                     $600
Rental
Miscellaneous Expendable Supplies
                                     $900
Fuel, Ice, Support gases, Calibration gas, Fittings, Hardware, etc.
Shipping
   2 parcels ($75/parcel)
                                     $150
Field VOC rental units returned
Lodging
   4 people, 2 nights each ($109/night)
                                     $872
Lodging at site
Meals
   4 people, 3 days each ($51/day)
                                     $612
Meals at site
                                                                          TOTAL
                                    $18,498

P4 - $138/hour, P2 - $55/hour, P1 - $46/hour

          Testing to Accomplish Destruction Efficiency Determinations
 Optional Test: EPA Method 18 (Methane manual sample collection and analysis)
Control device inlet and outlet testing conducted simultaneously, three complete test sets at one hour each.
                                    Element
                                     Cost
                                  Assumptions
Labor  -  Preparation and Staging
   P4 = 2 hours
   P2 = 8 hours
   P1 = 1 hours
                                     $762
Test plan/QAPP preparation (addition), equipment preparation, calibrations, packing
Labor  -  Travel to and Set-up
   P2  -  20 hours
                                    $1,100
Use of local testing company so travel is minimized. Travel by truck/company vehicle. Set-up of equipment in preparation for first test completed.
Labor  -  Testing
   P2  -  16 hours
                                     $880
All three test runs at inlet and outlet conducted in one day.
Labor  -  Travel from and Break-down
   P2  -  20 hours
                                    $1,100
Use of local testing company so travel is minimized. Travel by truck/company vehicle. Break-down of equipment after last test run completed.
Labor  -  Recovery
   P2  -  8 hours
                                     $440
Equipment unloading, repair, and post-test calibration checks.
Labor  -  Reporting
   P4 = 1 hours
   P1 = 1 hours
                                     $184
Methane data added to test report prepared for the required testing.
M18 Equipment
   6 samples ($50/sample)
                                     $300
Train and Tedlar bag or canister including pre-cleaning, blanking, and evacuation (as needed).
M18 Sample Analysis
   6 samples ($50/sample)
                                     $300
Methane from Tedlar bag or canister
Miscellaneous Expendable Supplies
                                     $400
Fuel, Fittings, Hardware, etc.
Shipping
   6 samples ($30/ sample)
                                     $180
Samples to M18 specialty lab for analysis
Lodging
   2 people, 2 nights each ($109/night)
                                     $436

Lodging at site
Meals
   2 people, 3 days each ($51/day)
                                     $306

Meals at site
                                                                          TOTAL
                                    $6,388

P4 - $138/hour, P2 - $55/hour, P1 - $46/hour
          Testing to Accomplish Destruction Efficiency Determinations
           Optional Test: EPA Method 18 (Methane direct measurement)
Control device inlet and outlet testing conducted simultaneously, three complete test sets at one hour each.
                                    Element
                                     Cost
                                  Assumptions
Labor  -  Preparation and Staging
   P4 = 2 hours
   P2 = 8 hours
   P1 = 1 hours
                                     $762
Test plan/QAPP preparation (addition), equipment preparation, calibrations, packing
Labor  -  Travel to and Set-up
   P2  -  20 hours
                                    $1,100
Use of local testing company so travel is minimized. Travel by truck/company vehicle. Set-up of equipment in preparation for first test completed.
Labor  -  Testing
   P2  -  16 hours
                                     $880
All three test runs at inlet and outlet conducted in one day.
Labor  -  Travel from and Break-down
   P2  -  20 hours
                                    $1,100
Use of local testing company so travel is minimized. Travel by truck/company vehicle. Break-down of equipment after last test run completed.
Labor  -  Recovery
   P2  -  8 hours
                                     $440
Equipment unloading, repair, and post-test calibration checks.
Labor  -  Reporting
   P4 = 1 hours
   P1 = 1 hours
                                     $184
Methane data added to test report prepared for the required testing.
M18 Equipment
   2 field Methane analyzers ($300/unit)
                                     $600
Rental
Miscellaneous Expendable Supplies
                                     $500
Fuel, Support gases, Calibration standard, Fittings, Hardware, etc.
Shipping
   2 parcels ($75/parcel)
                                     $150
Field Methane rental units returned
Lodging
   2 people, 2 nights each ($109/night)
                                     $436

Lodging at site
Meals
   2 people, 3 days each ($51/day)
                                     $306

Meals at site
                                                                          TOTAL
                                    $6,458

P4 - $138/hour, P2 - $55/hour, P1 - $46/hour


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32246-32248]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13738]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64560; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Update Rule Cross-References and Make Non-
Substantive Technical Changes to Certain FINRA Rules

 May 27, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 17, 2011, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to update cross-references within certain FINRA
rules to reflect changes adopted in the consolidated FINRA rulebook and
to make non-substantive technical changes to certain FINRA Rules.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA is in the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook'').\4\ That process involves FINRA
submitting to the Commission for approval a series of proposed rule
changes over time to adopt rules in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
The phased adoption and implementation of those rules necessitates
periodic amendments to update rule cross-references and other non-
substantive technical changes in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would update rule cross-references to
reflect changes adopted in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. In this
regard, the proposed rule change would update references in FINRA Rules
0150 (Application of Rules to Exempted Securities Except Municipal
Securities), 6630 (Applicability of FINRA Rules to Securities
Previously Designated as PORTAL Securities), 7230A (Trade Report
Input), 7330 (Trade Report Input) and 9217 (Violations Appropriate for
Disposition Under Plan Pursuant to SEA Rule 19d-1(c)(2)) that are
needed as the result of Commission approval of two recent FINRA
proposed rule changes.\5\ Furthermore, the proposed rule change would
update a reference in FINRA Rule 9120 (Definitions) to reflect that the
NASD Rule 3300 Series has been replaced by FINRA Rule 4560 and the
FINRA Rule 5200 Series.\6\ The proposed

rule change would also make a technical change to FINRA Rule 4530
(Reporting Requirements) to clarify in Supplementary Material .03 that
the proper referenced term is ``Order Accepting an Offer of
Settlement.'' The proposed rule change would also make a technical
change to FINRA Rule 6622 (Transaction Reporting) by moving the word
``and'' from subparagraph (c)(3) to subparagraph (c)(4). Additionally,
the proposed rule change would correct the numbering of Incorporated
NYSE Rule Interpretation 409 (Statements of Accounts to Customers) due
to an inadvertent deletion.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63150 (October 21,
2010), 75 FR 66173 (October 27, 2010) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2009-058); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63260
(November 5, 2010), 75 FR 69508 (November 12, 2010) (Order Approving
File No. SR-FINRA-2010-034).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58461 (September 4,
2008), 73 FR 52710 (September 10, 2008) (Order Approving File No.
SR-FINRA-2008-033); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60648
(September 10, 2009), 74 FR 47837 (September 17, 2009) (Order
Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2009-048); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 60659 (September 11, 2009), 74 FR 48117 (September 21,
2009) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2009-044); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 60835 (October 16, 2009), 74 FR 54616
(October 22, 2009) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2009-055);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61071 (November 30, 2009), 74 FR
64109 (December 7, 2009) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2009-
067); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62842 (September 3,
2010), 75 FR 55842 (September 14, 2010) (Order Approving File No.
SR-FINRA-2010-030). When SR-FINRA-2010-030 became effective, the
last remaining provision of the NASD Rule 3300 Series was deleted,
thereby necessitating the proposed rule change to FINRA Rule 9120.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63999 (March 1,
2011), 76 FR 12380 (March 7, 2011) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2010-061).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also is proposing to move the definition of ``initial public
offering'' from Rule 6220 (Definitions) to Rule 6130 (Transactions
Related to Initial Public Offerings). FINRA is not proposing
substantive changes to the definition of ``initial public offering.''
FINRA believes that Rule 6130 is the more appropriate location for the
definition of ``initial public offering'' and that relocating this
definition, as proposed, will reduce confusion for members.
    Finally, FINRA is proposing a change to FINRA Rule 2268(a)(5) \8\
to reflect amendments to the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer
Disputes allowing customers to choose an all public arbitration
panel.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FINRA Rule 2268 was adopted as part of the consolidated
FINRA rules governing books and records. See Regulatory Notice 11-19
(April 2011). FINRA Rule 2268 will become effective on December 5,
2011.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63799 (January 31,
2011), 76 FR 6500 (February 4, 2011) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2010-053).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The implementation date for the proposed rule changes to
FINRA Rules 6130, 6220, 6622, 6630, 7230A, 7330 and 9120 will be June
17, 2011. The implementation date for the proposed rule changes to
FINRA Rules 0150, 4530 and 9217 will be July 1, 2011. The
implementation date for the proposed rule change to FINRA Rule 2268
will be December 5, 2011. The implementation date for the proposed rule
change to Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretation 409 will be the
effective date of SR-FINRA-2010-061.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63999 (March 1,
2011), 76 FR 12380 (March 7, 2011) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2010-061).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes the proposed rule change will provide
greater clarity to members and the public regarding FINRA's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    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) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the self-regulatory organization to submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of 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. FINRA 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 necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2011-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-024. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-024
and

should be submitted on or before June 24, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-13738 Filed 6-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin
                                                                       106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate
                                                                       140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide
                                                                       106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride
                                                                       107-06-2
Ethylene oxide
                                                                        75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea
                                                                        96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)
                                                                        75-34-3
Formaldehyde
                                                                        50-00-0
Heptachlor
                                                                        76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene
                                                                       118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene
                                                                        87-68-3
Hexachloroethane
                                                                        67-72-1
Hydrazine
                                                                       302-01-2
Isophorone
                                                                        78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)
                                                                        58-89-9
m-Cresol
                                                                       108-39-4
Methylene chloride
                                                                        75-09-2
Naphthalene
                                                                        91-20-3
Nitrobenzene
                                                                        98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine
                                                                        62-75-9
o-Cresol
                                                                        95-48-7
o-Toluidine
                                                                        95-53-4
Parathion
                                                                        56-38-2
p-Cresol
                                                                       106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene
                                                                       106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene
                                                                        82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol
                                                                        87-86-5
Propoxur
                                                                       114-26-1
Propylene dichloride
                                                                        78-87-5
Propylene oxide
                                                                        75-56-9
Quinoline
                                                                        91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene
                                                                       127-18-4
Toxaphene
                                                                      8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene
                                                                        79-01-6
Trifluralin
                                                                      1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide
                                                                       593-60-2
Vinyl chloride
                                                                        75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride
                                                                        75-35-4