[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34935-34937]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14812]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0414-201134; FRL-9319-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky and
Indiana; Louisville; Determination of Attainment by Applicable
Attainment Date for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA), that the bi-state Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana, fine particulate
(PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as ``the
Louisville Area'' or ``the Area'') has attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by its
applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. The determination of
attainment was previously made by EPA on March 9, 2011, based on
quality-assured and certified monitoring data for the 2007-2009
monitoring period. EPA is now proposing to find that the Louisville
Area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable
attainment date. EPA is proposing this action because it is consistent
with the CAA and its implementing regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2011-0414, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0414, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2011-0414. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In Region 4, Sara Waterson or Joel
Huey, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Waterson may be reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mr. Huey may be
reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Huey can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>In Region 5, John Summerhays,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. The telephone number is (312) 886-
6067. Mr. Summerhays can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is the air quality in the Louisville Area for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 monitoring period?
IV. What is the proposed action, and what is the effect of this
action?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    Based on EPA's review of the quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for 2007-2009, and in accordance with section 179(c)(1)
of the CAA and EPA's regulations, EPA proposes to determine that the
Louisville Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. The Louisville Area is
comprised of Jefferson County in Kentucky, and Clark, Floyd and a
portion of Jefferson Counties in Indiana.
    On March 9, 2011, EPA published a final rulemaking making a
determination of attainment to suspend the requirements for the
Louisville Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, contingency

measures, and other planning State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
related to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS so long
as the Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
See 76 FR 12860. Today's proposed action merely makes a determination
that the Louisville Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by its applicable attainment date. This action is not a re-
proposal of the attainment determination to suspend the requirements
for the Louisville Area to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning
SIP revisions related to attainment of the standard. More information
regarding the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the Area's
attainment of that NAAQS is available at 76 FR 12860 (March 9, 2011).

II. What is the background for this action?

    As a nonattainment area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
the Louisville Area had an applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010
(based on 2007-2009 monitoring data). Pursuant to section 179(c) of the
CAA, EPA is required to make a determination on whether the Area
attained the standard by its applicable attainment date. Specifically,
section 179(c)(1) of the CAA reads as follows: ``As expeditiously as
practicable after the applicable attainment date for any nonattainment
area, but not later than 6 months after such date, the Administrator
shall determine, based on the area's air quality as of the attainment
date, whether the area attained the standard by that date.''

III. What is the air quality in the Louisville Area for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 monitoring period?

    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the 1997 annual primary and
secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic
mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ at all relevant
monitoring sites in the subject area.
    EPA reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Louisville
Area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N.
All data considered have been quality-assured, certified, and recorded
in EPA's Air Quality System database. This review addresses air quality
data collected in the 3-year period from 2007-2009. The 3-year period
from 2007-2009 is the period EPA must consider for areas that had an
applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010.

                    Table 1--Annual Average Concentrations in the Louisville Area (2007-2009)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual average
                 Site name                               County                  Site No.        concentration
                                                                                ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffersonville.............................  Clark, IN....................        18-019-0006               14.6
New Albany.................................  Floyd, IN....................        18-043-1004               13.1
Shepherdsville.............................  Bullitt, KY..................        21-029-0006               13.0
Wyandotte Park.............................  Jefferson, KY................        21-111-0044               13.5
37th & Southern............................  Jefferson, KY................        21-111-0043               13.4
Watson Elementary..........................  Jefferson, KY................        21-111-0051               13.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown above in Table 1, during the 2007-2009 design period, the
Louisville Area met the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The
official annual design value for the Louisville Area for the 2007-2009
period is 14.6 [mu]g/m\3\. More detailed information on the monitoring
data for the Louisville Area during the 2007-2009 design period is
provided in EPA's March 9, 2011, final rulemaking to approve the clean
data determination for the Louisville Area for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 12860.

IV. What is the proposed action, and what is the effect of this action?

    This action is a proposed determination that the Louisville Area
has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable
attainment date of April 5, 2010, consistent with the CAA section
179(c)(1). Finalizing this proposed action would not constitute a
redesignation of the Louisville Area to attainment of 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. Further,
finalizing this proposed action does not involve approving a
maintenance plan for the Louisville Area as required under section 175A
of the CAA, nor would it find that the Louisville Area has met all
other requirements for redesignation. Even if EPA finalizes today's
proposed action, the designation status of the Louisville Area would
remain nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS until
such time as EPA determines that the Area meets the CAA requirements
for redesignation to attainment and takes action to redesignate the
Area.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on
air quality, and would not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed 1997 annual average PM2.5 NAAQS
data determination for the Louisville Area does not have Tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIPs are not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the states, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: May 23, 2011.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    Dated: June 3, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011-14812 Filed 6-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30481-30482]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12912]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4215-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

Georgia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4215-DR), dated April 20, 2015, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective date: May 20, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of April 20, 2015.

    Hart County for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-12912 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


the existing monitoring network are necessary because it has no Class I
areas and thus no monitoring strategy. EPA proposes to find that
Mississippi has adequately addressed the applicable provisions of 40
CFR 51.308(g) regarding the monitoring strategy because the State has
no Class I areas.

B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan

    In its Progress Report, MDEQ submitted a negative declaration to
EPA that the existing regional haze plan requires no further
substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas
potentially impacted by the State's sources. The State's negative
declaration is based on the findings from the Progress Report,
including the findings that: Actual emissions reductions of visibility-
impairing

pollutants in 2014 from EGUs and non-EGUs in Mississippi exceed the
predicted reductions in MDEQ's regional haze plan with the exception of
SO2 for EGUs; \74\ additional EGU control measures not
relied upon in the State's 2008 regional haze plan have occurred during
the first implementation period that have further reduced
SO2 emissions; and the State's expectation that emissions of
SO2 from EGUs in Mississippi are expected to continue to
trend downward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ As noted in Section IV.A.2, the conversion of Plant Watson
from coal to natural gas in 2015 contributed to significant
SO2 emissions decreases after 2014. In addition, 2017
Mississippi EGU SO2 emissions were 3,841 tons, which were
below the 2018 projected 15,213 tons shown in Table 13 of section
IV.A.2 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to conclude that Mississippi has adequately addressed
40 CFR 51.308(h) because the emissions trends of the largest emitters
of visibility-impairing pollutants in the State indicate that the RPGs
for any Class I areas in other states potentially impacted by
Mississippi sources will be met and because MDEQ submitted the draft
BART SIP which, if finalized, would correct the deficiencies in the
regional haze plan that led to the limited disapproval. As previously
noted, EPA is simultaneously proposing to approve a SIP revision to
address certain BART determinations for 14 EGUs. EPA cannot take final
action to approve Mississippi's declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h)
unless the Agency finalizes its proposal to approve the draft BART SIP.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA proposes to approve the draft BART SIP and finds that it
corrects the deficiencies that led to the limited approval and limited
disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP; to withdraw the limited
disapproval of Mississippi's regional haze SIP; and to fully approve
Mississippi's regional haze SIP as meeting all regional haze
requirements of the CAA for the first implementation period, replacing
the prior limited approval. EPA also proposes to approve Mississippi's
October 4, 2018, Regional Haze Progress Report, as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
to approve the State's negative declaration under 51.308(h). EPA cannot
take final action to approve Mississippi's Progress Report and negative
declaration unless the Agency finalizes its proposal to approve the
draft BART SIP.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 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. These actions merely
propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
     Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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).
    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, these rules
do not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 23, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 2020-16443 Filed 8-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31057-31058]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13846]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-2230-000]

Polaris Wind Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Polaris Wind Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 15, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 24, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13846 Filed 6-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[CORRECTIONS]
[Page 1579]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-135]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54979; File No. SR-NFA-2006-05]

Self-Regulatory Organization; National Futures Association;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to the Interpretive Notice
Regarding Automated Order-Routing Systems

Correction

    In notice document E6-22657 beginning on page 813 in the issue of
Monday, January 8, 2007, make the following correction:
    On page 813, in the second column, footnote 21 should be footnote
2.

[FR Doc. Z6-22657 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register: April 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 19606-19607]
[DOCID:fr29ap09-142]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form F-9, OMB Control No. 3235-0377, SEC File No. 270-333.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Form F-9 (17 CFR 239.39) is a registration statement under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) that is used to register
investment grade debt or investment grade preferred securities that are
offered for cash or in connection with an exchange, offer and are
either non-convertible or not convertible for a period of at least one
year from the date of issuance and thereafter are only convertible into
a security of another class of the issuer. The purpose of the
information collection is to permit verification of compliance with
securities law requirements and to assure the public availability and
dissemination of such information. The principal function of the
Commission's forms and rules under the securities laws' disclosure
provisions is to make information available to the investors. Form F-9
is a public document and the information provided is mandatory. We
estimate that Form F-9 takes approximately 25 hours per response and it
is filed by 18 respondents. We further estimate that 25% of the 25
hours per response (6.25 hours) is prepared by the issuer for an annual
reporting burden of 113 hours (6.25 hours per response x 18 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to Shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO. Securities
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: April 22, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9673 Filed 4-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 147 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45765-45767]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0214; Product Identifier 2018-SW-039-AD; Amendment
39-21178; AD 2020-15-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. This AD was prompted by a
mechanical deformation found on the protective cover of the ``SHEAR''
control pushbutton installed on a copilot collective stick. This AD
requires modification of the helicopter by replacing the protective
cover and re-identifying the part number of the pilot and copilot
collective sticks. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 3, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 3,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may view this service information at the FAA, Office
of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0214.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0214; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is 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: Clark Davenport, Flight Test Analyst,
Flight Test Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters
Model EC225LP helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on April 8, 2020 (85 FR 19707). The NPRM was prompted by a mechanical
deformation found on the protective cover of the ``SHEAR'' control
pushbutton installed on a copilot collective stick. The NPRM proposed
to require modification of the helicopter by replacing the protective
cover and re-identifying the part number of the pilot and copilot
collective sticks. The FAA is issuing this AD to address mechanical
deformation on the protective cover of the ``SHEAR'' control pushbutton
installed on a copilot collective stick, which could lead to unintended
shearing of the hoist cable, possibly

resulting in loss of a hoisted load or person(s).
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation
Safety Agency) (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0106, dated May
10, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0214.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment
received. Artem Svetlovsky agreed with the NPRM.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus Helicopters has issued Alert Service Bulletin EC225-67A017,
Revision 0, dated March 26, 2018. This service information describes
procedures for modification of the helicopter by replacing the
protective cover of the ``SHEAR'' control pushbutton and re-identifying
the part number of the pilot and copilot collective sticks. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 12 helicopters of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................          $2,632           $2,802          $33,624
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2020-15-15 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-21178; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0214; Product Identifier 2018-SW-039-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 3, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP
helicopters, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code 67, Rotorcraft
Flight Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a mechanical deformation found on the
protective cover of the ``SHEAR'' control pushbutton installed on a
copilot collective stick. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this
condition, which could lead to unintended shearing of the hoist
cable, possibly resulting in loss of a hoisted load or person(s).

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD, the definitions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD apply.
    (1) Affected part: A pilot or copilot collective stick having
part number (P/N) 704A41110139, equipment manufacturer NSE P/N
N2000355.
    (2) Group 1 helicopters: Helicopters that have an affected part
installed.
    (3) Group 2 helicopters: Helicopters that do not have an
affected part installed. A helicopter that has embodied Airbus
Helicopters Modification 332P084165 in production is a Group 2
helicopter, provided that helicopter remains in that configuration.

(h) Required Actions

    For Group 1 helicopters: At the applicable compliance time
specified in Table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, modify the
helicopter by replacing the protective cover of the ``SHEAR''
control pushbutton and re-identifying the part number of the pilot
and copilot collective sticks, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC225-
67A017, Revision 0, dated March 26, 2018.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JY20.002

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2)
of this AD: Do not install on any helicopter a ``SHEAR'' control
pushbutton protective cover having P/N 700070 on the pilot or
copilot collective stick, and do not install on any helicopter a
pilot or copilot collective stick having P/N 704A41110139 (equipment
manufacturer NSE P/N N2000355).
    (1) For Group 1 helicopters: After modification of the
helicopter as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (2) For Group 2 helicopters: From the effective date of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Clark Davenport, Flight
Test Analyst, Flight Test Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, notify your
principal inspector or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office or certificate holding
district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this
AD through an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
2018-0106, dated May 10, 2018. This EASA AD may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0214.
    (2) For more information about this AD, Clark Davenport, Flight
Test Analyst, Flight Test Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC225-67A017,
Revision 0, dated March 26, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 16, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-16415 Filed 7-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81213-81216]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27595]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79285; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule
12504 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and
Rule 13504 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes
Relating to Motions To Dismiss in Arbitration

November 10, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On August 3, 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Rules 12504 of the Code
of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and
Rule 13504 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes
(``Industry Code'' and, together with the Customer Code, ``Codes'').\3\
The proposed rule change would allow arbitrators to act upon a motion
to dismiss a party or claim prior to the conclusion of a party's case
in chief if the arbitrators determine that the non-moving party
previously brought a claim regarding the same dispute against the same
party, and the dispute was fully and finally adjudicated on the merits
and memorialized in an order, judgment, award, or decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See File No. SR-FINRA-2016-030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on August 17, 2016.\4\ The public comment period closed on
September 7, 2016. The Commission received four (4) comment letters on
the proposed amendments.\5\ On September 19, 2016, FINRA extended the
time period in which the Commission must approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
to November 15, 2016.\6\ On October 31, 2016, FINRA responded to the
comment letters received in response to the Notice.\7\ This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 78553 (Aug. 11, 2016); 81 FR at
54888 (Aug. 17, 2016) (``Notice'').
    \5\ See Letters from Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett Caruso,
P.C. (Aug. 11, 2016) (``Caruso Letter''); David T. Bellaire, Esq.,
Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Financial Services
Institute (Sept. 7, 2016) (``FSI Letter''); Hugh Berkson, President,
Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (Sept. 7, 2016)
(``PIABA Letter''); and William A. Jacobson, Esq., Clinical
Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Director, Cornell Securities
Law Clinic, and Arjun A. Ajjegowda, Student, Cornell Law School
(Sept. 7, 2016) (``Cornell Letter''). The comment letters are
available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the
principal office of FINRA, at the Commission's Web site at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2016-029/finra2016029.shtml, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.
    \6\ See Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Associate Chief Counsel,
FINRA, to Lourdes Gonzalez, Assistant Chief Counsel--Sales
Practices, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange
Commission, dated September 19, 2016.
    \7\ See Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Associate Chief Counsel,
FINRA, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange the
Commission, dated October 31, 2016 (``FINRA Letter''). The FINRA
Letter is available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at
the principal office of FINRA, at the Commission's Web site at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2016-029/finra2016029.shtml,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The subsequent description of the proposed rule change is
substantially excerpted from FINRA's description in the Notice. See
Notice, 81 FR at 54889-54889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    In 2009, FINRA amended the Codes to adopt FINRA Rules 12504 and
13504 (Motions to Dismiss), and to amend FINRA Rules 12206 and 13206
(Time Limits), to establish procedures limiting motions to dismiss in
arbitration.\9\ A motion to dismiss is a request made to the
arbitrators to remove a party or some or all claims raised by a party
filing a claim. If the arbitrators grant a motion to dismiss before a
hearing is held (a prehearing motion), the party bringing the claim
loses the opportunity to have his or her arbitration case heard in
whole or in part by the arbitrators. The procedures set forth in the
Codes significantly limit the use of motions to dismiss because FINRA
believed that respondents were filing prehearing motions routinely and
repetitively in an effort to delay scheduled hearing sessions on the
merits, increase investors' costs, and intimidate less sophisticated
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Act Release No. 59189 (Dec. 31, 2008), 74 FR
731 (Jan. 7, 2009) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, As
Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to Amendment to the
Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and the Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes to Address Motions to
Dismiss and to Amend the Eligibility rule related to Dismissals)
(File No. SR-FINRA-2007-021) (``2009 Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other requirements, the Codes require parties to file
prehearing motions to dismiss in writing, separately from the answer,
and only after they file the answer.\10\ The full panel of arbitrators
must decide a motion to dismiss,\11\ and the panel must hold a hearing
on the motion unless the parties waive the hearing.\12\ If a panel
grants a motion to dismiss, the decision must be unanimous, and must be
accompanied by a written explanation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See FINRA Rules 12504(a)(2) and 13504(a)(2).
    \11\ See FINRA Rules 12504(a)(4) and 13504(a)(4).
    \12\ See FINRA Rules 12504(a)(5) and 13504(a)(5).
    \13\ See FINRA Rules 12504(a)(7) and 13504(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Codes, arbitrators cannot act upon a motion prior to the
conclusion of the non-moving party's case in chief unless the
arbitrators determine that: (1) The non-moving party previously
released the claim in dispute by a signed settlement or written
release,\14\ (2) the moving party was not associated with the account,
security, or conduct at issue,\15\ or (3) a claim is not eligible for
arbitration because it does not meet the six-year time limit for
submitting a claim.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See FINRA Rules 12504(a)(6)(A) and 13504(a)(6)(A).
    \15\ See FINRA Rules 12504(a)(6)(B) and 13504(a)(6)(B).
    \16\ See FINRA Rules 12206 and 13206 (Time Limits), which
provide that no claim shall be eligible for submission to
arbitration where six years have elapsed from the occurrence or
event giving rise to the claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Codes impose sanctions against parties for
engaging in abusive practices. For instance, if the arbitrators deny a
motion to dismiss prior to the conclusion of the non-moving party's
case in chief, the arbitrators must assess forum fees associated with
hearing the motion against the moving party.\17\ Moreover, if they find
the motion to be frivolous, they must award reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees to a party that opposed the motion.\18\ In addition,
the arbitrators may issue sanctions under the Codes if they determine
that a party filed a motion under the rule in bad faith.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See FINRA Rules 12504(a)(9) and 13504(a)(9).
    \18\ See FINRA Rules 12504(a)(10) and 13504(a)(10).
    \19\ See FINRA Rules 12504(a)(11) and 13504(a)(11); see also
FINRA Rules 12212 and 13212 (Sanctions) relating to available
sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to amend the Codes to add an additional ground
for

arbitrators to act on motions to dismiss prior to the conclusion of the
claimant's case in chief in both customer and industry cases.
Currently, FINRA's Director of Arbitration (``Director'') can deny use
of the forum for customer and industry claims if it is clear that a
party is bringing exactly the same claims against the same parties that
were already heard at the forum.\20\ FINRA states, however, that if
there are questions about whether the matter concerns a different
claim, the Director is likely to deny the motion and allow the
arbitration to proceed so that the arbitrators can decide the merits of
the parties' assertions. FINRA believes that adding the additional
ground for arbitrators to act on motions to dismiss is appropriate
because parties should not be subject to the legal fees associated with
arbitrating claims that have been fully adjudicated in a prior
proceeding. FINRA also believes that the proposed rule change would
deter parties' use of repeated filings as a means of leverage during
settlement negotiations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See FINRA Rules 12203 and 13303 (Denial of the Forum),
which provide that the Director may decline to permit the use of the
FINRA arbitration forum if the Director determines that, given the
purposes of FINRA and the intent of the Codes, the subject matter of
the dispute is inappropriate. FINRA states that the Director rarely
invokes this authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rules 12504(a)(6)
and 13504(a)(6) to add new paragraph (C) which would specify that
arbitrators can also act upon a motion to dismiss a party or claim if
they determine that the non-moving party previously brought a claim
regarding the same dispute \21\ against the same party that was fully
and finally adjudicated on the merits and memorialized in an order,
judgment, award, or decision. For example, FINRA states that the
proposed rule change would allow the arbitrators to grant a motion to
dismiss relating to a particular controversy if they believe the matter
was adjudicated fully even in instances where a claimant adds a new
cause of action, or adds additional facts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ FINRA Rules 12100 and 13100 provide that ``dispute'' means
a dispute, claim or controversy, and that it may consist of one or
more claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments and FINRA's Response

    As noted above, the Commission received four (4) comment letters on
the proposed rule change,\22\ and a response letter from FINRA.\23\ As
discussed in more detail below, two commenters supported the
proposal,\24\ one generally supported the proposal but recommended
modifications,\25\ and one opposed the proposal.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 5.
    \23\ See supra note 7.
    \24\ See Caruso Letter and FSI Letter.
    \25\ See PIABA Letter.
    \26\ See Cornell Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the two commenters who supported the proposal, one commenter
stated that the proposed amendments ``would be a fair, equitable and
reasonable approach and should be approved by the SEC on an expedited
basis.'' \27\ The other commenter stated that the proposal would
``appropriately enhance the arbitration process by eliminating claims
that have already been heard and decided on the merits in another
forum'' and would consequently ``promote both the integrity and
fairness of arbitration proceedings.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Caruso Letter.
    \28\ See FSI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Proposal

    A third commenter generally supported the proposal, stating that
``a current ground for dismissal under the present rule, that `the non-
moving party previously released the claim(s) in dispute by a signed
settlement agreement and/or written release,' and the proposed
additional language are in line with the same reasoning: that a final,
enforceable resolution has already been reached.'' \29\ This commenter
suggested, however, that FINRA should continue to discourage motions to
dismiss prior to the conclusion of a party's case in chief.
Accordingly, the commenter recommended that FINRA should: (1) Clarify
that the proposal should be narrowly construed such that it applies to
``adjudications on the merits where the non[hyphen]moving parties have
had a full and fair opportunity to argue their claims;'' (2) narrowly
define the term ``same party'' to mean ``the specific party named in
the previous arbitration;'' \30\ and (3) stress ``the importance of
continuing to permit the non[hyphen]moving party to have a full
opportunity to oppose such motion to dismiss, and to present evidence
and testimony to the arbitrators on the merits of the motion prior to
their decision.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See PIABA Letter (citing FINRA Rules 12504(a)(6)(A) and
13504(a)(6)(A)).
    \30\ The commenter argues that ``without clarification, a
claimant might be improperly precluded from pursuing claims against
respondents not originally named in an adjudicated case.'' See PIABA
Letter.
    \31\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA stated that it drafted the proposed
amendments narrowly, in continued adherence ``to the principle that
motions to dismiss a claim prior to the conclusion of a party's case in
chief are discouraged in arbitration.'' FINRA stated that it would not
reject a claim initiated against a related, but previously unnamed
party, and that it would be a moving party's responsibility to
demonstrate to the arbitrators that such a party is the ``same party''
for purposes of the proposed rule change. FINRA also expressed its
intention to train its arbitrators on the rule change, emphasizing that
the moving party must demonstrate that the non-moving party brought the
same dispute against the same party and that the non-moving party had a
full opportunity to present its claims in the earlier proceeding.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary Judgment

    One supportive commenter noted that the Codes do not permit a
claimant to file a motion for summary judgment, and suggested that this
``disparity'' be corrected ``so that the playing field in the
securities arbitration arena is level and equal for all of the
participants in the forum.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Caruso Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA stated that it limited the grounds on which
motions to dismiss could be filed based on the belief that some
respondents were filing prehearing motions ``routinely and repetitively
in an effort to delay scheduled hearing sessions on the merits,
increase investors' costs, and intimidate less sophisticated
investors.'' FINRA asserted that the rules were ``designed to deter the
inappropriate use of dispositive motions, not to provide respondents
with a new vehicle to seek early dismissal of a claimant's claims.''
Accordingly, FINRA declined to amend the Codes to permit parties to
bring motions for summary judgment, as it believes that such an
amendment would conflict with its goal of limiting dispositive motions
that curtail the opportunity for parties to fully present their
cases.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demonstrated Need for the Proposal

    One commenter opposed the proposed rule change, stating that FINRA
has not demonstrated a need to broaden the scope of the rule, and that
``FINRA has not provided any statistical evidence as to the frequency
of repeat claims being brought under circumstances that the Proposed
Rule Change would remedy.'' \35\ In addition, the commenter asserted
that courts already provide remedies for the alleged

problem of repeat filing of claims by enjoining or staying the
arbitration proceedings and FINRA has failed to demonstrate that the
court remedy is less effective and fair to all parties.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Cornell Letter (expressing no position with respect to
the proposed change to FINRA Rule 13504 of the Industry Code).
    \36\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA asserted that it had demonstrated a need for
the proposed rule change. According to FINRA, statistics suggest that
the proposed rule change would impact a small number of cases.\37\
However, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change would reduce both
parties' costs where these motions are granted at an earlier stage in
the proceeding, and that the rule change would nevertheless allow the
non-moving party to present evidence and testimony to the arbitrators
concerning the merits of the motion prior to the decision on the
motion--thus limiting the risk that arbitrators might act on incomplete
or insufficient information. FINRA therefore believes that the benefit
of the cost savings to the impacted parties outweighs the commenter's
concern regarding the demonstrated need for the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See SR-FINRA-2016-030 at page 9. FINRA staff provided the
Task Force with statistics for 2013 and 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the same commenter's suggestion that parties use the
courts to address the issue of repeat filings, FINRA stated that
parties ``would be better served by having issues relating to the
earlier adjudication of a dispute resolved in the forum where the
claimant chose to initiate the arbitration proceeding.'' According to
FINRA, ``[t]he moving party should not have to seek a remedy in a
separate court proceeding, and the non-moving party should not be
subject to additional litigation costs outside of the arbitration
forum.'' FINRA stated that ``this is especially important for pro se
investors,'' who might be unable to argue the law in court without
counsel. Accordingly, FINRA believes that ``forcing [pro se investors]
into a court proceeding might preclude them from pursuing their
claims.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposal, the comments
received, and FINRA's response to the comments. Based on its review of
the record, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\39\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange
Act,\40\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA's rules 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
also considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposal would amend Rules 12504(a)(6) and
13504(a)(6) to add new paragraph (C), allowing arbitrators to also act
upon a motion to dismiss a party or claim if they determine that the
non-moving party previously brought a claim regarding the same dispute
against the same party that was fully and finally adjudicated on the
merits and memorialized in an order, judgment, award, or decision. The
proposed rule change would allow the arbitrators to grant a motion to
dismiss relating to a particular controversy if they believe the matter
was adjudicated fully even in instances where a claimant adds a new
cause of action, or adds additional facts.
    The Commission has considered the four (4) comment letters received
on the proposed rule change,\41\ along with FINRA's response to the
comments.\42\ The Commission acknowledges commenters' beliefs that the
proposed rule change ``would be a fair, equitable and reasonable
approach,'' \43\ that it would promote the ``integrity and fairness of
arbitration proceedings'' by ``eliminating claims that have already
been heard and decided on the merits in another forum,'' \44\ and that
the proposal was in line with the reasoning of the current rule--``that
a final, enforceable resolution has already been reached.'' \45\
However, the Commission also recognizes commenters' concerns and
opposition to the proposal.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See supra note 5.
    \42\ See supra note 7.
    \43\ See Caruso Letter.
    \44\ See FSI Letter.
    \45\ See PIABA Letter.
    \46\ See supra notes 25-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Proposal

    The Commission agrees with a commenter's concern that the proposed
rule change should be applied narrowly, where a claim has previously
been adjudicated on the merits against the same party, and the
non[hyphen]moving party has had a full and fair opportunity to argue
their claims in opposition to the motion to dismiss.\47\ However, the
Commission believes that FINRA has drafted the proposed rule change
narrowly, so as to discourage the filing of motions to dismiss except
in these limited circumstances. The Commission also recognizes FINRA's
stated effort to help ensure that claims initiated against related, but
previously unnamed parties will not be rejected, as well as its stated
effort to train arbitrators on the rule change. The Commission believes
that FINRA's response should address the commenter's concerns.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See PIABA Letter.
    \48\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary Judgment

    The Commission also recognizes a commenter's suggestion that the
FINRA Codes should permit parties to file motions for summary
judgment.\49\ The Commission preliminarily believes that such an
amendment would conflict with FINRA's goal of limiting dispositive
motions that curtail the opportunity for parties to fully present their
cases.\50\ The Commission therefore supports FINRA's decision not to
expand the scope of the rule change to permit motions for summary
judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Caruso Letter.
    \50\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demonstrated Need for the Proposal

    The Commission further recognizes a commenter's assertion that
FINRA has not demonstrated a need for the rule change.\51\ However,
although few cases might be impacted by the rule change, according to
FINRA, the Commission agrees with FINRA's belief that, if implemented
properly, the rule change can benefit those parties by reducing their
arbitration costs while still allowing the non-moving party to present
evidence and testimony concerning the merits of the motion.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Cornell Letter.
    \52\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the same commenter's suggestion that parties use the
courts to address the issue of repeat filings,\53\ the Commission
generally supports FINRA's view that the parties should not be required
to file a separate court proceeding to seek dismissal of repeat
filings, and that such matters would be better resolved in the original
arbitration forum.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Cornell Letter.
    \54\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To note, the Commission additionally recognizes that the FINRA
Dispute Resolution Task Force (``Task Force'') reviewed the topic of
motions to dismiss and recommended that FINRA amend the motions to
dismiss rule in customer cases to include one additional category

for which motions to dismiss may be made before the conclusion of the
case in chief--situations where the dispute was previously concluded
through adjudication or arbitration and memorialized in an order,
judgment, award, or decision.\55\ This amendment is consistent with the
Task Force's recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ In July 2014, FINRA formed the Task Force to ``suggest
strategies to enhance the transparency, impartiality, and efficiency
of FINRA's securities dispute resolution forum for all
participants.'' See FINRA News Release, FINRA Announces Arbitration
Task Force, dated July 17, 2014, available at http://www.finra.org/newsroom/2014/finra-announces-arbitration-task-force; see also
Notice, 81 FR at 54889.
    The Task Force ultimately found that FINRA Rules 12504 and 13504
appeared to be working as intended to prevent the filing of
frivolous motions to dismiss, but recommended that, in instances
where arbitrations involve claims previously adjudicated by a court
or arbitrated by an arbitration panel, respondents should be able to
seek early dismissal. See FINRA Dispute Resolution Task Force, Final
Report and Recommendations of the FINRA Dispute Resolution Task
Force, dated December 16, 2015, available at http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/Final-DR-task-force-report.pdf; see also Notice,
81 FR at 54889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taking into consideration the comments and FINRA's responses, the
Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with the Exchange
Act. The Commission believes that the proposal will help protect
investors and the public interest by, among other things, providing an
additional ground for arbitrators to act on motions to dismiss prior to
the conclusion of the claimant's case in chief in both customer and
industry cases, while preserving the ability of a non-moving party to
present evidence and testimony to the arbitrators concerning the merits
of the motion. In addition, the Commission believes that the reasoning
for the proposed new ground for dismissal is consistent with the
reasoning for an existing ground for dismissal--that ``the non-moving
party previously released the claim(s) in dispute by a signed
settlement agreement and/or written release.'' \56\ Furthermore, the
Commission believes that FINRA's responses, as discussed in more detail
above, appropriately addressed commenters' concerns and adequately
explained FINRA's reasons for declining to modify its proposal.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the approach proposed by
FINRA is appropriate and designed to protect investors and the public
interest, consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See FINRA Rule 12504(a)(6)(A); FINRA Rule 13504(a)(6)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\57\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2016-030) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27595 Filed 11-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 53371-53374]
[DOCID:fr31au10-131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0226]

Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities: Obtaining Approval of
Alternative Vapor-Gas Dispersion Models

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, (PHMSA)
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: This advisory bulletin provides guidance on the requirements
for obtaining approval of alternative vapor-gas dispersion models under
Subpart B of 49 CFR part 193.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Helm at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issues federal safety standards for siting liquefied natural gas (LNG)
facilities. Those standards require that an operator or governmental
authority control the activities around an LNG facility to protect the
public from the adverse effects of thermal radiation and flammable
vapor-gas dispersion. Certain mathematical models and other parameters
must be used to calculate the dimensions of these so-called ``exclusion
zones.''
    In the case of vapor-gas dispersion, two different models may be
used where appropriate: (1) The DEGADIS Dense Gas Dispersion Model
(DEGADIS), an integral model that simulates the downwind dispersion of
dense gases in the atmosphere, and (2) FEM3A, a dispersion model that
accounts for additional cloud dilution which may be caused by the
complex flow patterns induced by tank and dike structures.
    The use of alternative vapor-gas dispersion models is also
permitted, if those models take into account the same physical factors
as the approved models, are validated by experimental test data, and
receive the Administrator's approval. Conservatism, field testing,
post-testing data evaluation, and correlative analysis are critical to
satisfying these conditions.
    In addition, PHMSA's federal safety standards incorporate by
reference the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) NFPA 59A:
Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural
Gas. That consensus

industry standard is issued by the Technical Committee on Liquefied
Natural Gas of the NFPA.
    Several years ago, the NFPA 59A Technical Committee tasked the Fire
Protection Research Foundation (FPRF), a nonprofit entity that performs
research for the NFPA, with developing a tool for evaluating the
suitability of LNG vapor-gas dispersion models. The FPRF subsequently
contracted with the Health & Safety Laboratory; the research agency of
the United Kingdom Health & Safety Executive, to examine the modeling
of dispersion of LNG spills on land and develop guidelines to assess
those models.
    An expert panel, including representatives from Sandia National
Laboratories, PHMSA, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),
NFPA, the United States Coast Guard, and other stakeholders, assembled
to provide guidance and comment on the development of those guidelines.
That effort led to the creation of the Model Evaluation Protocol (MEP)
as described in M.J. Iving et al., Evaluating Vapor Dispersion Models
for Safety Analysis of LNG Facilities Research Project: Technical
Report (Apr. 2007) (available at http://www.nfpa.org) (Original FPRF
Report), and supplemented in S. Coldrick et al., Validation Database
for Evaluating Vapor Dispersion Models for Safety Analysis of LNG
Facilities: Guide to the LNG Model Validation Database, Version 11.0
(May 2010) (available at http://www.nfpa.org) (Supplemental FPRF
Report):

    The MEP is based on three distinct phases: scientific
assessment, model verification and model validation. The scientific
assessment is carried out by obtaining detailed information on a
model from its current developer using a specifically designed
questionnaire and with the aid of other papers, reports and user
guides. The scientific assessment examines the various aspects of a
model including its physical, mathematical and numerical basis, as
well as user oriented aspects. * * * The outcome of this scientific
assessment is recorded in a MER, along with the outcomes of the
verification and validation stages * * *.
    [In] [t]he verification stage of the protocol[,] * * * evidence
* * * is sought from the model developer and this is then assessed
and reported in the MER. The validation stage of the MEP involves
applying the model against a database of experimental test cases
including both wind tunnel experiments and large-scale field trials.
The aim of the validation stage is * * * to quantify the performance
of a model by comparison of its predictions with measurements.

    Funded by a grant from PHMSA, the National Association of State
Fire Marshals (NASFM) then convened a panel of its own experts, and
that panel performed an independent review of the MEP and produced a
separate technical report, National Association of State Fire Marshals,
Review of the LNG Vapor Dispersion Model Evaluation Protocol (Jan.
2009) (NASFM MEP Report); see also National Association of State Fire
Marshals, Review of the LNG Source Term Models for Hazard Analysis: A
Review of the State-of-the-Art and an Approach to Model Assessment
(Jun. 2009) (NASFM Source Term Report).
    After carefully considering the information provided in the
Original FRPF Report, Supplemental FPRF Report, and NASFM MEP Report,
PHMSA is issuing further guidance on the standard for obtaining
approval of alternative vapor-gas dispersion models, particularly the
requirement for validation by experimental test data. That guidance is
based on the MEP's three-stage process for evaluating such models, but
includes modifications to address the concerns of other stakeholders,
including NASFM and FERC.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-10-07)

    To: Owners and Operators of LNG Facilities.
    Subject: Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities: Obtaining Approval of
Alternative Vapor-Gas Dispersion Models.
    Advisory: In seeking the Administrator's approval of an alternative
vapor-gas dispersion model, a petitioner may demonstrate that its model
has been validated by experimental test data by using the three-stage
process described in the MEP. A petitioner may also submit a MER as
evidence of its completion of the MEP.
    The model developer or an independent body may complete the MER,
which should contain certain information about the proposed model,
including general information (Section 1), information for scientific
assessment (Section 2), information for user-oriented assessment
(Section 3), information on verification (Section 4), information on
validation (Section 5), and other administrative details (Section 6).
The validation portion of the MER should include the validation
database described in the Original FPRF Report and Supplemental FPRF
Report, with appropriate consideration of the additional guidance
provided below.
    This guidance relates to some of the concerns raised in the NASFM
MEP Report and by other interested parties, including FERC, and is
organized to correspond with the affected sections of the MER. These
suggested practices may require modification in individual cases, and
the proponent of an alternative model may establish its suitability by
any other appropriate means, subject to the Administrator's approval.
    1. Section <IP_ADDRESS> Source Geometry Handled by the Dispersion Model
should describe and clearly state the limitations of the model related
to its ability to handle different source terms, including:
    a. Ability to handle the dispersion of vapors from a transient
(i.e., flowing) and irregular liquid pool geometries, including
vaporization from geometries with high aspect ratios (i.e., long
trenches) in the cross-wind and parallel-wind direction.
    b. Ability to handle the dispersion of vapors from a vaporizing
regular liquid pool geometry (circular, squared) source term.
    c. Ability to handle the simultaneous dispersion of vapors from a
combination (i.e., multiple sources) of the phenomena above.
    d. Use of any sub-models to simulate the phenomena above.
    2. Section <IP_ADDRESS> Wind Field should describe and clearly state the
limitations of the model related to its ability to model low wind
speeds (i.e., less than 2m/s) and its ability to model fluctuating wind
speeds.
    3. Section <IP_ADDRESS> Stratification should describe and clearly state
the limitations of the model related to its ability to model
atmospheric stabilities (e.g., F stability). The description should
indicate if temperature and/or turbulence profiles may be invoked at
the upwind boundary or if forcing functions may be invoked.
    4. Section <IP_ADDRESS> Terrain Types Available and Section 2.3.12
Complex Effects: Terrain should describe and clearly state the
limitations of the model related to its ability to model sloping
terrain, including any special methods to model (e.g., gravity vector
adjustment, sub-model for adjusting Cartesian grids, etc). Unique
modeling characteristics that may alter the terrain should be described
(e.g., Cartesian Grid, Porosity-Distributed Resistance methodology,
etc).
    5. Section <IP_ADDRESS> Obstacle Types Available and Section 2.3.13
Complex Effects: Obstacles should describe and clearly state the
limitation of the model related to its ability to model complex
geometries, including the limitations based on the grid or mesh options
available (reference can be made to Section <IP_ADDRESS> Computational
Mesh). Unique modeling characteristics that may alter the obstructions
should be described (e.g., Cartesian Grid, Porosity-

Distributed Resistance methodology, etc).
    6. Section <IP_ADDRESS> Turbulence Modeling should describe and clearly
state the limitation of the model related to its ability to model
turbulence, including the turbulence sub-models available (e.g.,
Algebraic, Favre- or Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes, Reynolds Stress
Transport, Spalart-Allmaras One-Equation, K-Epsilon Two Equation, K-
Omega Shear Stress Transport, Large Eddy Simulation, Detached Eddy
Simulation, etc).
    7. Section <IP_ADDRESS> Boundary Conditions should describe and clearly
state the limitation of the model related to its ability to model
certain boundary conditions, including the boundary condition
specifications available (e.g., wall functions, full-slip, no-slip,
partial-slip, inlet/outlet boundaries, injection boundary, periodic
boundary, mirror/symmetry boundary, etc).
    8. Section 2.3.11 Complex Effects: Aerosols should describe and
clearly state the limitations of the model related to its ability to
model different source terms, including:
    a. Ability to handle the dispersion of vapors from a flashing
source term.
    b. Ability to handle the dispersion of vaporized aerosol formed
from mechanical fragmentation or other means of a high pressure
release.
    c. Ability to handle the dispersion of vaporization from aerosol
that has settled out (i.e. rainout).
    9. Section <IP_ADDRESS> Computational Mesh should clearly state all
features of the computational mesh (e.g., Automatic, Manual,
Structured, Unstructured, Cartesian, Curvilinear, Body-fitted, H-Type,
C-Type, O-Type, Triangle/Tetrahedral, Quadrilateral/Hexahedral,
Adaptive, Multi-Block, etc).
    10. Section <IP_ADDRESS> Discretization Methods should describe and
clearly state the limitation of the model related to its numerical
solution methodologies, including a description of the temporal
discretization methodologies available (e.g., Implicit, Explicit,
Multi-Stage Schemes, Order of Runge-Kutta, MUSCL, QUICK, Courant-
Friedrchs-Lewy limitations, etc) and description of the spatial
discretization methodologies available (e.g., Central Schemes, Upwind
Schemes, etc).
    11. Section 2.6 Sources of Model Uncertainty should describe and
clearly state all known uncertainties described in previous sections
and any uncertainties due to any other physical parameters and
assumptions inherently built into the model.
    12. Section 2.6.4 Sensitivity to Input should include a parametric
analysis. Alternatively, a sensitivity analysis of the validation study
may be referenced, as described below in Section 6.2 Evaluation Against
MEP Quantitative Assessment Criteria.
    13. Section 2.7 Limits of Applicability should summarize the
limitations of the model described in previous sections and any other
limitations inherently built into the model.
    14. Section 6.2 Evaluation Against MEP Quantitative Assessment
Criteria should provide the following as part of the submitted
validation phase:
    a. An uncertainty analysis that accounts for model uncertainty due
to uncertainty in the assumption of input parameters specified by the
user.\1\ The model uncertainty analyses should address the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Model uncertainty due to the uncertainty of the physical
parameters and assumptions inherently built into the model is not
required to be quantified, although these limitations should clearly
be stated in the scientific assessment.

    i. Analysis of source term(s). Certain models have built-in
source models that are able to calculate the flashing, mechanical
fragmentation and subsequent aerosol formation and rainout,
resultant liquid trajectory, flow and vaporization. It is
recommended that the built-in models be used, where appropriate and
applicable, as those are the most likely to be used during hazard
analyses. For models without built-in source models, it is
recommended that appropriate source term model(s) \2\ be used that
provides an accurate depiction of the experiment that can be
inputted into the dispersion model as it should generally produce
better fidelity. Alternatively, simplified source term inputs may be
used with justification provided for the selection of pool
diameter(s), vaporization rate(s), and other specified sources along
with a sensitivity analysis of the vaporization rate and resultant
pool diameter(s). A source term based on an instantaneously formed
pool with a vaporization rate and pool size equal to the discharge
rate (mass balance) based on empirically selected vaporization rates
of 0.085kg/m\2\/sec and 0.167kg/m\2\/sec should be included in the
sensitivity analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Source term models may be supplemented with an evaluation in
accordance with Model Assessment Protocol (MAP) published by the
FPRF in Ivings, et al., LNG Source Term Models for Hazard Analysis:
A Review of the State-of-the-Art and an Approach to Model Assessment
(Mar. 2009) (available at http://www.nfpa.org) or equivalent Health
and Safety Executive report, LNG Source Term Models for Hazard
Analysis: A Review of the State-of-the-Art and an Approach to Model
Assessment, RR789, 2010 (available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/
research/rrhtm/rr789.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. Analysis of boundary conditions, including wall conditions,
slip conditions, surface roughness, thermal properties, and any
other parameters specified for the boundaries that may otherwise
have a significant influence on the model results. The analysis
should demonstrate the impact of the boundary conditions on the
analysis. This may be accomplished by demonstrating that the
boundary conditions do not have a significant influence on the
analysis (i.e., boundaries are sufficiently far away not to
influence the flow field of the vapor cloud) and/or through a
sensitivity analysis of the boundary conditions. For boundary
conditions associated with the ground, a sensitivity analysis,
including any bounds (e.g., a no-slip v. free-slip) of the boundary
conditions should be evaluated.
    iii. Analysis of wind profile. Certain models are only able to
provide steady-state wind profiles and/or direction. Other models
are able to input/calculate transient, fluctuating, or periodic
(e.g., sinusoidal) wind profiles and directions. It is recommended
that the most accurate depiction of the wind field be used, as it
should provide better fidelity. The wind field throughout the domain
should be fully established before the source term initializes.
Surface roughness sensitivity analysis should be included based on
user guide documentation or other recommended and generally accepted
good engineering practices that represent surface roughness for the
area.
    iv. Analysis of sub-models. Certain models contain multiple sub-
models (e.g., turbulence models) that may be selected by the user.
It is recommended that the most appropriate and applicable sub-
models be used, as it should provide better fidelity. Technical
justification for the selected sub-models should be provided. If
multiple sub-models may be appropriate and applicable, sensitivity
analysis should be used for a range of sub-models. Any specification
in associated coefficients may also be subject to sensitivity
analysis, where warranted.
    v. Analysis of temporal discretization/averaging. Certain models
may specify different time-averages. Time averages should reflect
the time averaged data of the experimental measurements or less.
Where time averages cannot be specified to reflect the time-averaged
data of the experimental measurements, sensitivity analyses or
corrections should be provided.
    vi. Analysis of spatial discretization/averaging and grid
resolution. An analysis should evaluate the effect of any spatial
averaging by the model. For Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
models, a grid sensitivity analysis should be provided that
demonstrates grid independence or convergence to a grid independent
result (e.g., Richardson extrapolation). If overly cost-prohibitive,
it may be acceptable to selectively refine grids in the areas of
principal interest only based on user guide documentation or other
recommended and generally accepted good engineering practices.
    vii. Analysis of geometrical representation for sloped and
obstructed cases. Certain models may not be able to model sloped and
obstructed flow fields. Others may be limited in the representation
of slopes (e.g., change in gravity vector), or in the representation
of complex shapes or curvatures by simpler geometries (e.g., to fit
a Cartesian grid). The effect of these simplifications should be
discussed or evaluated.

    b. An uncertainty analysis that accounts for model uncertainty due
to

uncertainty in the output used for evaluation. The analyses should
address the following:

    i. Analysis of spatial output. Certain models may be limited in
the output of the cross wind concentration profile (e.g., Gaussian
concentration profiles in the cross-wind direction). The maximum arc
wise concentration should be based on the location of the
experimental sensor data that produced the maximum arc wise
concentration relative to the cloud centerline. The centerline
concentration of the model may not necessarily be representative of
the maximum concentration measurement location. Any interpolations
and extrapolations used to determine concentrations should be
documented, evaluated and discussed. If a model cannot represent the
actual location of the sensor relative to the centerline, the effect
of these simplifications should be discussed or evaluated.
    ii. Analysis of temporal output. Certain models may be limited
in the temporal resolution that can be outputted. Any interpolations
and extrapolations used to determine concentrations should be
documented, evaluated and discussed. If desired, transient data of
the model and experimental data may be provided to supplement the
maximum arc wise values to allow for more detailed comparisons with
the experimental data, including the evaluation of discrepancies due
to spurious experimental or model results.

    c. An uncertainty analysis that accounts for experimental
uncertainty due to uncertainty in the sensor measurement of gas
concentration,\3\ where known. Other sources of uncertainty may also be
included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Experimental uncertainty due to the sampling time, time
averaging, spatial/volumetric averaging, cloud meander, and other
errors associated with the experiment are not required to be
quantified, but the analysis may benefit from them being evaluated
or discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Graphical depictions of the predicted and measured gas
concentration values for each experiment with indication of the
experimental and model uncertainty determined from the analyses
described above. Vertical error bars should be used to represent the
uncertainty.
    e. Calculation of the specific performance measures (SPMs) below in
addition to those specified in the MEP:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31AU10.000

    f. Calculation of SPMs specified in the MEP for each experiment and
data point in addition to the average of all experiments.
    g. A tabulation of all simulations, including all specified input
parameters, calculated outputs.
    h. A tabulation of all calculated SPMs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If the model predictions are outside the experimental
uncertainty interval or MEP SPMs, this does not necessarily mean
that the model is unacceptable, but may alternatively impact the
safety factor associated with the model usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. All relevant input and output files used.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 24, 2010.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2010-21588 Filed 8-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


From:  Allen Dittenhoefer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 4:12 PM To:  Palma, Ted<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Woody, Matthew<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Owen, Chris<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jeff Knight<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:  RE: Coke RTR - Buoyancy Parameter Spreadsheet and Supporting Documentation

Yes, Ted.  See attached.

<< Alternative_Demo_Buoyant_Fugitives_final.pdf >>

From: Palma, Ted<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 3:18 PM To: Allen Dittenhoefer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Woody, Matthew<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Owen, Chris<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jeff Knight<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Coke RTR - Buoyancy Parameter Spreadsheet and Supporting Documentation   Allen  Do you happen to have a copy of Allegheny County Health Department Air Quality Program, Alternative Modeling Technical Support Document: BLP/AERMOD Hybrid Approach for Buoyant Fugitives in Complex Terrain (Jul. 27, 2018  referenced in your spreadsheet? thanks Ted         Ted Palma USEPA OAQPS/HEID/ATAG MD C539-02 RTP, NC 27711   919-541-5470 (work) <EMAIL_ADDRESS>  From: Allen Dittenhoefer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 2:56 PM To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Palma, Ted<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Woody, Matthew<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Owen, Chris<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jeff Knight<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Coke RTR - Buoyancy Parameter Spreadsheet and Supporting Documentation   Dr. Jones,   In preparation for our call on Monday, December 21, 2020, attached please find:  The spreadsheet detailing our coke battery buoyancy parameter calculations;  A document entitled "Derivation of Coke Battery Buoyancy Parameters for Application to the Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack Risk and Technology Review"; and  Two referenced documents of studies of vertical velocity/temperature measurements at coke batteries used in the buoyancy parameter calculations.   Please note that the spreadsheet is the same as that provided in the COETF's September 29, 2020 and October 22, 2020 submissions to EPA, and the document/attachments are the same as those I sent to EPA on November 30, 2020 .   We look forward to our call on Monday.   Allen C. Dittenhoefer, Ph.D. Principal

  Environmental Planning Specialists, Inc. 45 U.S. Highway 46 East Suite 601 Pine Brook, NJ 07058 Direct:<PHONE_NUMBER> (Ext. 12705) Mobile<PHONE_NUMBER> <EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.envplanning.com