Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles certified to Tier-2 Standards                                                                Analysis of Data from EPA Phase 3                                                                                (EPAct/V2/E-89)

                                 Appendix H.5                               Final Model Fitting                          Carbon Monoxide (CO) (Bag 3)

No. Observations:			956 No. Vehicles:		  		  15    No. censored measurements:		    0 No. missing measurements:		    0 No. measurements removed:		    0 Model Type:				Mixed model

H.5.1   Model fitting with respect to the 11-term design model. Design Model (11-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy.

Design Model (11-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

Design Model (11-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

CO (Bag 3):  Number of terms (p), Goodness-of-fit (BIC) and terms included in the 35 best-fitting candidate models (out of a total of 294 possible models with hierarchy).  (Terms included in models ranked 1-6 comprise the "superset" for final model-fitting).

      Models fit for CO (Bag 3): (all models include an intercept term). Model Term                                    Notation                                      Model

                                                                           Superset                                     SM3[1]                                      etOH Ze                                       ●                                       ●                                      Arom Za                                       ●                                       ●                                       RVP Zr                                       ●                                       ●                                       T50 Z5                                       ●                                       x                                       T90 Z9                                       ●                                       ●                                  etOH x etOH ZZee                                       ---                                       ---                                   T50 x T50 ZZ55                                       ---                                       ---                                  etOH x Arom ZZea                                       ●                                       x                                   etOH x RVP ZZer                                       ---                                       ---                                   etOH x T50 ZZe5                                       ---                                       ---                                   etOH x T90 ZZe9                                       ●                                       x

                                                                                [1] Represents "Superset minus 3," etc.

  CO (Bag 3): Model fitting history, starting with the 8-term superset model.                                 Fit Parameters

                             Test with respect to                                 Previous Model Model                                                                               p -2lnL BIC[1]

                                                                           Dev.                                                                               d                                                                     Pr>χ[2] Superset                                                                               8 1182.918 1209.999

                                                                                SM3[2]                                                                               5 1184.850 1203.806

                                                                          1.931                                                                               3                                                                           0.587

                                                                                [1] A lower value indicates a better fit. [2] Best fit with respect to the 11-term design model.

CO (Bag 3): Coefficients  and Tests of Effect for the Superset and Reduced Models, with respect to the 11-term design model.

H.5.2	Model Fitting with respect to the 16-term extended Model. Extended Model (16-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy.

Extended Model (16-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for subset of models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

Extended Model (16-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for subset of models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

CO (Bag 3):  Number of terms (p), Goodness-of-fit (BIC) and terms included in the 35 best-fitting candidate models (out of a total of 2,964 possible models with hierarchy).  (Terms included in models ranked 1-6 comprise the "superset" for final model-fitting).

NOTE:  The results of model fitting for the extended model are identical to those for the design model, as presented above.


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

TO:	Tom Born, Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category Review Lead

Carey Johnston, Work Assignment Manager	(WAM)

FROM:	Chris Krejci, ERG

		Eleanor Codding, ERG

DATE:	04 December 2008

SUBJECT:	Past Comments Received by EPA on Ore Mining ELGs and Summary of
2008 MSGP

This memorandum summarizes ERG’s progress to-date on the preliminary
study of the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category (Part 440).
ERG is supporting EPA’s annual review of existing effluent limitations
guidelines and standards (ELGs) and identification of possible new ELGs.
As part of the annual review, EPA is conducting a preliminary study of
the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category to determine whether a
detailed study is warranted.

This memorandum presents findings on three main tasks that ERG began for
the Preliminary Study of the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source
Category:

Part I – Identified past comments received by EPA on the ELGs for the
Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category;

Part II – Reviewed the 2008 Federal Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)
and summarized information relevant to the Ore Mining and Dressing Point
Source Category; and

Part III – Identified differences relevant to the Ore Mining and
Dressing Point Source Category between the Federal MSGPs published in
2000 and 2008.

The following sections describe these tasks in detail. Attachments A and
B at the end of this memo include a 304(m) Issue/Industry Nomination
Form for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category and a
detailed outline of relevant sections from the 2008 MSGP, respectively.
PART I. PAST COMMENTS ON THE ORE MINING AND DRESSING ELGs

EPA has previously received the following comments from stakeholders and
EPA regional staff regarding the ELGs for the Ore Mining and Dressing
Point Source Category documented in the 2004 Technical Support Document
(TSD) for the 2004 ELG Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2004):

The current ELGs may be outdated and the BAT technology basis may no
longer be appropriate;

The recommendations of EPA’s National Mining Team, which include water
budgets and closure plans, should be considered when revising the hard
rock mining ELGs;

The decision to exclude seepage from overburden piles and waste dumps
from the 40 CFR Part 440 definition of mine drainage should be reversed;
and

Discharges from the Ore Mining and Dressing Industry are a source of
significant water quality impacts in the regions where they are
prevalent.

The remainder of this section elaborates on these comments and
identifies the sources where possible.

The current ELGs may be outdated and the BAT technology basis may no
longer be appropriate.

John Hillenbrand and John Tinger from EPA Region 9 submitted a 304(m)
Issue/Industry Nomination Form for the Ore Mining and Dressing Category
(See Attachment A), suggesting the following two examples of BAT for
consideration:

Reclamation of waste rock or overburden and tailing piles by regrading
to natural contours and re-vegetating; and

Containment of stormwater through grading, berms, and/or ponds.

According to the commenters, the suggested measures for BAT would be
relatively simple and mainly require the moving of soil – which mines
already do on a regular basis. The commenters also submitted a list of
mines that already employ the suggested measures for BAT (U.S. EPA,
2003a).

The recommendations of EPA’s National Mining Team, which include water
budgets and closure plans, should be considered when revising the hard
rock mining ELGs.

This comment was cited in the 2004 TSD, but ERG does not have additional
information on the comment.

The decision to exclude seepage from overburden piles and waste dumps
from the 40 CFR Part 440 definition of mine drainage should be reversed.

Two commenters requested the renewed inclusion of certain mine
discharges in the wastes regulated by Part 440: Clean Water Network and
Region 9 staff.

In their 304(m) Issue/Industry Nomination Form, Region 9 staff stated
that (See Attachment A):

Approximately 100 active hard rock mine sites exist in mostly the
Western States and Alaska – many sites are covered only by a
stormwater permit;

Preliminary data from the MSGP indicate high concentrations of metals in
both active and inactive mine site runoff;

Discharge volumes are significant due to the large area of many hard
rock mining sites;

Most states are not addressing mine site runoff; and

The requirements of the MSGP are not sufficient to control wastewater
(U.S. EPA, 2003a).

Members of the Clean Water Network submitted the following comment on
the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2002/2003 (also submitted
earlier in 1998):

In 1998 Clean Water Network members with the Western Action Mining
Project and

Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund submitted comments to EPA with regards
to EPA’s decision to substantially reduce the applicability of Part
440 ELGs to discharges from waste rock piles, overburden piles and other
sources of water pollution. EPA has not responded to that request. Today
we request again that EPA again include seepage from waste dumps in its
Part 440 ELG definition of “mine drainage”. EPA has the data and
resources to regulate seepage from waste dumps.

Discharges from the Ore Mining and Dressing Industry are a source of
significant water quality impacts in the regions where they are
prevalent.

This comment was cited in the 2004 TSD, but ERG does not have additional
information on this comment. According to EPA’s memorandum entitled
Description and Results of EPA Methodology to Synthesize Screening Level
Results for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005,” this
comment was made on the proposed Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for
2002/2003. ERG searched the comment response document associated with
this plan, but was not able to locate the comment.

PART II. REVIEW OF THE 2008 MSGP

The 2008 MSGP regulates discharges of stormwater from industrial
activities in 29 different industrial sectors. Facilities are permitted
by the 2008 MSGP in five states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, Alaska, and Idaho), on certain Native American reservations, and
at federal facilities located in EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10.
Although the five states that are covered by the 2008 MSGP did not have
state general permit programs at the time of the MSGP’s publication,
Alaska will be transitioning federally administered permits (including
stormwater permits) into their state program as they receive NPDES
program primacy over the next few years (Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, 2008). The MSGP is issued by EPA regions,
and not all EPA regions issued the new permit. All states in those
regions that did not issue the 2008 MSGP (Regions 4, 7, and 8) have
NPDES primacy and an approved state general permit program.

The 2008 MSGP requires benchmark monitoring, Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), regular site inspections, and narrative
effluent limits. For a detailed outline of the sections of the 2008 MSGP
applicable to ore mining facilities, see Attachment B at the end of this
memo.

Applicability

In general, the MSGP covers stormwater discharges from both active and
inactive facilities in the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source
Category. The MSGP specifically covers discharges from waste rock and
overburden piles; stormwater discharges from a variety of other
industrial areas (e.g., roads, parking lots, buildings) supporting ore
mining and dressing operations are also covered.

The MSGP does not cover any of the discharges regulated by the Ore
Mining and Dressing ELGs at 40 CFR Part 440. The MSGP also specifically
excludes drainage from adits, as well as discharges from contaminated
springs or seeps in waste rock dumps that do not specifically result
from precipitation events.

Effluent Limits

The 2008 MSGP sets requirements for technology-based and water
quality-based effluent limits. Water quality-based limits are not
specified in the permit document, but the MSGP refers to local water
quality-based standards imposed by TMDL studies or local (state/tribal)
regulatory agencies.

Narrative technology-based limits are set in the MSGP for clearing,
grading, and excavation activities. The narrative limits specified in
the MSGP consist of management practices and inspection protocols. The
MSGP lists the following management practices:

General control measures;

Good housekeeping practices (e.g., litter containment, spill
prevention); and

Detention/retention structures.

In addition to these measures, the permittee is required to inspect the
site once every seven days or once every month if the site is
stabilized, frozen, or going through a dry season in arid/semi-arid
areas. Site inspections are required for the following areas:

All areas disturbed by clearing, grading, and excavation and areas used
for storage of materials exposed to precipitation;

Erosion and sedimentation (E&S) controls;

Discharge locations; and

Vehicle Entry/Exit Locations.

Benchmark Monitoring Requirements

Active facilities covered by the MSGP must monitor discharges from waste
rock and overburden piles for the parameters in Tables 1 and 2, as well
as the ore-specific parameters in Table 3. The parameters in Tables 1
and 2 are compared to the listed benchmark concentration to determine
whether corrective actions (i.e. additional control measures) are
needed.

Table 1. Parameters with Independent Benchmarks

Parameter	Benchmark Monitoring Cutoff Concentration

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)	100 mg/L

Turbidity	50 NTU

pH	6.0 – 9.0 Standard Units

Hardness	No Benchmark

Total Antimony 	0.64 mg/L

Total Arsenic 	0.15 mg/ L

Total Beryllium 	0.13 mg/L

Total Iron 	1.0 mg/L

Total Mercury 	0.0014 mg/L

Total Selenium 	0.005 mg/L

Table 2. Parameters with Benchmarks Based on Water Hardness

Parameter	Water Hardness Range (mg/L)

	<25	25-50 	50-75 	75-100 	100-125 	125-150 	150-175 	175-200 	200-225
225-250 	250+

Cadmium	0.0005	0.0008	0.0013	0.0018	0.0023	0.0029	0.0034	0.0039	0.0045
0.005	0.0053

Copper	0.0038	0.0056	0.009	0.0123	0.0156	0.0189	0.0221	0.0253	0.0285
0.0316	0.0332

Lead	0.014	0.023	0.045	0.069	0.095	0.122	0.151	0.182	0.213	0.246	0.262

Nickel	0.15	0.2	0.32	0.42	0.52	0.61	0.71	0.8	0.89	0.98	1.02

Silver	0.0007	0.0007	0.0017	0.003	0.0046	0.0065	0.0087	0.0112	0.0138
0.0168	0.0183

Zinc	0.04	0.05	0.08	0.11	0.13	0.16	0.18	0.2	0.23	0.25	0.26

Table 3. Parameters Specific to the Type of Ore Being Mined

Type of Ore Mined	TSS	pH	Arsenic	Cadmium (H)	COD	Copper (H)	Iron	Lead
(H)	Mercury	Nickel (H)	Radium*	Uranium	Zinc (H)

Tungsten	X 	X 	X 	X

X

X

	X

Nickel	X 	X 	X 	X

X

X

	X

Aluminum	X 	X

X

Mercury	X 	X

	X

	Iron	X 	X

**

Platinum 	 	 	 	X

X

X

	X

Titanium 	X 	X

X

	X

	X

Vanadium 	X 	X 	X 	X

X

X

	X

Molybdenum 	X 	X 	X 	X

X

X 	X

X

Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium	X 	X 	X

X

X 	X 	X

Copper 	X

X

All metals are total metals unless otherwise specified.

*Total and dissolved radium

**Dissolved Iron

(H) – Permittee is required to measure hardness along with the metal
of concern.

Benchmark monitoring is required in the first year of activity under the
MSGP. If the average of the first four quarterly monitoring results is
below the specified benchmark for all parameters, the permittee is no
longer required to monitor for the term of the permit. If any of the
benchmark values are exceeded, the permittee must either modify the BMPs
employed at the site or show just cause for an exception. Exceptions are
granted in the following two cases:

The permittee shows that further pollutant reduction is not economically
feasible considering best industry practices; or

Pollutant levels contributing to exceedances of specified benchmark
values are attributable to background levels.

In either case, the permittee will provide documentation to EPA that
must also be included in the site-specific SWPPP.

SWPPP Requirements

Under the 2008 MSGP, the permittee is required to maintain an updated,
site-specific SWPPP containing the following:

A general description of the nature of the operations occurring at the
site;

A site map with relevant drainage boundaries possible pollutant sources
analogous to a conceptual model; and

An analysis of the type of pollutants that have reasonable potential to
be found in stormwater discharged from the site.

In addition to these requirements, the SWPPP functions generally as a
total disclosure document for all findings and analyses related to
stormwater impacts from the site.

PART III. CHANGES IN THE 2008 MSGP

Table 4 summarizes changes between the 2000 and 2008 MSGP. The most
significant additions to the 2008 MSGP are

More frequent benchmark monitoring requirements;

More stringent benchmark concentrations for arsenic, mercury, and
selenium;

More frequent site inspections; and

Clarifying text to determine when corrective actions are needed.

Table 4. Changes to the 2008 MSGP Affecting the Ore Mining and Dressing
Industry

Permit Section	Description of Change

Effluent Limits

	Clearing, grading, and excavation activities disturbing greater than
one acre were not covered under the 2000 MSGP and had to be covered
under the General Construction Permit (these activities have been
incorporated into the 2008 permit).

	2008 MSGP incorporated management practices including good housekeeping
measures as well as detention/retention structures.

Site Inspections	Changed inspection frequency for active sites from
monthly to once every seven days or once every fourteen days and within
24 hours of a storm event 0.5 inches or greater.

Monitoring Requirements

	Changed benchmark monitoring from two years to one. If facility exceeds
benchmark in first year, facility has to continue benchmark monitoring
for a second year – old permit allowed facility to wait one year
before resuming benchmark monitoring.

	Clarifies that facilities that exceed the benchmark values will either
need to modify BMPs or claim an exception due to background
contamination or lack of economic feasibility.

	Changed turbidity benchmark from 5 NTUs above background to 50 NTUs
total.

	Changed arsenic benchmark from 0.16854 to 0.15 mg/L.

	Changed selenium benchmark from 0.2385 to 0.005 mg/L.

	Changed mercury benchmark from 0.0024 to 0.0014 mg/L.

	Removed manganese monitoring requirement and benchmark.

	Clarified and revised the hardness-based parameter limits.

	DMRs must be submitted postmarked no later than January 28 in the 2000
MSGP. Omitted that because DMRs are submitted continuously.

	Added monitoring requirement for facilities discharging to impaired
water bodies.

	Removed general requirement for coal pile monitoring.

	Includes a waiver for benchmark monitoring at inactive and un-staffed
sites.

Reporting and Recordkeeping	Requires submittal of an annual report
including results from the comprehensive site inspections and any
corrective action documentation.

Termination of Permit Coverage	Added a section discussing termination of
permit coverage for reclaimed sites.

REFERENCES

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 2008. NPDES Program
Webpage. Available online at:
http://dec.state.ak.us/water/npdes/index.htm.

Date accessed: 03 December, 2008.

U.S. EPA, 1997. National Hardrock Mining Framework. Washington, DC
(September).

Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/indpermitting/mining.cfm

Date accessed: 21 November, 2008.

U.S. EPA, 2003a. Gathering EPA Experts’ Inputs for the Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005. Washington, DC (December).

U.S. EPA, 2002. Responses to Comments Received on Proposed Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan for 2002/2003. Washington, DC (June).

U.S. EPA, 2003b. Description and Results of EPA Methodology to
Synthesize Screening Level Results for the Effluent Guidelines Program
Plan for 2004/2005. Washington, DC (December).

U.S. EPA, 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan. EPA-821-R-04-014. Washington, DC (December).

U.S. EPA, 2008. Multi-Sector General Permit For Stormwater Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity (MSGP). Washington, DC (September).

Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp.cfm

Date accessed: 21 November, 2008. Attachment A

304(M) ISSUE/INDUSTRY NOMINATION FORM FOR ORE MINING AND
DRESSINGAttachment B

DETAILED OUTLINE OF SECTIONS FROM THE 2008 MSGP APPLICABLE TO ORE MINING
AND DRESSING FACILITIESApplicability

Mines abandoned on federal lands

Stormwater that has come in contact with one of the following:

Overburden

Raw material

Intermediate/Finished Product

Byproduct

Waste Product

Covers all stormwater from the following:

Inactive facilities

Exploration and construction facilities

Facilities undergoing reclamation

Covers stormwater from the following areas of active and temporarily
inactive facilities:

Waste rock piles

Overburden piles6

Topsoil piles

Offsite haul/access roads

Onsite haul/access roads constructed of waste rock/overburden/spent ore7

Onsite haul/access roads not constructed of waste rock/overburden/spent
ore except if mine drainage is used for dust control

Runoff from tailings dams or dikes when not constructed of waste rock or
tailings and no process fluids present6

Concentration building if no contact with material piles

Administrative buildings or housing if mixed with stormwater from
industrial area

Storage areas for chemicals, explosives, and fuel

Docking facility

Vehicle/equipment maintenance areas

Parking areas and buildings

Power plant

Truck wash area7

Unclaimed, disturbed areas outside of mined area

Reclamation areas released from reclamation prior to December 17, 1990

Partially/inadequately reclaimed areas not released from reclamation

Does not cover the following:

Discharges regulated under 40 CFR Part 440

Adit drainage

Contaminated springs or seeps discharging from waste rock dumps not
directly resulting from precipitation events

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for all Ore Mining Facilities –
Active facilities must monitor discharges from waste rock and overburden
piles for the parameters in Tables 1 and 2 of the memo, as well as the
ore-specific parameters in Table 3 of the memo. Benchmark monitoring
should be done quarterly in the first year of activity and in subsequent
years for all parameters which continue to exceed the respective
benchmark value. There are no monitoring requirements for inactive and
un-staffed sites.

Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Clearing, Grading, and Excavation
Activities

Management practices

Selecting and installing control measures – for all affected areas,
permittee must implement measures that meet applicable Part 2 Effluent
limits

Good housekeeping – prevent litter, debris, and chemicals from
becoming stormwater pollution sources

Runoff detention/retention –

For locations draining more than one acre, sediment basins and/or
temporary sediment traps should be used.

At a minimum silt fences, vegetative buffer strips, or equivalent
sediment controls are required for all down-slope boundaries

Permittee must remove sediment from sediment basins/traps when capacity
has been reduced by 50 percent

Inspection

Frequency – Once every seven days or once every month if site is
stabilized, frozen, or going through dry season in arid/semi-arid area

The following locations must be inspected:

All areas disturbed by clearing, grading, and excavation and areas used
for storage of materials exposed to precipitation;

Erosion and sedimentation (E&S) controls – must be observed to ensure
proper operation;

Discharge locations – must be observed to ascertain whether E&S
controls are preventing significant impacts to waters of the U.S; and

Vehicle Entry/Exit Locations – must be inspected for evidence of
significant off-site sediment tracking.

Requirements for cessation

Inspection and maintenance – All control measures (including BMPs)
must be inspected and maintained until final stabilization has been
achieved for all disturbed areas or until mining has commenced on
temporarily stabilized areas.

Final and Temporary stabilization of disturbed areas – Stabilization
measures should be initiated no more than 14 days after clearing,
grading, and/or excavation activities cease. Until temporary/final
stabilization is achieved, interim measures (i.e. erosion control
blanket with seed base and tackifiers) should be employed.

Additional Technology-Based Effluent Limits.

Employee training – conduct annual training at active and temporarily
inactive sites.

Stormwater controls – potential pollutants identified in Part 8.G.6.3
shall determine the appropriateness of the control measures selected.

Diversion options

Interceptors (e.g., dikes, swales, curbs, berms)

Pipe slope drains

Subsurface drains

Conveyance systems (e.g., channels, gutters, culverts)

Capping – where needed, identify the source that requires capping and
the capping material to be used

Treatment – where needed, identify the type/location.

Certification of discharge testing – evaluate all outfalls for the
presence of mining-related, non-stormwater discharges (e.g., mine
drainage, process water).

Additional SWPPP Requirements

Nature of Industrial Activities

Document mining activities that could affect stormwater discharges

Include site location description relative to transportation routes and
communities

Site Map – should include locations of the following:

Mine and mill site boundaries

Access and haul roads

Drainage areas of outfalls with indications of types of discharges from
the drainage areas

Permitted discharges covered under individual NPDES permit

Outdoor equipment storage, fueling, and maintenance areas

Materials handling areas

Outdoor manufacturing, storage, and disposal areas

Overburden, materials, soils, and waste storage areas

Mine drainage and process water locations

Tailings piles and ponds (proposed and existing)

Heap leach pads

Off-site discharge points for mine drainage/process water

Surface waters

Boundaries of tributary areas subject to ELGs

Reclaimed areas

Potential Pollutant Sources – for each area where industrial
stormwater discharges will occur, permittee will include the following:

Types of pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, sediment) likely present in
significant amounts considering the following:

Mineralogy of ore and waste rock

Toxicity and quantity of chemicals used, produced or discharged

Likelihood of contact with stormwater

Vegetation (if any)

History of leaks/spills

Summary of existing ore, waste rock, or overburden characterization data
and test results for acid generation potential (updated with new
information)

Documentation of Control Measures – document measures consistent with
7.G.5.2.

Employee training – include documentation of employee training in
SWPPP.

Certification of Permit Coverage for Commingled Non-Stormwater
Discharges – Include certification in SWPPP that identifies any
non-stormwater discharges and the permit, limits, and compliance points
that regulate them.

Additional Inspection Requirements – sites that are not subject to
clearing, grading, and/or excavating should be inspected quarterly

Termination of Permit Coverage

For sites reclaimed after December 17, 1990 – no longer required to
maintain coverage under permit, unless the reclaimed site was not
subject to reclamation requirements, in which case it must be reclaimed.

For sites reclaimed before December 17, 1990 – no longer required to
maintain coverage under this permit if site(s) have been reclaimed.

Monitoring

Substantially Identical Outfalls – If facility has two or more
outfalls that discharge identical effluents, permittee may identify them
and include justification in the SWPPP, and report monitoring results
from one outfall for all other substantially identical outfalls.

Commingled discharges – If stormwater discharges are commingled with
discharges not regulated by MSGP, than permittee must sample regulated
discharges prior to mixing (to the extent practical).

Measurable Storm Event – Monitoring must be performed at least 72
hours after a storm event that results in a discharge.

Sample Type – At least one grab sample must be taken with 30 minutes
of storm event.

Adverse Weather Conditions – when adverse weather conditions prevent
sample collection according to schedule, permittee must take a
substitute sample during the next qualified storm event. Permittee must
still file a benchmark monitoring report indicating the basis for not
sampling during the usual period.

Climates with Irregular Stormwater Runoff – In arid/semi-arid climates
where runoff does not occur for extended periods, sampling events may be
distributed during seasons when discharge occurs.

Benchmark monitoring

Inactive and Un-staffed sites – sites that are inactive and un-staffed
are not required to perform benchmark monitoring.

Schedule - Must be conducted quarterly.

Benchmark exceedances – If average of first four quarters exceeds
benchmark, permittee must evaluate existing BMPs and do one of the
following:

Make modification and sample four more quarters showing that average has
dropped below benchmark; or

Determine that no further reduction is feasible in light of best
industry practices and provide justification and documentation to EPA
(include in SWPPP)

Natural Background Pollutant Levels – permittee may claim that
benchmark exceedances are due to natural background levels if monitoring
data are less than or equal to background levels. Permittee must provide
justification for claim and notify EPA.

 Region 4 includes AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, and TN. Region 7 includes
IA, KS, MO, and NE. Region 8 includes CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, and WY.

 The MSGP does not cover the following mine sites: (1) sites with their
stormwater discharges regulated by an individual permit; and (2) sites
without any discharge of stormwater. A facility has the option of
obtaining an individual permit for stormwater discharges instead of
requesting coverage under the MSGP; however, in practice this is seldom
done. Almost all mine sites discharge stormwater (e.g., from haul roads,
process areas, equipment storage areas, mine waste rock).

 Table G-4 of the MSGP lists what wastewaters from mining activities are
covered by Part 440 and what wastewaters are to be covered by the
industrial MSGP. In response to litigation from the National Mining
Association, EPA revised its interpretation of applicability for
wastewaters from hard rock mining operations. Under the revised
interpretation, runoff from waste rock and overburden piles is not
subject to effluent guidelines unless it naturally drains (or is
intentionally diverted) to a point source and combines with “mine
drainage” that is otherwise subject to the effluent guidelines (65 FR
64774, October 30, 2000).

 Or once every fourteen days and within 24 hours of a storm event of 0.5
inches or greater.

 Where discharge locations are inaccessible, nearby downstream locations
must be inspected to the extent that inspection is practical.

 If composed entirely of stormwater and not combining with mine drainage
(see also footnote 2)

 If no excessive contact with waste product that would otherwise
constitute mine drainage (see also footnote 2)

 Part 2 includes both technology-based and water quality-based effluent
limits. The technology-based effluent limits are non-numeric and include
general management practices such as minimizing exposure of
manufacturing and processing areas to stormwater, good housekeeping,
maintenance of industrial equipment, spill prevention and response, E&S
controls, and general runoff management.  The water-quality based limits
simply require the permittee to meet any local water quality standards
and to comply with TMDLs for any impaired water bodies.

 Unless a sediment basin providing storage for a 2-year, 24 hour storm
event or 3,600 cubic feet per drained acre is provided.

 Or once every fourteen days and within 24 hours of a storm event of 0.5
inches or greater

 Where discharge locations are inaccessible, nearby downstream locations
must be inspected to the extent that inspection is practical

 In areas where vegetative stabilization is not possible within fourteen
days after activities have ceased, measures should be initiated as soon
as possible.

 Sites which discharge to impaired/outstanding waters for sediment or
nitrogen must be inspected monthly.

 Except in the condition of snowmelt or where site-specific criteria
prove that a sample taken less than 72 hours afterward will be
representative.

 If it is not possible to take a sample within 30 minutes, the sample
must be taken as soon as possible, and justification for the delay must
be made in the SWPPP.

 If data still exceed benchmark after modification, permittee must again
determine whether to modify BMPs or to determine that further reductions
are not feasible.

 Background pollutants must be naturally occurring and cannot be
pollutants from former activities at other sites or run-on from
off-site.

Memorandum

04 December 2008

  PAGE  8

Memorandum

04 December 2008

  PAGE  1

B-  PAGE  5


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38497-38499]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15817]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0300]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Richmond-Essex County Fourth of July Fireworks,
Rappahannock River, Tappahannock, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will establish a temporary safety zone on the
Rappahannock River in the vicinity of Tappahannock, VA to support the
Richmond-Essex County Fourth of July Fireworks event. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during
an aerial fireworks display. This action is intended to restrict vessel
traffic movement to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards
associated with aerial fireworks displays.

DATES: This rule will be effective from 9 p.m. on June 30, 2012, until
10 p.m. on July 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0300 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0300 in the
``Search'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email LCDR Hector Cintron, Waterways Management
Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone 757-668-
5581, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive the
application for this event in sufficient time to allow for publication
of an NPRM, and any delay encountered in this regulation's effective
date by publishing a NPRM would require either the cancellation of the
event, or require that the event be held without a safety zone. For
that reason it is impracticable to publish an NPRM.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would
be impracticable because the Coast Guard did not receive an application
for this event in sufficient time to allow for publication more than 30
days prior to the date scheduled for the event, and any additional
delay in the effective date would prevent the safety zone from being
effective at the time of the event. Therefore, immediate action is
needed to ensure the safety of vessels transiting the area.

Background and Purpose

    On June 30, 2012, the Richmond County-Essex County Fireworks
Committee will host a fireworks event over the navigable waters of the
Rappahannock River in Tappahannock, VA centered on position
37[deg]55'12'' N/076[deg]49'12'' W (NAD 1983). Due to the need to
protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the
fireworks display, such as the accidental discharge of fireworks,
dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris, the
Coast Guard believes that vessel traffic should be temporarily
restricted within 400 feet of the fireworks launch site.

Discussion of Rule

    The Captain of the Port is establishing a safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Rappahannock River within the area bounded by a
400-foot radius circle centered on position 37[deg]55'12'' N/
076[deg]49'12'' W (NAD 1983). This safety zone will be enforced in the
vicinity of Tappahannock, VA from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on June 30,
2012, with a rain date of July 1, 2012 from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. In the
interest of public safety, general navigation within the safety zone
will be restricted during the specified date and times. Except for
participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port or his representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in
the regulated area.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation restricts access
to the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration;
(ii) the zone is of limited size; (iii) mariners may transit the waters
in and around this safety zone at the discretion of the Captain of the
Port or designated representative; and (iv), the Coast Guard will make

notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    The rule would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor on the Rappahannock River in the vicinity of
Tappahannock, VA from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on June 30, 2012.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The
temporary safety zone will only be in place for a limited duration and
limited size. (ii) Before the enforcement period of June 30, 2012,
maritime advisories will be issued allowing mariners to adjust their
plans accordingly.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing
a temporary safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 subpart C as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-0300, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0300  Safety Zone; Richmond-Essex County Fourth of July
Fireworks, Rappahannock River, Tappahannock, VA.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone: Specified
waters of the Captain of the Port Sector Hampton Roads zone, as defined
in 33 CFR 3.25-10, within 400 feet of position: 37[deg]-55'-12'' N/
076[deg]-49'-12'' W (NAD 1983) in the vicinity of Tappahannock, VA.
    (b) Definition. For purposes of enforcement of this section,
Captain of the Port Representative means any U.S. Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf.
    (c) Regulation.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a
U.S. Coast Guard Ensign; and
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on board a vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (3) Any person or vessel seeking to transit through the safety zone
may request prior permission of the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads,
Virginia who can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) U.S. Coast Guard vessels enforcing the safety zone can be
contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 13 (156.65 MHz) and
channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (d) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 9
p.m. until 10 p.m. on June 30, 2012, with a rain date of July 1, 2012
from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m.

    Dated: May 15, 2012.
Mark S. Ogle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2012-15817 Filed 6-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Subject: Extension of Alternative Compliance Periods Under the Anti Dumping Program: Seasonal NOx Emissions Determination From: Christine Brunner, Chemical Engineer Assessment and Standards Division To: Docket A 2002 14 Background This rule, Extension of Alternative Compliance Periods Under the Anti Dumping Program, would extend the amount of time available to an approved refinery to comply with its anti dumping NOx requirement. Under the original rule wherein a refiner could petition and be approved for an Alternative Anti Dumping Compliance Period, EPA required a refiner to purchase NOx credits when, on a quarterly basis, its average NOx emissions exceeded the annual statutory NOx value. As stated in the September 8, 2000, rule, "... credits function as collateral against any NOx deficiency that the refiner creates to minimize the possibility of environmental harm in the event the refinery does not fulfill its obligation under the other requirements of the rule."

Direct Final Rule/ Proposed Rule (" today's action")

EPA has determined that the current method of calculating NOx emissions deficits and benefits at 80.101( k)( 3)( ii) may have the unintended effect of creating an unnecessary pattern of buying and selling of credits by an approved refiner because of the combined effects of seasonal gasoline quality and the determination of emissions in the Complex Model. EPA believes that the same environmental outcome will be achieved by the changes contained in today's action while not resulting in the unnecessary outlay of capital by the refiner at a time when the refiner is operating under an alternative compliance period specifically to reduce the impact of financial constraints.

On a quarterly basis, gasoline production during the first and fourth quarters of the calendar year is almost all, if not entirely, winter gasoline for most refiners. Winter gasoline is not only gasoline with different properties ( like higher RVP) than summer gasoline, but it must also be evaluated using the winter Complex Model. For a given fuel composition ( based on fuel properties used in the Complex Model), the winter Complex Model yields higher emissions than the summer Complex Model. Winter emissions determined using the Complex Model will always be higher than annual emissions determined by combining winter and summer results from the Complex 1The annual statutory baseline value for NOx emissions is 1461 milligrams per mile ( mg/ mile). [ See 80.91( c)( 5)( iv).] The summer and winter statutory baseline values for NOx are 1340 and 1540 mg/ mile, respectively. These were determined by inputting the summer and winter statutory baseline fuel parameters into the summer or winter Complex Model, respectively. [ See 80.45( b).] The annual statutory NOx baseline emissions value was determined from the weighting of the summer and winter baseline emissions using a 0.396 fraction of summer and a 0.604 fraction of winter gasoline.

2 While we believe that this approach is appropriate for the limited purpose of calculated NOx credit purchase obligations, as described herein, we do not believe that such an approach would be appropriate for purposes of demonstrating compliance with an annual performance requirement. Model1. Thus, under the current equation for calculating NOx deficit and benefit under 80.101( k)( 3), even a refiner that is producing winter gasoline that would assure annual compliance ( once averaged with its summer gasoline production) would in many instances have to purchase credits for the first and fourth quarters. A refiner could produce extremely clean winter gasoline in these quarters in order to not have to purchase credits under 80.101, but it is unlikely that a refiner in start up mode would be able to produce such clean gasoline.

Conversely, the gasoline that a refiner produces in the second and third quarters ( which includes relatively little winter gasoline   roughly 20 30 percent) would perform significantly better than the annual statutory NOx value. In fact, under the current 80.101( k)( 3)( ii), this overcompliance in the second and third quarters ( resulting in quarterly NOx benefits) would likely more than exceed the deficit created in the first and fourth quarters, allowing those credits to be sold.

Thus, as a result of the combined effects of seasonal gasoline quality and the provisions of the Complex Model, the current manner in which NOx benefit and deficit are determined might unnecessarily require approved refiners to buy and sell NOx credits each year. This would create an economic burden without any related environmental benefits. Accordingly, we believe that the NOx credit provisions of 80.101( k)( 3) should reflect the fact that the NOx performance of gasoline produced during different times of the year is expected to vary relative to the annual average statutory baseline. In quarters with a greater percentage of winter gasoline production NOx performance may be less stringent than the annual average, and in quarters with little winter gasoline production NOx performance should be better than the annual average. 2 The quarterly NOx emissions values contained in this action reflect these seasonal differences, e. g., the second and third quarter NOx values are more stringent, and the first and fourth quarter less stringent, than the annual average.

This action would modify the equations at 80.101( k)( 3) used to calculate the quarterly NOx deficit or benefit, but does not change the environmental protection aspects intended under 80.101( k). In fact, today's action may result in the continued and accelerated start up of an approved refinery, enabling the refinery to not require the full use of its alternative averaging period and getting cleaner gasoline to the market sooner. Specifically, for the limited application of determining an approved refiner's NOx deficit or benefit in a quarter, today's action requires that the refiner's quarterly NOx emissions will now be compared to a quarterly NOx emissions 3 U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration value rather than to the annual statutory baseline NOx emissions value. The net determination of NOx deficit or benefit is unaffected.

Equation Modification The quarterly statutory NOx values were determined as follows. First, the number of summer and winter days of gasoline production was determined for each quarter. In the first quarter, January through March, there are a total of 90 days ( excluding leap years). All of these days are winter days. In the second quarter, April through June, there are 91 days. Because summer gasoline must be at terminals on May 1 and at the pump on June 1, both of those months are considered summer months. Because of these deadlines, refiners generally will start to produce summer gasoline some time in April. To account for this, approximately 10 days in April were allocated as summer, leaving 20 winter days. The approximation of 10 days of summer gasoline in April will be discussed below. In the third quarter, July and August are considered summer months. Although the high ozone, or summer, season, does not end until after September 15, refiners will generally begin reducing production of summer gasoline during early September. To account for this, only approximately 10 days in September were allocated as summer days, leaving about 20 days as winter gasoline. As for April, this allocation will be discussed further below. There are 92 days in the fourth quarter, and all gasoline produced in that quarter is winter gasoline. See Attachment 1.

Part of the consideration in approximating 10 days of summer gasoline in both April and September, in addition to the reality of early production and early stoppage of production of summer gasoline in these months, respectively, was maintaining the statutory summer and winter fractions, 0.396 and 0.604, respectively. These fractions, along with seasonal statutory emissions values, determine the annual statutory emissions value, such as the Phase II NOx standard for conventional gasoline.

Using weekly average finished gasoline production rates from 1990 ( see Attachment 2) 3, average quarterly, seasonal production rates were determined. Thus, in the first and fourth quarters, a single average production rate was determined; in the second and third quarters, part of the data was allocated as summer, part as winter, based on a pre estimation of the starting and stopping production dates for summer gasoline. The average seasonal volumes were determined by multiplying the number of days of seasonal gasoline by the seasonal gasoline production rate. NOx quarterly emissions were determined by multiplying the seasonal volumes of each quarter by the corresponding seasonal statutory NOx value and dividing the result by the total volume for the quarter. The number of summer and winter days in the second and third quarters were iterated until 1) the statutory seasonal ratios were achieved; 2) the average of the quarterly NOx emissions determined from gasoline production equaled the annual statutory NOx emissions value of 1461 mg/ mile; and 3) the quarterly NOx values determined from gasoline production and solely from calendar days were about the same.

The quarterly NOx values in the first, third and fourth quarters were identical using either method; the second quarter NOx value determined using gasoline production was slightly more stringent than that determined using calendar days alone. To further ensure the environmental protection aspects of this action, we are using the slightly more stringent value as the second quarter comparison.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38912-38914]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15694]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1179; Project Identifier AD-2020-00818-E;
Amendment 39-21638; AD 2021-14-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80A and CF6-80C2 model
turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by an inspection by the
manufacturer that revealed cracking of the high-pressure turbine (HPT)
rotor stage 1 disk. This AD requires visual inspection and fluorescent
penetrant inspection (FPI) of the HPT thermal shield and, if cracking
is detected, removal from service of the HPT thermal shield, HPT rotor
stage 1 disk and HPT rotor stage 2 disk. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website:
www.ge.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1179.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1179; 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: Kevin M. Clark, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all General Electric
Company (GE) CF6-80A, CF6-80A1, CF6-80A2, CF6-80A3, CF6-80C2A1, CF6-
80C2A2, CF6-80C2A3, CF6-80C2A5, CF6-80C2A5F, CF6-80C2A8, CF6-80C2B1,
CF6-80C2B1F, CF6-80C2B1F1, CF6-80C2B1F2, CF6-80C2B2, CF6-80C2B2F, CF6-
80C2B3F, CF6-80C2B4, CF6-80C2B4F, CF6-80C2B5F, CF6-80C2B6, CF6-80C2B6F,
CF6-80C2B6FA, CF6-80C2B7F, CF6-80C2B8F, CF6-80C2D1F, CF6-80C2K1F, and
CF6-80C2L1F model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on February 22, 2021 (86 FR 10496). The NPRM was prompted by
an inspection by the manufacturer that revealed cracking of the HPT
rotor stage 1 disk caused by increased stress on the HPT rotor stage 1
disk as a result of flange-to-flange cracking on the HPT thermal
shield. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require visual inspection and
FPI of the HPT thermal shield and, if cracking is detected, removal
from service of the HPT thermal shield, HPT rotor stage 1 disk and HPT
rotor stage 2 disk. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from five commenters. The commenters were
Atlas Air, Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Boeing), Delta Air Lines
(Delta), United Airlines (United) and the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA). The following presents the comments received on
the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Update Shop Manual

    Atlas Air requested that the FAA revise GE CF6-80C2, ESM 72-53-05,
High Pressure Turbine (HPT) Rotor Thermal Shield--Inspection to add the
proposed requirement to remove from service the HPT thermal shield, the
HPT rotor stage 1 disk, and the HPT rotor stage 2 disk from service if
a crack is found, since the thermal shield can be sent to different
vendors outside the engine shop. Delta also suggested that the
technical data within the Engine Shop Manual (ESM) should be updated to
ensure inspection requirements are equivalent across all tasks within
the ESM.
    The FAA disagrees. Requiring updates to the ESM is unnecessary to
correct the unsafe condition identified in this AD. The visual and FPI
inspections in the required actions of this AD are the necessary
actions to correct the unsafe condition. Operators, at their
discretion, may work with the original equipment manufacturer to
suggest changes to the ESM to include the inspections required by this
AD.

Request To Revise References to Engine Manual

    Boeing requested that the FAA update reference to the service
information in the Related Service Information section of the NPRM by
referencing Revision 90 of the GE CF6-80A Engine Manual and Revision 91
of the CF6-80C2 Engine Manual. These revisions of the respective
engines manuals include updated procedures regarding HPT rotor Stage 1
and Stage 2 disk serviceability for these model engines with respect to
HPT thermal shield inspection findings.
    The FAA agrees and has updated the Related Service Information
section of this AD as suggested by the commenter.

Request To Clarify Inspection Instructions

    Delta requested that the FAA clarify that the mandated visual and
FPI inspections should be accomplished in accordance with the engine
manual for the affected engine models.
    The FAA disagrees. Operators may use any approved method to perform
the visual and FPI inspections required by this AD.

Request To Clarify Engine Applicability

    United requested that the FAA remove CF6-80C2B8F model turbofan
engines from the applicability of this AD. United commented that two
HPT thermal shield configurations exist, part number (P/N) 2787M85P01
and P/N 9315M41P20. Neither of these configurations are applicable to
the R88DT HPT rotor installed on CF6-80C2B8F model turbofan engines.
United requested that if the FAA considers the CF6-80C2B8F turbofan
engine model affected by this AD, then the applicable engine manual
should be updated to reflect the inspections required by this AD.
    The FAA agrees. This AD is not applicable to the R88DT HPT rotor
installed on CF6-80C2B8F model turbofan engines because that rotor
configuration does not have an affected thermal shield. The FAA added
the applicable part numbers for HPT thermal shields installed on CF6-
80A and CF6-80C2 model turbofan engines to the applicability paragraph
of this AD.

Support for the NPRM

    ALPA supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes and any
other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any
operator.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed ESM 72-53-00 High Pressure Turbine Rotor
Assembly--Disassembly (CF6-80A ESM 72-53-00), dated February 15, 2020
from the GE CF6-80A Engine Manual GEK72501--Rev 90, dated February 15,
2021. CF6-80A ESM 72-53-00 describes procedures for the removal of the
HPT thermal shield, the HPT rotor stage 1 disk, and the HPT rotor stage
2 disk installed on CF6-80A model turbofan engines.
    The FAA also reviewed ESM 72-53-00 High Pressure Turbine Rotor
Assembly--Disassembly (CF6-80C2 ESM 72-53-00), dated December 1, 2019
from the GE CF6-80C2 Engine Manual GEK92451--Rev 91, dated December 1,
2020. CF6-80C2 ESM 72-53-00 describes procedures for the removal of the
HPT thermal shield, the HPT rotor stage 1 disk, and the HPT rotor stage
2 disk installed on CF6-80C2 model turbofan engines.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,084 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perform FPI and visual inspection of    2 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $170        $184,280
 HPT thermal shield.                     hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these replacements.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace HPT thermal shield....................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $209,600        $209,770
                                                 $170.
Replace HPT rotor stage 1 disk................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour =            799,700         799,870
                                                 $170.
Replace HPT rotor stage 2 disk................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour =            364,600         364,770
                                                 $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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:

2021-14-11 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-21638; Docket No.
FAA-2020-1179; Project Identifier AD-2020-00818-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 27, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80A, CF6-
80A1, CF6-80A2, CF6-80A3, CF6-80C2A1, CF6-80C2A2, CF6-80C2A3, CF6-
80C2A5, CF6-80C2A5F, CF6-80C2A8, CF6-80C2B1, CF6-80C2B1F, CF6-
80C2B1F1, CF6-80C2B1F2, CF6-80C2B2, CF6-80C2B2F, CF6-80C2B3F, CF6-
80C2B4, CF6-80C2B4F, CF6-80C2B5F, CF6-80C2B6, CF6-80C2B6F, CF6-
80C2B6FA, CF6-80C2B7F, CF6-80C2B8F, CF6-80C2D1F, CF6-80C2K1F, and
CF6-80C2L1F model turbofan engines with an installed thermal shield
having one of the following part numbers: 2787M85P01, 9315M41P09,
9315M41P13, 9315M41P14, 9315M41P15, 9315M41P16, 9315M41P20,
9348M13P01, 9367M63P01, 9367M63P02, 9367M63P03, 9367M63P04,
9367M63P05, 9367M63P06, 9367M63P07, or 9315M41P20.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an inspection by the manufacturer that
revealed cracking of the high-pressure turbine (HPT) rotor stage 1
disk, caused by initial flange-to-flange cracking on the HPT thermal
shield between the HPT rotor stage 1 disk and the HPT rotor stage 2
disk. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT rotor
stage 1 disk and the HPT rotor stage 2 disk. The unsafe condition,
if not addressed, could result in uncontained release of the HPT
rotor stage 1 and stage 2 disks, damage to the engine, and damage to
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) After the effective date of this AD, at every piece-part
exposure of the HPT rotor stage 1 disk, HPT rotor stage 2 disk, or
the HPT thermal shield, perform a visual inspection and a
fluorescent penetrant inspection of the HPT thermal shield.
    (2) During any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD, if a crack extending through either the forward or aft flange of
the HPT thermal shield is detected, remove the HPT thermal shield,
the HPT rotor stage 1 disk, and the HPT rotor stage 2 disk from
service.

(h) Installation Prohibition

    Do not install onto any engine an HPT rotor stage 1 disk or HPT
rotor stage 2 disk that was removed from service due to the
requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

(i) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, ``piece-part exposure'' is when the
HPT rotor stage 1 disk, HPT rotor stage 2 disk, or HPT thermal
shield is separated from their mating rotor parts within the HPT
rotor module.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
Related Information. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on June 25, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-15694 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39432-39434]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15701]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69858; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-085]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
amend Rule 4630 to Remove a Restriction on a Member Acting as a
Registered Market Maker in a Commodity-Related Security

June 25, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 14, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
NASDAQ. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ proposes to amend NASDAQ Rule 4630(e), which governs the
trading in Commodity-Related Securities.\3\ This rule change to amend
NASDAQ Rule 4630(e) is consistent with a previous NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca'') rule change discussed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Commodity-Related Security'' means a security
that is issued by a trust, partnership, commodity pool or similar
entity that invests, directly or through another entity, in any
combination of commodities, futures contracts, options on futures
contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or other related
derivatives, or the value of which is determined by the value of
commodities, futures contracts, options on futures contracts,
forward contracts, commodity swaps, or other related derivatives.
See NASDAQ Rule 4630(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements

concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NASDAQ Rule 4630(e) consistent with
a rule change previously made by NYSE Arca in 2010 to its equities
rules in an immediately effective rule filing (the ``NYSE Arca
filing'').\4\ NASDAQ's proposed rule change is to remove the
restriction that a member acting as a registered market maker in a
Commodity-Related Security will not act or register as a market maker
in any commodities, futures contracts, options on futures contracts,
forward contracts, commodity swaps, or other related derivatives
underlying such Commodity-Related Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62013 (April 30,
2010), 75 FR 25892 (May 10, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NYSE Arca filing, in part, amended Commentary .01(a) to NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) (``Commentary .01(a)''). The portion of
that amendment that is the focus of this filing affected NYSE Arca's
listing standards for Commodity-Linked Securities. Specifically, the
deletion included removing the prohibition that a registered market
maker in Commodity-Linked Securities could not also act as a market
maker or function in any capacity involving market-making
responsibilities in the commodity reference asset or the components
underlying that commodity reference asset. As amended, NASDAQ Rule
4630(e) would similarly remove this prohibition, which states that a
registered market maker in a Commodity-Related Security is prohibited
from acting or registering as a market maker in any commodities,
futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts,
commodity swaps, or other related derivatives underlying such
Commodity-Related Security.
    NASDAQ Rule 4630(e), as amended, would be similar to current
Commentary .01(a) and would similarly continue to provide that a member
acting as a registered market maker in a Commodity-Related Security
must file with the Exchange's regulation department in a manner
prescribed by such department and keep current a list identifying all
accounts for trading in commodities, futures contracts, options on
futures contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or other related
derivatives underlying such Commodity-Related Security, in which the
market maker holds an interest, over which it may exercise investment
discretion, or in which it shares in the profits and losses.
    Additionally, the amended NASDAQ rule would remain consistent with
Commentary .01(a) since it would also continue to provide that no
market maker shall trade in, or exercise investment discretion with
respect to, such underlying commodities, futures contracts, options on
futures contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or other related
derivatives, in an account in which a market maker, directly or
indirectly, controls trading activities, or has an interest in the
profits or losses thereof, that has not been reported as required by
the rule.
    NASDAQ Rule 4630(e), as amended, also would remain consistent with
NASDAQ Rules 4630(d) and (g) so that a member acting as a registered
market maker in a Commodity-Related Security remains obligated to
establish adequate information barriers when such market maker engages
in inter-departmental communications. Members should refer to NASD/NYSE
Joint Memo on Chinese Wall Policies and Procedures (NASD Notice to
Members 91-45) for guidance on the ```minimum elements' of adequate
Chinese Wall policy and procedures.'' \5\ For purposes of a Commodity-
Related Security, ``inter-departmental communications'' are defined to
include communications to other departments within the same firm or the
firm's affiliates that involve trading in commodities, futures
contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts, commodity
swaps, or other related derivatives underlying such Commodity-Related
Security.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NASDAQ Rule 4630(d).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55386 (March 2,
2007), 72 FR 10801 (March 2, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the context of approving a similar proposal by NYSE Arca, the
Commission stated that, ``while information barriers are not
specifically required under the proposal, a [firm's] business model or
business activities may dictate that an information barrier or a
functional separation be part of the appropriate set of policies and
procedures that would be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with
applicable securities law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange
rules.''
    The NASDAQ rules discussed above serve to ensure that market makers
in a Commodity-Related Security would continue to have in place the
appropriate policies and procedures with regard to also acting as a
market maker in any commodities, futures contracts, options on futures
contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or other related
derivatives underlying such Commodity-Related Security. This amendment
does not lessen the protection of members from risks associated with
integrated market making and any possible misuse of non-public
information.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Specifically, NASDAQ believes that the change to remove the
restriction in NASDAQ Rule 4630(e) that a member acting as a registered
market maker in a Commodity-Related Security shall not act or register
as a market maker in any commodities, futures contracts, options on
futures contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or other related
derivatives underlying such Commodity-Related Security will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by
providing the same flexibility to NASDAQ that is already available to
NYSE Arca regarding the market maker activities for Commodity-Related
Securities.
    Additionally, NASDAQ Rules 4630(d) and (g), in connection with
NASDAQ Rule 4630(e), as amended, would continue to serve to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, as well as to protect
investors and the public interest from concerns that may be associated
with integrated market making and any possible misuse of non-public
information.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary,
the Exchange believes the proposal is pro-competitive and is proposed
as a competitive response to the NYSE Arca filing. The Exchange
believes this proposed rule change, which governs the trading in
Commodity-Related Securities is necessary to permit fair competition
among the exchanges.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
The Exchange has provided the Commission written notice of its intent
to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and
text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to
the date of filing of the proposed rule change.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-085 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-085. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-085 and
should be submitted on or before July 22, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15701 Filed 6-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P