[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72650-72652]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30060]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0959; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-25-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 800
Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the

products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Routine inspections have revealed cracking on the head sections
of two Trent 800 front combustion liners.

We are proposing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure and
damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 24,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United
Kingdom; phone: 011 44 1332 242424; fax: 011 44 1332 249936; email:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; or Web: https://www.aeromanager.com., for the service information identified in this
proposed AD.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the
same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0959;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-25-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0080, dated May 6, 2011 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Routine inspections have revealed cracking on the head sections
of two Trent 800 front combustion liners.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to hot
gas breakout with subsequent downstream component release
potentially leading to uncontained high energy debris, possibly
resulting in damage to the aeroplane or injury to persons on the
ground.

    We are proposing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure and
damage to the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    Rolls-Royce plc has issued Alert Service Bulletin RB.211-72-AG456,
dated September 9, 2010. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the
United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom, they have
notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by EASA, and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 125 products
of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-
hours per product to inspect and 10 additional work-hours for those
combustion liners that require replacement. The average labor rate is
$85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $525,000 per
product. We expect that four front combustion liners will require
replacement. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,209,650.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

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

Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2011-0959; Directorate Identifier
2011-NE-25-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 24, 2012.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 800 turbofan
engines, all models, all serial numbers.

(d) Reason

    (1) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Routine inspections have revealed cracking on the head sections
of two Trent 800 front combustion liners.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to hot
gas breakout with subsequent downstream component release
potentially leading to uncontained high energy debris, possibly
resulting in damage to the aeroplane or injury to persons on the
ground.

    (2) We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure
and damage to the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.

(f) Initial Inspection

    (1) Within 1,000 flight cycles (FCs) after the effective date of
this AD, inspect the front combustion liner head section for
cracking. Use paragraph 3.A, except for 3.A.(1)(a)(i), of the On-
Wing Accomplishment Instructions of RR Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
RB.211-72-AG456, dated September 9, 2010, to do your inspections.
    (2) If you find cracking, remove the front combustion liner head
section from service at the next shop visit. Until the next shop
visit, take the corrective actions listed in Table 1 of this AD, as
applicable.

           Table 1--Inspection Findings and Follow-On Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Action(s) and compliance
          Inspection findings                        time(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Cumulative crack length up to 150    Reduce the inspection intervals
 mm (up to 2 heatshields).                to 250 FCs.
(ii) Cumulative crack length 150 mm to   Reduce the inspection intervals
 300 mm (up to 4 heatshields).            to 100 FCs.
(iii) Cumulative crack length 300 mm to  Remove the engine within 50
 450 mm (up to 6 heatshields).            FCs.
(iv) Cumulative crack length 450 mm to   Replace the engine within 5
 900 mm (up to 12 heatshields).           FCs.
(v) Cumulative crack length greater      Replace the engine before next
 than 900 mm (more than 12 heatshields).  flight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    (1) At intervals not to exceed 2,000 FCs, inspect the front
combustion liner head section for cracking. Use paragraph 3.A,
except for 3.A.(1)(a)(i), of the On-Wing Accomplishment Instructions
of RR ASB RB.211-72-AG456, dated September 9, 2010, to do your
inspection.
    (i) If you find cracking, remove the front combustion liner head
section at the next shop visit. Until the next shop visit, take the
corrective actions as detailed in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable.
    (2) For engines not found to have cracks in the front combustion
liner head section in accordance with paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), or
(g)(1) of this AD, at every shop visit after the effective date of
this AD, inspect the front combustion liner head section for
cracking. Use paragraph B.(2), except B.(2)(a)(i), of the In-shop
Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB RB.211-72-AG456, dated
September 9, 2010, to do the inspections.
    (3) Accomplishment of a shop visit inspection as required by
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD may substitute for the accomplishment of
an on-wing inspection as required by paragraph (f)(1) or (g)(1) of
this AD.

(h) Definition of Shop Visit

    For the purpose of this AD, the term shop visit means the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance where the front
combustion liner is exposed or when the engine has been removed from
service as a result of paragraph (f)(2) or (g)(1)(i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI Airworthiness Directive 2011-0080, dated May
6, 2011, and RR ASB RB.211-72-AG456, dated September 9, 2010, for
related information. Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: 011 44 1332 242424; fax: 011 44
1332 249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; or Web: https://www.aeromanager.com., for a copy of this
service information.
    (2) Contact Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 10, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-30060 Filed 11-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23542-23543]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09853]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2007-0706; FRL-9924-59-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; State Small Business Stationary Source
Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Programs (SBTCP)
Annual Reporting Form (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``State Small Business Stationary
Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Programs
(SBTCP) Annual Reporting Form (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1748.10, OMB
Control No. 2060-0337) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through May 31, 2015. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 73576) on December
11, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
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 OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OA-2007-0706, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Hoag, Office of Small Business
Programs, (1230A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: As part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the U.S.
Congress required that each state establish a Small Business Stationary
Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program to
assist small business in compliance with the Act. These programs are
generally known as Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs
(SBEAPs). EPA's Small Business Ombudsman must oversee the overall 507
program and be able to provide the Congress with periodical reports on
the effectiveness, difficulties encountered and other relevant
information about the program. Each state will submit requested
information to EPA for compilation and summarization. This collection
of information will assist the EPA Ombudsman with its requirement to
monitor the effectiveness of small businesses as authorized under
section 507(a), (d) and (e) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990,
Public Law 101-549, November 15, 1990. Information that is collected is
aggregated and is not of a confidential nature. None of the information
collected by this action results in/or requests sensitive information
of any nature from the states.
    Form Numbers: 6500-03.
    Respondents/affected entities: State and/or state appointed
entities of the 507 program.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (section 507, parts
(a), (d) and (e)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 53 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 2,120 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $112,106 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change of hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-09853 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0520; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Opacity Variance for Rocket Testing Operations Atlantic Research
Corporation’s Orange County Facility

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP).  The revisions
pertain to the addition of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 220, “Variance for Rocket
Motor Test Operations at Atlantic Research Corporation Orange County
Facility” and an opacity variance for the rocket motor test operations
at Aerojet Corporation’s Orange County Facility, in lieu of the
opacity limits established in the Virginia SIP.  EPA is approving these
revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia SIP in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:  This rule is effective on [Insert date 60 days after publication
in the Federal Register] without further notice, unless EPA receives
adverse written comment by [Insert date 30 days

after publication in the Federal Register].  If EPA receives such
comments, it will publish a

timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that the

rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0520 by one of the following methods:

A.    www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.

B.    E-mail:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

C.    Mail:  EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0520, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D.    Hand Delivery:  At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket(s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0520.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website 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
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.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East
Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

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

I.  Background

On January 26, 2004, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted an opacity
variance for the rocket motor test operations at Aerojet Corporation’s
Orange County Facility as a revision to its SIP.  The variance is
included in Title 9 of the Virginia Administrative Code (9 VAC Chapter
220).  Virginia established a variance that requires the facility to
limit total particulate matter (PM) emissions from its rocket motor test
operations to 714 pounds per hour (9 VAC 5-220-30.B), in lieu of opacity
limits set forth in regulation 9 VAC 5-50-80.

On February 19, 2009, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ) submitted additional information to support the variance for the
rocket motor test operations, which included a comprehensive technical
support document (TSD) that provides additional air dispersion modeling
information.

II.   Description of SIP Revision

This SIP revision consists of the addition of the “Variance for Rocket
Motor Test Operations at Atlantic Research Corporation Orange County
Facility” (9 VAC 5 Chapter 220) in order to add regulations 9 VAC
5-220-10 - Applicability and designation of affected facility, 9 VAC
5-220-20 - Definitions, 9 VAC 5-220-30 - Applicability of standard for
visible emissions and standard for particulate matter, 9 VAC 5-220-40 -
Compliance determination, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, 9
VAC 5-220-50 - Transfer of ownership and 9 VAC 5-220-60 - Applicability
of future regulation amendments.

The addition of the “Variance for Rocket Motor Test Operations at
Atlantic Research Corporation Orange County Facility” (9 VAC 5 Chapter
220) pertains to Atlantic Research Corporation Orange County Facility in
terms of applicability and designation, definitions, compliance
determination, monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording, transfer of
ownership, and applicability of future regulation amendments.  This
revision does not change the substance of the SIP and consequently, does
not interfere with the timely attainment or progress towards attainment
of a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), nor interfere with
any other provision of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

The addition of regulation 9 VAC 5-220-30 - “Applicability of standard
for visible emissions and standard for particulate matter” is to
establish PM emission limits for Aerojet Corporation’s rocket test
operations, in lieu of opacity standards established in regulation 9 VAC
5-50-80.  As part of this SIP revision, VADEQ included a modeling
analysis titled “Technical Support Documentation for Opacity Variance
for Rocket Test Facility” which demonstrates that emissions from
Aerojet Corporation’s Orange County Facility will not cause or
significantly contribute to violations of the PM NAAQS.  Further details
of VADEQ and EPA’s modeling analysis can be found in EPA’s TSD for
this rulemaking.

III.  General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals from the
Commonwealth of Virginia

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain
conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) (privilege( for
voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity.  The
legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties
either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for
which the privilege is claimed.  Virginia's legislation also provides,
subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of
environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations
pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses
such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate
measures to remedy the violations.  Virginia's Voluntary Environmental
Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege
that protects from disclosure documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary
environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents
or information (1) that are generated or developed before the
commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are
prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) that are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney
General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va.
Code Sec. 10.1-1198,  precludes granting a privilege to documents and
information (required by law,( including documents and information
(required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization
or approval,( since Virginia must (enforce Federally authorized
environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their
Federal counterparts. . . .(   The opinion concludes that ([r]egarding (
10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or
criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged
because such documents and information are essential to pursuing
enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval.(

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that ([t]o
the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,(  any
person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency
regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit,
or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil
penalty.  The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that
the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of
any Federally authorized programs, since (no immunity could be afforded
from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such
immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the
criteria for immunity.(

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity
statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program
consistent with the Federal requirements.  In any event, because EPA has
also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect
only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement
authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA,
including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce
the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any
state enforcement effort.  In addition, citizen enforcement under
section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state
audit privilege or immunity law.

IV.  Final Action

EPA is approving Virginia’s SIP revision to add the “Variance for
Rocket Motor Test Operations at Atlantic Research Corporation Orange
County Facility” (9 VAC 5 Chapter 220), which includes regulation 9
VAC 5-220-30 - “Applicability of standard for visible emissions and
standard for particulate matter” to establish PM emission limits for
Aerojet Corporation’s rocket test operations in lieu of opacity
standards established in regulation 9 VAC 5-50-80.  EPA is publishing
this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment.  However,
in the (Proposed Rules( section of today(s Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed.  This rule will
be effective on [Insert date 60 days from date of publication in the
Federal Register] without further notice unless EPA receives adverse
comment by [Insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal
Register].  If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect.  EPA will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.  EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action.  Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.  Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.

V.   Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal
regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in reviewing
SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA.  Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.  For that
reason, this action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 (Public Law 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 rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
 This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by [Insert date 60 days from date of publication of
this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action, pertaining to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s opacity
variance for rocket testing operations at Atlantic Research
Corporation’s Orange County Facility, may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

              James W. Newsom, Acting

              Regional Administrator

__August 26, 2009_____
____________________________

Dated:                             		   		William C. Early,

Acting Regional Administrator,

Region III.

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

1.  The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:

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

Subpart VV ( Virginia

2.  In ( 52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an
entry for Chapter 220 to read as follows:

( 52.2420  	Identification of plan.

*	*	*	*	*

(c) * * *

	EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation     (9 VAC 5)	Title/subject	State effective date	EPA
approval date	Explanation [former SIP citation]

*     *     *     *     *    *     *

9 VAC 5

Chapter 220	Opacity Variance for Rocket Testing Operations Atlantic
Research Corporation’s Orange County Facility

5-220-10	Applicability and designation of

affected facility 	12/1/02	[Insert Federal Register publication date]
[Insert page number where the document begins]

	5-220-20	Definitions 	12/1/02	[Insert Federal Register publication
date] [Insert page number where the document begins]

	5-220-30	Applicability of standard for visible emissions and standard
for particulate matter 	12/1/02	[Insert Federal Register publication
date] [Insert page number where the document begins]

	5-220-40	Compliance determination, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting 	12/1/02	[Insert Federal Register publication date] [Insert
page number where the document begins]

	5-220-50	Transfer of ownership 	12/1/02	[Insert Federal Register
publication date] [Insert page number where the document begins]

	5-220-60	Applicability of future regulations 	12/1/02	[Insert Federal
Register publication date] [Insert page number where the document
begins]

	*     *     *     *     *    *     *

*    *     *     *      *

 PAGE

 PAGE  13


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 1182]
[FR Doc No: 2016-286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR16-10-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1)/.: COH SOC to be
effective 11/30/2015; Filing Type: 980.
    Filed Date: 12/24/15.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>52.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-356-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Capacity Release
Agreements--01/01/2016 to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160104-5440.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-357-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 01/04/16 Negotiated Rates--
Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC (RTS) 7540-02 to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160104-5447.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/16.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-140-001.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance filing Filing to Comply with Order
Accepting Non-Conforming Agreement to be effective 11/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/22/15.
    Accession Number: 20151222-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/16.

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

    Dated: January 5, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-286 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60914-60915]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24526]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0930; FRL-9737-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City Moderate Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the attainment demonstration portion of the
attainment plan submitted by the State of Delaware as a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. The SIP revision demonstrates
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-
MD-DE moderate nonattainment area (Philadelphia Area) by the applicable
attainment date of June 2011. EPA is approving the SIP revision in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0930. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover,
Delaware 19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 7, 2012 (77 FR 46990), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Delaware. The NPR proposed approval
of the attainment demonstration portion of the attainment plan for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area. The formal SIP
revision was submitted by Delaware on June 13, 2007.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision consists of the attainment demonstration portion
of the attainment plan submitted by Delaware as a SIP revision on June
13, 2007 to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
the Philadelphia Area by the applicable attainment date of June 2011.
EPA previously approved other portions of the Delaware attainment plan
submitted on June 13, 2007. See 75 FR 17863 (April 8, 2010). EPA has
determined that the weight of evidence analysis that Delaware used to
support the attainment demonstration provides sufficient evidence that
the Philadelphia Area would attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of June 2011. Specific requirements of the
attainment demonstration and the rationale for EPA's proposed action
are explained in the NPR and the technical support document (TSD) and
will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.
    Separately, EPA conducted a process to find adequate the motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for New Castle, Kent and Sussex
Counties which are associated with the Delaware attainment
demonstration for the Philadelphia Area. A notice was posted on EPA's
Web site for a 30-day public comment period on the adequacy
determination for the 2009 MVEBs associated with the attainment
demonstration for all three counties in Delaware. No comments were
received during the public comment period. Therefore, EPA finds
adequate the MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for all three
counties in Delaware.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment
demonstration portion of the attainment plan submitted by Delaware on
June 13, 2007. EPA has determined that Delaware's SIP revision
demonstrates attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
Philadelphia Area by the applicable attainment date of June 2011. EPA
also has determined that the SIP revision meets the applicable
requirements of the CAA. EPA is also approving and finding adequate the
2009 MVEBs associated with the attainment demonstration for all three
counties in Delaware.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to the Delaware attainment demonstration
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 21, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart I--Delaware

0
2. In Sec.  52.420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry for the ``Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard and its Associated Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP      Applicable geographic  State submittal                          Additional
             revision                        area                date         EPA approval date     explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Attainment Demonstration for the    Delaware-Philadelphia-       06/13/07   10/05/12 [Insert
 1997 8-Hour Ozone National          Wilmington-Atlantic                     page number where
 Ambient Air Quality Standard and    City Moderate                           the document
 its Associated Motor Vehicle        Nonattainment Area.                     begins].
 Emissions Budgets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-24526 Filed 10-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15262-15263]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07375]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85561; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot
Related to Rule 7.12-E, Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market
Volatility

April 9, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 5, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot related to Rule 7.12-E,
Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility, to the close of
business on October 18, 2019. The proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's website at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Rule 7.12-E provides a methodology for determining when to halt
trading in all stocks due to extraordinary market volatility, i.e.,
market-wide circuit breakers. The market-wide circuit breaker mechanism
under Rule 7.12-E was approved by the Commission to operate on a pilot
basis, the term of which was to coincide with the pilot period for the
Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS (the ``LULD Plan''), including any extensions to the
pilot period for the LULD Plan. The Commission published an amendment
to the LULD Plan for it to operate on a permanent, rather than pilot,
basis.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.12-E to untie the pilot's
effectiveness from that of the LULD Plan and to extend the pilot's
effectiveness to the close of business on October 18, 2019. The
Exchange does not propose any additional changes to Rule 7.12-E.
    Market-wide circuit breakers under Rule 7.12-E provide an
important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and
investor confidence during a period of significant stress when
securities markets experience extreme broad-based declines. All U.S.
equity exchanges have rules relating to market-wide circuit breakers,
which are designed to slow the effects of extreme price movement
through coordinated trading halts across securities markets when severe
price declines reach levels that may exhaust market liquidity. Market-
wide circuit breakers provide for trading halts in all equities and
options markets during a severe market decline as measured by a single-
day decline in the S&P 500 Index.
    Pursuant to Rule 7.12-E, a market-wide trading halt will be
triggered if the S&P 500 Index declines in price by specified
percentages from the prior day's closing price of that index.
Currently, the triggers are set at three circuit breaker thresholds: 7%
(Level 1), 13% (Level 2) and 20% (Level 3). A market decline that
triggers a Level 1 or Level 2 circuit breaker after 9:30 a.m. ET and
before 3:25 p.m. ET would halt market-wide trading for 15 minutes,
while a similar market decline at or after 3:25 p.m. ET would not halt
market-wide trading. A market decline that triggers a Level 3 circuit
breaker, at any time during the trading day, would halt market-wide
trading for the remainder of the trading day.
    The Exchange intends to file a separate proposed rule change with
the Commission to operate Rule 7.12-E on a permanent, rather than
pilot, basis. Extending the effectiveness of Rule 7.12-E to the close
of business on October 18, 2019 should provide the Commission adequate
time to consider whether to approve the Exchange's separate proposal to
operate the market-wide circuit breaker mechanism under Rule 7.12-E on
a permanent basis.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Sections 6(b) \4\ and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in
particular, because it would promote just and equitable principles of
trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and
open market and a national market system. The Exchange also believes
that the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of
trade in that it promotes transparency and uniformity across markets
concerning when and how to halt trading in all stocks as a result of
extraordinary market volatility. Extending the market-wide circuit
breaker pilot under Rule 7.12-E an additional six months would ensure
the continued, uninterrupted operation of a consistent mechanism to
halt trading across the U.S. markets while the Commission considers
whether to approve the pilot on a permanent basis. The proposed rule
change would thus promote fair and orderly markets and the protection
of investors and the public interest. Based on the foregoing,

the Exchange believes the benefits to market participants from the
market-wide circuit breaker mechanism under Rule 7.12-E should continue
on a pilot basis while the Commission considers whether to permanently
approve Rule 7.12-E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change
implicates any competitive issues because the proposal would ensure the
continued, uninterrupted operation of a consistent mechanism to halt
trading across the U.S. markets while the Commission considers whether
to permanently approve the market-wide circuit breaker mechanism under
Rule 7.12-E. Further, the Exchange understands that FINRA and other
national securities exchanges will file proposals to extend their rules
regarding the market-wide circuit breaker pilot so that the market-wide
circuit breaker mechanism may continue uninterrupted while the
Commission considers whether to approve its operation on a permanent
basis.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\9\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative upon filing. Extending the pilot for an additional
six months will allow the uninterrupted operation of the existing pilot
to halt trading across the U.S. markets while the Commission considers
whether to approve the pilot on a permanent basis. The extension simply
maintains the status quo. Therefore, the Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Commission hereby designates the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(g)(iii).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-23. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-23, and should be
submitted on or before May 6, 2019.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07375 Filed 4-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Record Index for the Metal Products and Machinery ( MP& M) OW 2002 033 ( W 99 23) Final Rule ( Section 24) 4/ 16/ 03 24 1 SECTION DCN CBI TYPE TITLE RECIPIENT SENDER DATE PAGES 24.1 17853 No MEM Comparison of the Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning and MP& M Industries Record D. Falatko, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 11 24.1 17887 No MEM Documentation for Facility Subcategorization Record J. Hamilton, ERG 2/ 11/ 03 44 24.1 17960 No MEM Subcategorization of Benefits Survey Sites Record P. Goodwin, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 9 24.1 17964 No MEM Comparison of Unit Operations, Wastewater Characteristics, and Wastewater Flow Rates... Iron and Steel Record Y. Guilaran, EPA 4/ 29/ 02 6 24.2 17897 No MEM Molybdenum Record P. Buellesbach, ERG 4/ 9/ 02 4 24.2 17902 No MEM NDMA Detected at MP& M Sampled Facilities Record M. Briggs, ERG 9/ 4/ 02 4 24.3 17958 No MEM BCT Cost Analysis C. Johnston, EPA M. McNall, ERG, et. al. 2/ 13/ 03 9 24.4 17848 No DOC U. S. EPA Position Statement on Environmental Management Systems ( EMS) Record C. Whitman, EPA 5/ 15/ 02 2 24.4 17876 No DOC Approaching Zero Discharge in Surface Finishing Record EPA 11/ 1/ 00 49 24.4 17949 No MEN Reference Material From Petroleum Refining Industry Pretreatment Standards Technical Development Document Record C. Johnston, EPA 2/ 12/ 03 15 24.5 17844 No MEM Calculation of Local Limit Medians for Pollutants of Concern Record P. Goodwin, ERG 9/ 16/ 02 88 24.5 17860 No MEN Review of Newport News Shipbuilding DMR Data Record J. Matuszko, EPA 1/ 28/ 03 2 24.5 17867 Yes DATA Achievability of General Metals 438 LTA's Record M. McNall, ERG 1/ 28/ 03 19 24.5 17898 Yes MEN Summary Data Used to Develop The Long Term Average Effluent Pollutant Concentration Database Record L. Weiss, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 1 24.5 17899 No MEN Long Term Average Effluent Pollutant Concentration Engineering Evaluation Summary Record L. Weiss, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 85 24.5 17917 No MEM Correction of text of SER 4851 Record L. Weiss, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 1 24.5 17920 No MEM Selection of BAT Facilities and Data Sets for the Oily Waste Subcategory, Option 6 Record J. Hamilton, ERG 12/ 11/ 02 3 24.6 17826 No MEN Documentation for the Creation of the Final Site Discharge Destination Table C. Johnston, EPA J. Hamilton, ERG 8/ 8/ 02 3 24.6 17832 Yes MEN Documentation for New Source Costs and Loads Record J. Hamilton, ERG 10/ 18/ 02 60 24.6.1 17825 Yes DOC Summary of Site Discharge Destination Changes C. Johnston, EPA J. Hamilton, ERG 8/ 2/ 02 32 24.6.1 17863 No MEM Analysis Supporting the Final Decision for the Oily Wastes Subcategory Record M. McNall, ERG 2/ 1/ 03 49 Record Index for the Metal Products and Machinery ( MP& M) OW 2002 033 ( W 99 23) Final Rule ( Section 24) 4/ 16/ 03 SECTION DCN CBI TYPE TITLE RECIPIENT SENDER DATE PAGES 24 2 24.6.1 17864 No MEM Documentation Supporting the Final Decision for the Non Chromium Anodizers Directs Analysis Record M. McNall, ERG 2/ 1/ 03 27 24.6.1 17865 Yes DATA Final Cost Model Input Databases Record M. McNall, ERG 8/ 1/ 02 1 24.6.1 17866 No MEM Documentation for Cost Model Input Databases for the Steel Continuous Electroplaters Record M. McNall, ERG 2/ 1/ 03 39 24.6.1 17868 No MEM Documentation Supporting the Final Decision for the General Metals Direct Dischargers Record M. McNall, ERG 2/ 1/ 03 38 24.6.1 17869 No MEN Documentation for the Creation of MSP2 Record M. McNall, ERG 2/ 1/ 03 7 24.6.1 17874 No MEM Documentation for Supporting the Final Decision for the 413 to 433 Upgrade Analysis Record M. McNall, ERG 11/ 5/ 02 62 24.6.1 17877 No MEM Documentation Supporting the Final Decision for the Local Limits Analysis Record M. McNall, ERG 11/ 5/ 02 36 24.6.1 17881 Yes MEN Documentation for the Creation of the Unimputed Data Table Record J. Hamilton, ERG 2/ 12/ 03 58 24.6.1 17884 No MEN Summary of Sites Covered Under 413 and 433 Record J. Hamilton, ERG 2/ 11/ 03 23 24.6.1 17885 No MEN Revisions to Median PNFs Calculated for Pollution Prevention Analysis for Cost Model Record L. Weiss, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 8 24.6.1 17886 Yes MEN Documentation for the Creation of MSP1 Record J. Hamilton, ERG 2/ 4/ 03 91 24.6.1 17888 Yes MEN Treatment in Place Review Record J. Hamilton, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 16 24.6.1 17889 Yes MEN Documentation for the Creation of MSP3 Record J. Hamilton, ERG 2/ 8/ 03 82 24.6.1 17890 No DATA Documentation for the Final Cost Modules ( Disk) Record P. Hanson, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 0 24.6.1 17891 Yes MEN Analysis of Available Effluent Data for Steel Continuous Electroplaters Record J. Hamilton, ERG 2/ 8/ 03 2 24.6.1 17893 No MEN List of all Operations Currently Performed at Oily Waste Facilities in the MP& M Database C. Johnston, EPA J. Hamilton, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 8 24.6.1 17894 No MEN Analysis of AAR Surveys Record J. Hamilton, ERG 2/ 10/ 03 3 24.6.1 17903 No MEM Clarifier Design Record M. Briggs, ERG 10/ 28/ 02 2 24.6.1 17906 No MEM Estimated Costs to Upgrade Facilities with Treatment in Place Record M. Briggs, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 37 24.6.1 17907 No MEM Low Flow Alum Cost Modules Documentation Record M. Briggs, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 42 Record Index for the Metal Products and Machinery ( MP& M) OW 2002 033 ( W 99 23) Final Rule ( Section 24) 4/ 16/ 03 SECTION DCN CBI TYPE TITLE RECIPIENT SENDER DATE PAGES 24 3 24.6.1 17908 No MEM Low Flow Ferric Sulfate Cost Modules Documentation Record M. Briggs, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 47 24.6.1 17909 No MEM Low Flow Lime Cost Modules Documentation Record M. Briggs, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 51 24.6.1 17910 No MEN Low Flow Oil/ Water Separator Documentation Record P. Hanson, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 83 24.6.1 17911 No MEM Post NODA Incremental Monitoring and Analytical Costs Record M. Briggs, ERG 10/ 23/ 02 7 24.6.1 17915 No MEN Analysis of Existing Sources Becoming New Sources Y. Guilaran, EPA J. Hamilton, ERG 2/ 12/ 03 3 24.6.1 17919 No MEN Comparison of General Metals and Steel Continuous Electroplaters Unit Operations Record L. Crabtree, ERG 12/ 17/ 02 4 24.6.1 17934 No MEM Oil/ Water Separator Documentation Record P. Hanson, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 92 24.6.1 17935 No MEM Cost Module Changes Since the NODA Record P. Hanson, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 4 24.6.1 17957 Yes TABLE Code Breaker for SiteID, EmailID, RecordID, SAICID Record M. McNall, ERG 8/ 26/ 02 2 24.6.1 17961 No MEM Determination of Current Regulatory Status of Ohio Benefits Screener Survey Sites Record P. Goodwin, ERG 2/ 12/ 03 71 24.6.1 17962 No MEM DTC Alternatives for Treatment of Chelated Metals Record M. Briggs, ERG 10/ 4/ 02 2 24.6.1 17965 No MEM High TSS Oily Waste Survey Site Record L. Weiss, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 1 24.6.1 17968 No DOC NDMA Source Control Record Orange County Sanitation District, CA 3/ 27/ 02 86 24.6.2 17856 No MEM NSPS for Printed Wiring Board Subcategory Record J. Matuszko, EPA 2/ 13/ 02 8 24.6.2 17858 No MEN Summary of Site by Site Costs and Loads for Each of the Final Cost Model Runs Record M. McNall, ERG 2/ 7/ 03 8 24.6.2 17859 No MEM Analysis Supporting the Final Decision for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory Record J. Matuszko, EPA 1/ 28/ 03 120 24.6.2 17861 No MEM Analysis Supporting the Final Decision for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory Record J. Matuszko, EPA 1/ 7/ 02 11 24.6.2 17873 Yes DATA Final Cost Model Output Databases and Results ( Disk) Record M. McNall, ERG 9/ 1/ 02 1 24.7 17841 No MEM Tin Removal at MP& M Facilities Record M. Briggs, ERG 3/ 29/ 02 2 24.7 17846 No MEM Loadings Methodology for Cost Run 4 C. Johnston, EPA M. McNall, ERG 11/ 5/ 02 5 Record Index for the Metal Products and Machinery ( MP& M) OW 2002 033 ( W 99 23) Final Rule ( Section 24) 4/ 16/ 03 SECTION DCN CBI TYPE TITLE RECIPIENT SENDER DATE PAGES 24 4 24.7 17851 No MEM Benchmark Analysis Using PCS and DMR Data Record M. McNall, ERG 2/ 7/ 03 9 24.7 17870 No MEN Final Documentation for the Post Proposal Unit Operation Loadings Database Record M. McNall, ERG 2/ 10/ 03 21 24.7 17901 No MEM Analysis of Use of Chromium and Lead in Painting Operations Record M. McNall, ERG 2/ 7/ 03 2 24.7 17904 No MEM Removal Efficiency of a Settling Basin Record E. Stigall, ERG 9/ 3/ 02 4 24.7 17963 No MEM Evaluation of Episodes Used to Set Oily Waste Subcategory Limits Record L. Weiss, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 5 24.8 17842 No MEM Non Water Quality Impacts Related to the Final MP& M Rule Record J. Hamilton, ERG 2/ 7/ 03 2