[Federal Register: August 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 148)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45480-45482]
[DOCID:fr03au10-4]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0450; FRL-9182-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request submitted by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on May 7, 2010, to revise the Minnesota
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2).
The approval revises the Minnesota SIP by updating information
regarding the heat and steam distributor facility of United Defense,
LP, Inc, located in Fridley, Minnesota. The source has changed its name
from United Defense, LP, Inc to ELT Minneapolis, LLC, as a consequence
of a change in ownership. The revision replaces the joint Title I/Title
V document currently approved in the SIP for the facility to reflect
the change in ownership. These revisions do not change any of the
SO2 control requirements and will not result in an increase
in SO2 emissions at the facility because no emission limits
were increased.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 4, 2010, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by September 2, 2010. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0450, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0450. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

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

I. General Information
II. What revision did the State request be incorporated into the
SIP?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the State submission?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. General Information

 A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies only to the ELT Minneapolis, LLC, (ELT) for its
River Road Industrial facility located at 4800 East River Road,
Fridley, Minnesota (Anoka County).

B. Has public notice been provided?

    Minnesota published a public notice of the revisions to the SIP on
February 17, 2010. The comment period began on February 26, 2010, and
ended on March 29, 2010. In the public notice, Minnesota stated it
would hold a public hearing if one were requested during the comment
period. This follows the alternative public participation process EPA
approved on June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32274). For limited types of SIP
revisions that the public has shown little interest in, a public
hearing is not automatically required. Because no one requested a
public hearing, Minnesota did not hold a public hearing.

C. What is the background to this action?

    ELT owns and operates boilers and emergency generators in the city
of Fridley, formerly owned and operated by United Defense, LP, Inc. The
facility is used as a heat and steam distributor. The facility is
located in the Anoka area's non-attainment plan for the SO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). However, the area
currently meets the NAAQS for SO2, and was officially
redesignated as attainment on July 31, 1995.
    The primary emission units at the facility are three fossil fuel-
fired boilers (Nos. 1, 2, and 3), and four emergency generators. Each
boiler burns natural gas as fuel with distillate oil as a backup fuel.
The generators only burn low sulfur diesel fuel.

II. What revision did the State request be incorporated into the SIP?

    To reflect the change in ownership the State has requested that EPA
replace the joint Title I/Title V document currently in the Minnesota
SIP for United Defense, LP, Inc, with a new joint document for ELT
Minneapolis, LLC.

A. What prior SIP actions are pertinent to this action?

    The facility has been subject to a federally enforceable permit
incorporated into Minnesota's SIP as a joint Title I/Title V document,
containing requirements for ensuring the attainment of the NAAQS for
SO2. As a result, the facility is subject to fuel usage
limitations to restrict the total facility SO2 emissions.

B. What are Title I conditions and joint Title I/Title V documents?

    SIP control measures were contained in permits issued to culpable
sources in Minnesota until 1990 when EPA determined that limits in
state-issued permits are not federally enforceable because the permits
expire. Minnesota then issued permanent Administrative Orders to
culpable sources in nonattainment areas from 1991 to February of 1996.
    Minnesota's consolidated permitting regulations, approved into its
SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), include the term ``Title I
condition'' which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements
that SIP control measures remain permanent. A ``Title I condition'' is
defined as ``any condition based on source-specific determination of
ambient impacts imposed for the purposes of achieving or maintaining
attainment with the national ambient air quality standard and which was
part of the state implementation plan approved by EPA or submitted to
the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the act * * *.'' The rule
also states that ``Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to
comply with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the
other conditions of the permit.'' Further, ``any title I condition
shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or
reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.''
    Minnesota has initiated using joint Title I/Title V documents as
the enforceable document for imposing emission limitations and
compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP requirements in joint Title I/
Title V documents submitted by MPCA are cited as ``Title I
conditions,'' therefore ensuring that SIP requirements remain permanent
and enforceable. EPA reviewed the State's procedure for using joint
Title I/Title V documents to implement site-specific SIP requirements
and found it to be acceptable under both Titles I and V of the Clean
Air Act (July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J.
Sandusky, MPCA). Further, a June 15, 2006, letter from EPA to MPCA
clarifies procedures to transfer requirements from Administrative
Orders to joint Title I/Title V documents.

III. What is EPA's analysis of the State submission?

    The revision to the Minnesota SIP is solely an administrative
change to reference the new name of the facility from United Defense,
LP, Inc, to ELT Minneapolis, LLC. On November 22, 2005, the heat and
steam distributor facility formerly owned and operated by United
Defense, LP, Inc, was purchased by ELT. ELT operates the facility in an
area that currently meets the NAAQS for SO2.
    This SIP revision replaces the joint Title I/Title V document, Air
Permit No. 00300020-001, currently approved into the SIP for United
Defense, LP, Inc with a new joint Title I/Title V document, Air Permit
No. 00300245-001, for ELT Minneapolis, LLC. This revision does not
involve any substantive changes to the SIP conditions. All fuel
restrictions and SO2 emission limits that apply to the
boilers and emergency generators remain the same as those currently
approved into the SIP.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving a revision to Minnesota's SIP to replace the joint
Title I/Title V document currently approved into the SIP for United
Defense, LP, Inc, with a new joint Title I/Title V document, Air Permit
No. 00300245-001, for ELT Minneapolis, LLC. These revisions do not
change any of the SO2 control requirements and will not
result in an increase in SO2 emissions because no emission
limits were increased.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be

effective October 4, 2010 without further notice unless we receive
relevant adverse written comments by September 2, 2010. If we receive
such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date
by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final
action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective October 4, 2010.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
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 Clean Air Act; 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 4, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 19, 2010.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart Y--Minnesota

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing
the entry for ``United Defense, LP (formerly FMC/U.S. Navy)'' and
adding in alphabetical order an entry for ``ELT Minneapolis, LLC'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State effective
            Name of source                Permit No.          date        EPA approval date        Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
ELT Minneapolis, LLC.................    003000245-001         09/10/08  August 3, 2010,      Only conditions
                                                                          [Insert page         cited as ``Title
                                                                          number where the     I condition: SIP
                                                                          document begins].    for SO2 NAAQS.''

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-18563 Filed 8-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23700-23701]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09409]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9026-6]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 04/11/2016 Through 04/15/2016
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20160080, Draft, BOEM, LA, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease
Sales: 2017-2022, Gulf of Mexico Lease Sales 249, 250, 251, 252, 253,
254, 256, 257, 259, and 261, Comment Period Ends: 06/06/2016, Contact:
Gary Goeke<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20160081, Final, USFS, CA, Elk Late-Successional Reserve
Enhancement Project, Review Period Ends: 06/06/2016, Contact: Cindy
Diaz<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20160055, Draft, USFS, MT, Lookout Pass Ski Area Expansion,
Comment Period Ends: 05/10/2016, Contact: Kerry Arneson<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Revision to FR Notice Published 03/11/2016; Extending Comment Period
from 04/25/2016 to 05/10/2016.

    Dated: April 19, 2016.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2016-09409 Filed 4-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data APPENDIX B  1  2 Page 1 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

500 600 Lab: 2Lab: 2 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 400 400 300 400 300 200 200 200 100 100 0 Lab: 1Lab: 1 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 00 Lab: 3Lab: 3 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1000 500 500 800 400 Lab: 5Lab: 5 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 400 600 300 300 400 200 200 Lab: 4Lab: 4 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 200 100 0 100 Lab: 6Lab: 6 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 500 Lab: 7Lab: 7 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 500 400 400 Lab: 8Lab: 8 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 600 300 300 200 400 200 100 100 200 0 0  100 0 Lab: 9Lab: 9 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 Spike Concentration Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data Page 2 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

600 600 Lab: 2Lab: 2 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 500 500 400 400 Lab: 1Lab: 1 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 400 300 300 200 200 200 100 100 0 00 Lab: 3Lab: 3 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Lab: 4Lab: 4 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 600 600 500 500 400 400 400 Lab: 5Lab: 5 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L Lab: 6Lab: 6 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 300 300 200 200 200 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 600 600 Lab: 7Lab: 7 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L Lab: 8Lab: 8 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 600 500 400 400 400 300 200 200 200 100 0 00 Lab: 9Lab: 9 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Wed Mar 20 13: 31: 40 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data Page 3 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

100 100 80 80 Lab: 1Lab: 1 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 80 60 60 60 40 40 40 2020 Lab: 2Lab: 2 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 20 00 0 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 Lab: 3Lab: 3 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L Lab: 4Lab: 4 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 100 Lab: 5Lab: 5 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 100 100 Lab: 6Lab: 6 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 80 80 80 60 60 60 40 40 40 20 20 20 0 00 100 100 80 80 80 60 60 60 40 40 40 20 20 20 Lab: 9Lab: 9 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 0 Lab: 7Lab: 7 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 0 Lab: 8Lab: 8 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 0 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 Wed Mar 20 13: 31: 42 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data Page 4 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

250 250 200 200 200 150 150 150 100 100 100 50 50 50 Lab: 3Lab: 3 CHROMIUM, UG/

LCHROMIUM, L 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 Lab: 1Lab: 1 CHROMIUM, UG/

LCHROMIUM, L 0 Lab: 2Lab: 2 CHROMIUM, UG/

LCHROMIUM, L 0 250 250 250 200 200 200 150 150 150 100 100 100 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Lab: 5Lab: 5 CHROMIUM, UG/

LCHROMIUM, L Lab: 6Lab: 6 CHROMIUM, UG/

LCHROMIUM, L Lab: 4Lab: 4 CHROMIUM, UG/

LCHROMIUM, L 250 250 250 200 200 200 150 150 150 100 100 100 50 50 50 Lab: 9Lab: 9 CHROMIUM, UG/

LCHROMIUM, L 0 Lab: 7Lab: 7 CHROMIUM, UG/

LCHROMIUM, L 0 Lab: 8Lab: 8 CHROMIUM, UG/

LCHROMIUM, L 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Wed Mar 20 13: 31: 44 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data Page 5 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

200 Lab: 1Lab: 1 COPPER, UG/

LCOPPER, L 200 150 150 150 100 100 100 50 50 50 00 Lab: 2Lab: 2 COPPER, UG/

LCOPPER, L 0 Lab: 3Lab: 3 COPPER, UG/

LCOPPER, L 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 300 Lab: 4Lab: 4 COPPER, UG/

LCOPPER, L 200 Lab: 5Lab: 5 COPPER, UG/

LCOPPER, L 200 250 150 150 200 150 100 100 100 50 50 50 0 00 Lab: 6Lab: 6 COPPER, UG/

LCOPPER, L 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 200 200 150 150 150 100 100 Lab: 7Lab: 7 COPPER, UG/

LCOPPER, L Lab: 8Lab: 8 COPPER, UG/

LCOPPER, L 100 5050 50 000 Lab: 9Lab: 9 COPPER, UG/

LCOPPER, L 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 Wed Mar 20 13: 31: 46 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data Page 6 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

600 500 500 Lab: 2Lab: 2 LEAD, UG/

LLEAD, L 400 400 400 300 300 300 200 200 200 100 Lab: 1Lab: 1 LEAD, UG/

LLEAD, L 100 100 000 Lab: 3Lab: 3 LEAD, UG/

LLEAD, L 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Lab: 4Lab: 4 LEAD, UG/

LLEAD, L 500 Lab: 5Lab: 5 LEAD, UG/

LLEAD, L 500 500 400 400 400 300 300 300 200 200 200 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 Lab: 6Lab: 6 LEAD, UG/

LLEAD, L 500 500 500 400 400 400 300 300 300 200 200 200 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 Lab: 8Lab: 8 LEAD, UG/

LLEAD, L Lab: 9Lab: 9 LEAD, UG/

LLEAD, L Lab: 7Lab: 7 LEAD, UG/

LLEAD, L Wed Mar 20 13: 31: 48 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data Page 7 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

50 40 Lab: 2Lab: 2 MANGANESE, UG/ LMANGANESE, L 40 40 30 30 20 20 Lab: 1Lab: 1 MANGANESE, UG/ LMANGANESE, L 20 10 010 00 0 1020304050 0 1020304050 0 1020304050 Lab: 3Lab: 3 MANGANESE, UG/ LMANGANESE, L 250 50 50 200 40 40 150 30 30 100 20 20 50 10 10 0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Lab: 5Lab: 5 MANGANESE, UG/ LMANGANESE, L Lab: 6Lab: 6 MANGANESE, UG/ LMANGANESE, L Lab: 4Lab: 4 MANGANESE, UG/ LMANGANESE, L 50 Lab: 7Lab: 7 MANGANESE, UG/ LMANGANESE, L 50 Lab: 8Lab: 8 MANGANESE, UG/ LMANGANESE, L 50 40 40 40 30 30 30 20 20 20 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Lab: 9Lab: 9 MANGANESE, UG/ LMANGANESE, L Wed Mar 20 13: 31: 50 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data Page 8 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

2.0 2.0 Lab: 2Lab: 2 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 Lab: 1Lab: 1 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lab: 3Lab: 3 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Lab: 4Lab: 4 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 2.0 2.0 8 1.5 1.5 6 Lab: 5Lab: 5 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L Lab: 6Lab: 6 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 1.0 1.0 4 0.5 0.5 2 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 Lab: 7Lab: 7 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 Lab: 8Lab: 8 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 0.0 Lab: 9Lab: 9 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Wed Mar 20 13: 31: 52 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data Page 9 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES) 250 250 250 200 200 200 150 150 150 100 100 100 50 50 0 50 Lab: 3Lab: 3 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L 0 Lab: 1Lab: 1 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L  50 Lab: 2Lab: 2 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Lab: 4Lab: 4 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L 250 250 250 200 200 200 150 150 150 100 100 100 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Lab: 6Lab: 6 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L Lab: 5Lab: 5 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L 250 250 200 200 200 150 150 150 100 100 100 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Lab: 8Lab: 8 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L Lab: 9Lab: 9 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L Lab: 7Lab: 7 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L Wed Mar 20 13: 31: 54 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data Page 10 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

200 Lab: 1Lab: 1 NICKEL, UG/ LNICKEL, L 200 150 150 150 100 Lab: 2Lab: 2 NICKEL, UG/ LNICKEL, L 100 100 50 50 50 0 00 Lab: 3Lab: 3 NICKEL, UG/ LNICKEL, L 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 200 200 800 150 150 600 100 100 400 50 Lab: 4Lab: 4 NICKEL, UG/ LNICKEL, L 50 200 0 0 Lab: 5Lab: 5 NICKEL, UG/ LNICKEL, L 0 Lab: 6Lab: 6 NICKEL, UG/ LNICKEL, L 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 200 200 150 150 Lab: 8Lab: 8 NICKEL, UG/ LNICKEL, L 150 100 100 100 50 Lab: 7Lab: 7 NICKEL, UG/ LNICKEL, L 50 50 000 Lab: 9Lab: 9 NICKEL, UG/ LNICKEL, L 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 Wed Mar 20 13: 31: 56 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data Page 11 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES) Lab: 3Lab: 3 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 1000 1000 800 800 800 600 600 600 400 400 400 200 200 Lab: 1Lab: 1 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L Lab: 2Lab: 2 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 200 0 00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1000 800 Lab: 4Lab: 4 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 800 800 600 600 600 400 400 400 200 200 Lab: 5Lab: 5 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 200 0 00 Lab: 6Lab: 6 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 800 Lab: 7Lab: 7 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 800 Lab: 8Lab: 8 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 1000 800 600 600 600 400 400 400 200 200 200 00 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Lab: 9Lab: 9 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L Wed Mar 20 13: 31: 58 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data Page 12 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

100 Lab: 1Lab: 1 SILVER, UG/ LSILVER, L 100 Lab: 2Lab: 2 SILVER, UG/ LSILVER, L 80 80 80 60 60 60 40 40 40 20 20 20 0 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Lab: 3Lab: 3 SILVER, UG/ LSILVER, L 100 200 250 80 150 Lab: 4Lab: 4 SILVER, UG/ LSILVER, L Lab: 5Lab: 5 SILVER, UG/ LSILVER, L 200 60 150 100 40 100 50 20 50 0 00 Lab: 6Lab: 6 SILVER, UG/ LSILVER, L 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 Lab: 7Lab: 7 SILVER, UG/ LSILVER, L 100 80 80 80 60 60 60 40 40 40 20 20 20 0 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Lab: 9Lab: 9 SILVER, UG/ LSILVER, L Lab: 8Lab: 8 SILVER, UG/ LSILVER, L Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 00 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Measured ConcentrationAAMA Metals Data Page 13 of 13 Measurement Results vs Spike Concentrations ( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

250 200 200 Lab: 1Lab: 1 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 200 150 150 100 100 100 50 0 Lab: 2Lab: 2 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 50 00 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Lab: 3Lab: 3 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 250 300 200 Lab: 5Lab: 5 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 200 200 Lab: 4Lab: 4 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 150 150 100 100 100 50 50 000 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Lab: 6Lab: 6 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L Lab: 7Lab: 7 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 250 300 250 200 Lab: 8Lab: 8 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 250 200 200 150 150 150 Lab: 9Lab: 9 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 100 100 100 50 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 02 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s


[Federal Register: June 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 112)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33162-33163]
[DOCID:fr11jn10-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0512; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-21-AD;
Amendment 39-16332; AD 2010-13-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Microturbo Saphir 20 Model 095
Auxiliary Power Units (APUs)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    The turbine wheel, part number (P/N) 095-01-015-03, of the
SAPHIR 20 Model 095 APU is a life-limited part. Microturbo had
determined through ``fleet leader'' testing and inspection that the
published life limit of this turbine wheel should be reduced to
9,000 cycles. Use of the turbine wheel beyond 9,000 cycles could
lead to the release of high energy debris that could jeopardize
aircraft safety.
    For the reasons described above, EASA AD 2008-0084 required the
implementation of the new life limit on the affected parts and the
replacement parts that had exceeded the new life limit.
    Microturbo has now determined that the life limit of the turbine
wheel should be further reduced to 4,225 cycles. Use of the turbine
wheel beyond 4,225 cycles could lead to the release of high energy
debris that could jeopardize aircraft safety.

We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncontained burst of the APU
turbine that could liberate high-energy fragments resulting in injury
and damage to the aircraft.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 16, 2010.
    We must receive comments on this AD by July 26, 2010.

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: 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>.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<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: Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Community, has issued AD 2010-0079, dated April 26, 2010
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    The turbine wheel, part number (P/N) 095-01-015-03, of the
SAPHIR 20 Model 095 APU is a life-limited part. Microturbo had
determined through ``fleet leader'' testing and inspection that the
published life limit of this turbine wheel should be reduced to
9,000 cycles. Use of the turbine wheel beyond 9,000 cycles could
lead to the release of high energy debris that could jeopardize
aircraft safety.
    For the reasons described above, EASA AD 2008-0084 required the
implementation of the new life limit on the affected parts and the
replacement parts that had exceeded the new life limit.
    Microturbo has now determined that the life limit of the turbine
wheel should be further reduced to 4,225 cycles. Use of the turbine
wheel beyond 4,225 cycles could lead to the release of high energy
debris that could jeopardize aircraft safety.
    For the reasons described above, this AD, which supersedes EASA
AD 2008-0084, requires the implementation of the new life limit on
the affected parts and the replacement of parts that had exceeded
this new limit. This AD also extends the scope to include the P/N
095-01-015-20 turbine wheel, which is physically identical to the P/
N 095-01-015-03 turbine wheel but is manufactured using a revised
process (approved by EASA).

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Microturbo has issued Service Bulletin 095-49-17, dated March 16,
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 AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of EASA
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with France, they have notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are issuing 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.
This AD requires removal of turbine wheels P/N 095-01-015-03 or P/N
095-01-015-20, before exceeding the new reduced life limit of 4,225
cycles-in-service, and replacement with a new or serviceable part.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since no domestic operators use this product, notice and
opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.
Therefore, we are adopting this regulation immediately.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and

we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We
invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about
this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0512; Directorate Identifier
2010-NE-21-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We specifically
invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and
energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by
the closing date and may amend this AD because of 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 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).

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 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 this AD:
    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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2010-13-01 Microturbo: Amendment 39-16332.; Docket No. FAA-2010-
0512; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-21-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 16,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Microturbo Saphir 20 model 095 auxiliary
power units (APUs). These APUs are installed on, but not limited to,
Eurocopter EC225 and AS332 helicopters.

Reason

    (d) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. EASA AD 2010-0079 states:

    The turbine wheel, part number (P/N) 095-01-015-03, of the
SAPHIR 20 Model 095 APU is a life-limited part. Microturbo had
determined through ``fleet leader'' testing and inspection that the
published life limit of this turbine wheel should be reduced to
9,000 cycles. Use of the turbine wheel beyond 9,000 cycles could
lead to the release of high energy debris that could jeopardize
aircraft safety.
    For the reasons described above, EASA AD 2008-0084 required the
implementation of the new life limit on the affected parts and the
replacement parts that had exceeded the new life limit.
    Microturbo has now determined that the life limit of the turbine
wheel should be further reduced to 4,225 cycles. Use of the turbine
wheel beyond 4,225 cycles could lead to the release of high energy
debris that could jeopardize aircraft safety.

We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncontained burst of the APU
turbine that could liberate high-energy fragments resulting in
injury and damage to the aircraft.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Remove turbine wheels P/N 095-01-015-03 or P/N 095-01-015-
20, before exceeding the new reduced life limit of 4,225 cycles-in-
service, and replace it with a new or serviceable part.
    (2) Thereafter, remove turbine wheels P/N 095-01-015-03 or P/N
095-01-015-20, before exceeding the new reduced life limit of 4,225
cycles-in-service, and replace it with a new or serviceable part.

FAA AD Differences

    (f) The initial compliance time for the EASA AD is within one
month after the effective date of the AD or upon accumulating 4,225
cycles-in-service, whichever occurs later. The initial compliance
time for this AD is before exceeding the new reduced life limit of
4,225 cycles-in-service.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

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

Related Information

    (h) Refer to EASA AD 2010-0079, dated April 26, 2010, and
Microturbo Service Bulletin No. 095-49-17, dated March 16, 2010, for
related information. Contact Microturbo, Technical Publications
Department, 8 Chemin du pont de Rupe, BP 62089, 31019 Toulouse
Cedex, France; telephone 33 0 5 61 37 55 00; fax 33 0 5 61 70 74 45
for a copy of this service bulletin.
    (i) Contact Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7170, for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 4, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-13928 Filed 6-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 32927-32929]
[DOCID:fr14jn07-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55883]

Order Exempting Certain Print Protection Transactions From Rule
611 of Regulation NMS Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

June 8, 2007.

I. Introduction

    Pursuant to Rule 611(d) \1\ of Regulation NMS \2\ under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), by order, may exempt from the
provisions of Rule

611 of Regulation NMS (``Rule 611'' or ``Rule''), either
unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, any person,
security, transaction, quotation, or order, or any class or classes of
persons, securities, quotations, or orders, if the Commission
determines that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.\3\
As discussed below, the Commission is exempting from Rule 611(a)
certain transactions that offer print protection to displayed customer
orders when trades are reported at prices inferior to such orders. The
exemption is designed to promote efficiency and the best execution of
investor orders by allowing trading centers to offer beneficial
executions to their customers that have offered liquidity that is
immediately and automatically accessible in the public markets, without
the trading centers incurring additional costs to meet the requirements
of Rule 611(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 242.611(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.600 et seq.
    \3\ See also 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1) (providing general authority
for the Commission to grant exemptions from provisions of the
Exchange Act and rules thereunder).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    The Commission adopted Regulation NMS in June 2005.\4\ Rule 611
addresses intermarket trade-throughs of displayed quotations in NMS
stocks. Rule 611(a)(1) requires a trading center to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs on that trading center of
protected quotations in NMS stocks that do not fall within an exception
set forth in the Rule. Rule 611(b)(6) provides an exception for a
trade-through transaction effected by a trading center that
simultaneously routes an intermarket sweep order (``ISO'') to execute
against the full displayed size of any protected quotation in the NMS
stock that was traded through. Rule 611(b)(5) provides an exception for
a trade-through transaction that is an execution of an ISO. Finally,
Rule 611(c) requires that the trading center, broker, or dealer
responsible for the routing of an ISO take reasonable steps to
establish that such order meets the definition of an ISO in Rule
600(b)(30).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Trading Committee of the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (``SIFMA'') has requested that the Commission
exempt certain print protection transactions from Rule 611(a).\6\
According to the SIFMA Exemption Request, print protection is the
mechanism through which broker-dealers may elect to execute a displayed
order at a price that is better than a reported trade in the same
security on a different market.\7\ The ability of broker-dealers to
offer print protection to orders will become more difficult under Rule
611 when the price of the print protection transaction is inferior to
one or more protected quotations at the time of execution. The SIFMA
Exemption Request asserts that, absent an exemption, broker-dealers
will not be able to provide print protection to orders in these
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Letter to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Jerry
O'Connell, Chairman, SIFMA Trading Committee, dated May 1, 2007
(``SIFMA Exemption Request'').
    \7\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, the SIFMA Exemption Request supposes that Firm A
represents an order to buy 1000 shares at $49.90, and it is displayed
on Automated Trading Center X, which currently shows a top-of-book
(``TOB'') protected bid of $50 for 1000 shares. Automated Trading
Center Y shows a TOB protected bid of $49.80 for 1000 shares. A broker-
dealer wants to sell 2000 shares, and it sends an ISO to sweep the TOB
protected quotes across the automated trading centers. The 1000 shares
at $50 at Automated Trading Center X are filled, and the 1000 shares at
$49.80 at Automated Trading Center Y are filled. In contrast, the order
represented by Firm A and displayed on Automated Trading Center X does
not receive a fill, even though its $49.90 price is better than the
$49.80 order executed by Automated Trading Center Y, because the $49.80
quote was the TOB in Automated Trading Center Y. Firm A wants to
provide print protection for its customer and execute the displayed
order but, depending on the new national best protected bid and offer,
filling the order at $49.90 may violate Rule 611.
    When customer orders contribute to price discovery by being
displayed in whole or in part, SIFMA believes that broker-dealers
should be allowed to elect to execute these orders for their customers
without violating Rule 611.\8\ It asserts that the requested exemption
will promote greater price discovery in the securities markets by
encouraging the display of limit orders. The requested exemption would
be available for a broker-dealer that offers its customers print
protection to use at the broker-dealers' election, and broker-dealers
would not be required to provide print protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission has decided to exempt trading centers from the
requirement in Rule 611(a) to establish, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent trade-
throughs when the transaction that constituted the trade-through is the
execution of an order that meets the following terms and conditions
(``Print Protection Transaction''):
    (1) The order is displayed in whole or in part by an automated
trading center (as defined in Rule 600(b)(4) of Regulation NMS) that
directly displays protected quotations (as defined in Rule 600(b)(57)
of Regulation NMS);
    (2) After the order is displayed, a transaction (``Triggering
Transaction'') is reported pursuant to a transaction reporting plan (as
defined in Rule 600(b)(32) of Regulation NMS) at a price that is
inferior to the price of the displayed order;
    (3) The Triggering Transaction is reported as qualifying for the
exception for ISOs in paragraphs (b)(5) or (b)(6) of Rule 611;
    (4) The trading center executes the order promptly after the
Triggering Transaction is reported;
    (5) The contra side of the execution of the order is provided by a
broker-dealer who has responsibility for the order;
    (6) The size of the transaction does not exceed the total of the
displayed size and reserve size of the order displayed on the automated
trading center; and
    (7) The trading center establishes, maintains, and enforces written
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to assure
compliance with the terms of this exemption, and the trading center
regularly surveils to ascertain the effectiveness of such policies and
procedures and takes prompt action to remedy deficiencies in them.
    The exemption applies only to the execution of the Print Protection
Transaction itself. It does not, for example, apply to any trades
executed by the trading center that are connected with the Print
Protection Transaction.
    The Commission believes that an exemption for Print Protection
Transactions will promote efficiency and the best execution of investor
orders.\9\ The exemption will allow trading centers to execute Print

Protection Transactions without a requirement to prevent trade-throughs
of the current protected quotations or to qualify for one of the
exceptions in Rule 611(b). It thereby will minimize the expense
incurred by trading centers to offer beneficial transactions to
customers when such customers have contributed to public price
discovery by displaying trading interest at a price and offering
immediately accessible liquidity at such price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Act Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(i) and (iv) (assuring
efficient execution of securities transactions and the
practicability of executing investors' orders in the best market are
two of the primary objectives for the national market system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Promoting the display of customer limit orders and public price
discovery were primary objectives of Rule 611.\10\ The trade-through
protection of Rule 611, however, is limited to the best bids and offers
(``BBOs'') displayed by automated trading centers. The Commission did
not adopt a proposal to extend trade-through protection to certain
``depth-of-book'' quotations outside a trading center's BBOs, but noted
that a number of commenters believed that enhanced order interaction
with depth-of-book quotations would likely result even if the proposal
were not adopted.\11\ These commenters asserted that competition and
best execution responsibilities would lead market participants to
voluntarily access depth-of-book quotations in addition to quotations
at BBOs. The Commission noted that such a competition-driven outcome
would benefit investors and the markets in general.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., NMS Adopting Release, 70 FR at 37501.
    \11\ NMS Adopting Release, 70 FR at 37530.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Print protection offered by trading centers is an additional
competition-driven factor that can improve the execution of depth-of-
book quotations and thereby promote price discovery. The Commission
therefore believes that the exemption is fully consistent with the
policies of Rule 611. The terms of the exemption are designed to
achieve this goal. The customer's order must be displayed in whole or
in part by an automated trading center that displays protected
quotations. An automated trading center is required to offer immediate
and automatic access to its displayed quotations, including both the
displayed size and any reserve (i.e., undisplayed) size of such
quotations.\13\ The size of a Print Protection Transaction cannot
exceed the total of the displayed size and reserve size of the
customer's order. Given that those who seek to trade in large size
often are unwilling to display the full extent of their trading
interest because of the risk of causing an adverse price movement, the
Commission believes it is appropriate to allow Print Protection
Transactions to protect both displayed size and reserve size of
customer orders. As a result, customers will be rewarded for displaying
some of their trading interest at a particular price, while also
providing immediately available liquidity at such price that is
undisplayed.\14\ Finally, the trading center must execute the Print
Protection Transaction promptly after the Triggering Transaction, the
contra side of the execution of the order must be provided by a broker-
dealer who has responsibility for the order, and the Triggering
Transaction must be identified as qualifying for the ISO exceptions in
paragraphs (b)(5) or (b)(6) of Rule 611. These exceptions indicate that
ISOs were routed to execute against all protected quotations with
prices superior to the price of the Triggering Transaction, but may not
have satisfied the full extent of the customer's order. If they did
not, the trading center will be allowed to offer print protection and
give the customer's order a beneficial execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 600(b)(4)(i) (automated trading center must be
capable of displaying automated quotations); Rule 600(b)(3)(ii)
(automated quotation must be immediately and automatically
accessible); Regulation NMS Adopting Release, 70 FR at 37534 n. 313
(automated quotation ``must be immediately and automatically
accessible up to its full size, which will include both the
displayed and reserve size of the quotation'').
    \14\ See NMS Adopting Release, 70 FR at 37514 (noting common use
of ``pinging'' orders--marketable orders with sizes greater than
displayed size that seek to access both displayed and reserve
liquidity at automated trading centers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that granting the
foregoing exemption is necessary and appropriate in the public
interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.

IV. Conclusion

    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to Rule 611(d) of Regulation NMS,
that trading centers shall be exempt from the requirement in Rule
611(a) to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs when
the transaction that constituted the trade-through qualifies as an
Print Protection Transaction, as defined above.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(82).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-11442 Filed 6-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1942-1944]
[FR Doc No: 2012-400]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-1014]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collections of information: 1625-
0028, Course Approval and Records for Merchant Marine Training Schools
and 1625-0069, Ballast Water Management for Vessels with Ballast Tanks
Entering U.S. Waters. Our ICRs describe the information we seek to
collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
February 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2011-1014] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by email via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>.
    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer
for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(202) 366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
To ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material

received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice
as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and
will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140 on the West
Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn.: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7101, Washington, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the
docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve
the ICRs referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2011-1014], and must be received by February 13,
2012. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2011-1014], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the DMF.
We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an email address,
or other contact information in the body of your document so that we
can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please
submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2011-1014'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-1014'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Numbers: 1625-0028 and 1625-0069.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (76 FR 68772, November 7, 2011)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited one comment. The
commenter asked the Coast Guard to consider revising the submission
format to reflect the content, a subject heading that does the same and
condense the redundant verbiage.
    Much of the language in these Information Collection Requests is
mandated by statute and regulations of the Office of Management and
Budget. That language must remain in the Notices. The Coast Guard
acknowledges that it goes to great lengths to inform the public of the
various means of submission of comments to the docket and how these
comments can be viewed in the public docket. We also feel that it is
desirable to inform potential submitters of the Privacy Act
ramifications of these comments. The Coast Guard will consider the
content of this comment in future revisions to our ICRs to OMB.

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Course Approval and Records for Merchant Marine Training
Schools.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0028.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Merchant marine training schools.
    Abstract: The information is needed to ensure that merchant marine
training schools meet minimal statutory requirements. The information
is used to approve the curriculum, facility and faculty for these
schools.
    Forms: None.

    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 97,260 hours a year.
    2. Title: Ballast Water Management for Vessels with Ballast Tanks
Entering U.S. Waters.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0069.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of certain vessels.
    Abstract: This collection requires the master of a vessel to
provide information that details the vessel operator's ballast water
management efforts. Forms: CG-5662.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 60,727 hours a year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: December 23, 2011.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2012-400 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 15009]
[DOCID:fr02ap09-87]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form D and Regulation D, OMB Control No. 3235-0076, SEC File No.
270-72.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Regulation D (17 CFR 230.501 et seq.) sets forth rules governing
the limited offer and sale of securities without Securities Act
registration. Those relying on Regulation D must file Form D (17 CFR
239.500). The purpose of the Form D is to collect empirical data, which
provides a continuing basis for action by the Commission either in
terms of amending existing rules and regulations or proposing new ones.
In addition, the form allows the Commission to elicit information
necessary to assess the effectiveness of Regulation D and Section 4(6)
of the Securities Act of 1933 (U.S.C. 77d(6)) as capital-raising
devices. Form D information is required to obtain or retain benefits
under Regulation D. Approximately 25,000 issuers file Form D and it
takes approximately 4 hours per response. We estimate that 25% of the 4
hours per response (1 hour per response) is prepared by the issuer for
an estimated annual reporting burden of 25,000 hours (1 hour per
response x 25,000 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington DC 20503 or send an e-mail to Shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, Securities
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria VA 22312; or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: March 27, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-7354 Filed 4-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P