[Federal Register: December 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 66403-66407]
[DOCID:fr15de09-115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In October
2009, there were nine applications approved. This notice also includes
information on six applications, approved in September 2009,
inadvertently left off the September 2009 notice. Additionally, 15
approved amendments to previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority,
Burbank, California.
    Application Number: 09-09-C-00-BUR.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $20,465,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: April 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: January 1, 2025.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFCs: Nonscheduled/
on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Bob Hope Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$4.50 PFC Level:

Engineered material arresting system extension.
Airfield infrastructure improvements.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.

    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection and
Use at a $4.50 PFC Level: Parking lot A relocation.
    Determination: Partially approved for collection and use. The
approval is limited to the cost associated with the removal and
demolition, minus any salvage value, of the existing facility.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$3.00 PFC Level:

Passenger improvements--terminal A baggage claim.
Airport facility/building improvements--high voltage/switchgear
replacement and public address system upgrade.
Airport facility/building improvements--main entrance sign.
Airfield generator.
Noise monitoring system.

    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection and
Use at a $3.00 PFC Level: Information improvements--common use
passenger processing system.
    Determination: Revenue-producing equipment, including check-in
ticket units and telephones, is not PFC eligible.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Use at a $450 PFC Level:
Taxiway D extension.
    Decision Date: September 28, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darlene Williams, Los Angeles Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Port of Pasco, Pasco, Washington.
    Application Number: 09-07-C-00-PSC.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $2,884,950.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2021.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Security access control system.
Terminal access road reconstruction.
Taxiway D reconstruction (runway 3L to taxiway A).
North end runway 12/30 rehabilitation.
Runway 3L/21 R rehabilitation.
Master plan study.
Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment.
Construct aircraft rescue and firefighting building.
Acquire interactive training system.
Runway 3L121R--12/30 intersection rehabilitation.
PFC administration.

    Decision Date: September 29, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trang Tran, Seattle Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, San
Diego, California.
    Application Number: 09-07-C-00-SAN.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC. PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $85,181,950.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: December 1, 2009.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2012.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Non-scheduled/
on demand air carriers (air taxi/commercial operators) filing FAA Form
1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at San Diego International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$4.50 PFC Level:

Terminal improvements--gate 1A reconfiguration.
Air cargo ramp improvements.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.
Noise mitigation--quieter home program, phase IV.
Terminal planning and schematic design.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$3.00 PFC Level:

Expand terminal 2 east facilities.
Terminal 12 kV service upgrade--phase II.

    Brief Description of Project Paritally Approved for Collection and
Use at a $3.00 PFC Level: Replace/protect terminal 1 escalators.
    Determination: Partially approved for collection and use. The FAA
determined that the installation of video monitoring equipment at
various locations within the escalator areas is not PFC-eligible
because the purpose of the monitoring system is to allow airport
personnel to monitor the operational efficiency of the escalators.
    Brief Description of Withdrawn Project: Runway 9 displaced
threshold relocation.
    Date of Withdrawal: September 17, 2009.
    Decision Date: September 30, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darlene Williams, Los Angeles Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Broward, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
    Application Number: 09-10-C-00-FLL.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC. PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $223,211,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: October 1, 2012.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2018.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Non-scheduled/
on-demand air carriers.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Fort Lauderdale--Hollywood International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$4.50 PFC Level:

Relocate security gates.
Very-high-frequency omni-directional range relocation.
Security administration system.
Runway overlay.

    Brief Description of Projects Partially Approved for Collection and
Use at a $4.50 PFC Level: Terminal 4 redevelopment.
    Determination: Partially approved for collection and use. The FAA
determined that the construction of new airport administrative,
Transportation Security Administration, and Customs offices is not PFC
eligible. Terminal area apron.
    Determination: Partially approved for collection and use. The FAA
determined that the public agency did not provide justification for the
inclusion of the hydrant fueling line item in this project. In
addition, the cost estimate included an amount for design of the
Concourse A project however the public agency did not include a
description or justification of this work element in the PFC
application. Therefore, PFC revenue may not be used for the hydrant
fueling or design of Concourse A work elements.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$3.00 PFC Level:

Runway 9R127L design and program management.
Loading bridges.
Apron lighting.

    Decision Date: September 30, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Stringer, Orlando Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Killeen, Texas.
    Application Number: 09-07-C-00-GRK.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $2,300,000.
    Charge Effective Date: March 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2013.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Part 135
charter operators.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Killeen--Fort Hood Regional Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Taxiway E reconstruction.
Baggage handling system improvements and expansion.
Security system upgrade and expansion.
Procure disabled passenger lift.
Flight information systems upgrade.
Common use departure gate equipment upgrade.
Blast pad.
Drainage improvements.
Administrative expenses.

    Decision Date: September 30, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Boles, Texas Airports
Development Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: City of Waco, Texas.
    Application Number: 09-04-C-00-ACT.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $790,163.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: December 1, 2009.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: April 1, 2012.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Non-scheduled/
on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Waco Regional Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Holdroom expansion.
Runways 14/32 and 1/19 safety area design and construction.
Install passenger loading bridges.
Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting suits.
PFC preparation.

    Decision Date: September 30, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guillermo Villalobos, Texas Airports
Development Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: State of Alaska/Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities, Juneau, Alaska.
    Application Number: 09-03-C-00-ANC.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $3.00.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $10,200,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: March 1, 2012.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: July 1, 2015.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Acquire snow removal equipment.
Passenger terminal building renovations and upgrades.
Passenger terminal loading bridge replacement.
Apron reconstruction.

    Decision Date: October 2, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Helms, Alaska Region Airports
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
    Application Number: 09-04-C-00-HNL.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $105,909,130.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: January 1,2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2014.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at Honolulu
International Airport (HNL) and Use at Kahului Airport (OGG) at a $4.50
PFC Level: Taxiway A pavement improvements.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at HNL and Use
at OGG at a $3.00 PFC Level: Air cargo apron improvements, phase II.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at HNL and
Use at HNL at a $4.50 PFC Level:

Taxiway Z structural improvements.
New airfield electrical vault.
Interisland maintenance facility site preparation.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at HNL and
Use at HNL at a $3.00 PFC Level:

Electrical distributed generation system.
PFC administrative costs.

    Decision Date: October 13, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Wong, Honolulu Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
    Application Number: 09-04-C-00-OGG.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $24,663,770.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: January 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2014.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at Kahului
Airport (OGG) and Use at OGG at a $4.50 PFC Level: Taxiway A pavement
improvements.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at OGG and Use
at OGG at a $3.00 PFC Level: Air cargo apron improvements, phase II.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at OGG and
Use at Honolulu International Airport (HNL) at a $4.50 PFC Level:

Taxiway Z structural improvements.
New airfield electrical vault.
Interisland maintenance facility site preparation.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at OGG and
Use at HNL at a $3.00 PFC Level:

Electrical distributed generation system.
PFC administrative costs.

    Decision Date: October 13, 2009.
    For Further Information Contact: Steve Wong, Honolulu Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
    Application Number: 09-04-C-00-KOA.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $7,254,050.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: January 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2014.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at Kona
International Airport at Keahole (KOA) and Use at Kahului Airport (OGG)
at a $4.50 PFC Level: Taxiway A pavement improvements.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at KOA and Use
at OGG at a $3.00 PFC Level: Air cargo apron improvements, phase II.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at KOA and
Use at Honolulu International Airport (HNL) at a $4.50 PFC Level:

Taxiway Z structural improvements.
New airfield electrical vault.
Interisland maintenance facility site preparation.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at KOA and
Use at HNL at a $3.00 PFC Level:

Electrical distributed generation system.
PFC administrative costs.

    Decision Date: October 13, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Wong, Honolulu Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
    Application Number: 09-04-C-00-LIH.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $7,254,050.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: January 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2014.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at Lihue
Airport (LIH)

And Use at Kahului Airport (OGG) at a $4.50 PFC Level: Taxiway A
pavement improvements.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at LIH and Use
at OGG at a $3.00 PFC Level: Air cargo apron improvements, phase II.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at LIH and
Use at Honolulu International Airport (HNL) at a $4.50 PFC Level:

Taxiway Z structural improvements.
New airfield electrical vault.
Interisland maintenance facility site preparation.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at LIH and
Use at HNL at a $3.00 PFC Level:

Electrical distributed generation system.
PFC administrative costs.

    Decision Date: October 13, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Wong, Honolulu Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Board,
Lexington, Kentucky.
    Application Number: 09-07-C-00-LEX.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $37,400,347.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2022.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2038.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Blue Grass Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Replace runway 8/26.
Taxiway D relocation.
Terminal curb-front improvements.
PFC application development.
    Brief Description of Projects Partially Approved for Collection and
Use: Sanitary sewer improvements.
    Determination: Partially approved for collection and use. The
approval is limited to that portion of the improvements that serves
eligible areas or facilities. Terminal interior renovation phase II.
    Determination: Partially approved for collection and use. The FAA
determined that the replacement of the existing ceiling system and wall
finishes were maintenance items and not eligible development.
Therefore, costs associated with these two work items, including
financing costs, were disallowed.
    Decision Date: October 15, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Wills, Memphis Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority,
Huntsville, Alabama.
    Application Number: 09-16-C-00-HSV.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $5,007,823.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: May 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: May 1, 2012.
    Classes of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:
    (1) Air taxi/commercial operators having fewer than 500 annual
passenger enplanements; (2) certified air carriers having fewer than
500 annual passenger enplanements; and (3) certified route air carriers
having fewer than 500 annual passenger enplanements.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that each approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Huntsville International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Interactive training and workstations.
Western land.
Airfield/ramp rehabilitation.
Runway 18L136R overlay design and construction.
Personnel equipment and public safety radios.
Speed runway sweeper and airfield sweeper.
Master plan update.
Airfield erosion control phase I.
Runway 18R category II signage upgrade.
Group VI airfield improvements.
Snow plow vehicle.
New security system.
Snow equipment/storage.
Air traffic control tower relocation/connectivity.
Air cargo ramp expansion.

    Decision Date: October 16, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phillip Braden, Memphis Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, Orlando,
Florida.
    Application Number: 09-13-C-00-MCO.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $3.00.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $227,788,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2020.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2026.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Baggage system capacity improvements--phase I.
Landside terminal restroom improvements.
Automated people mover improvements.
Taxiway C rehabilitation.

    Brief Description of Projects Partially Approved for Collection and
Use: Common use self services and common use passenger processing
systems improvements.
    Determination: Partially approved for collection and use. Those
kiosks which permit airlines to collect a fee for a ticket or service,
upgrade, or any other collection of money from the passenger, is
considered revenue producing and, thus, is not PFC eligible. Remote
baggage screening facility improvements.
    Determination: Partially approved for collection and use. A portion
of the project, for which the public agency requested PFC funding was
determined to be ineligible.
    Decision Date: October 27, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Orlando Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: City of Burlington, Vermont.
    Application Number: 10-04-C-00-BTV.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $17,298,103.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: December 1, 2009.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: March 1, 2014.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: On demand air
taxi commercial operators.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Burlington International Airport.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Expand and rehabilitate terminal building.
Extend roadway system.
South apron expansion.
Enclosed walkway.
Professional services.

    Decision Date: October 28, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Priscilla Scott, New England Region
Airports Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendments to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                     Amendment       Original         Amended        estimated       estimated
   Amendment No., City, State      approved date   approved net    approved net     charge exp.     charge exp.
                                                    PFC revenue     PFC revenue        date            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04-04-C-01-MSL, Muscle Shoals,          09/24/09         $57,355         $54,730        04/01/09        04/01/09
 AL.............................
08-09-C-01-VLD, Valdosta, GA....        09/24/09          30,300          89,427        12/01/09        07/01/10
06-09-C-01-JAX, Jacksonville, FL        09/25/09     267,389,352     231,806,084        12/01/23        10/01/23
03-06-C-02-MLB, Melbourne, FL*..        09/25/09       6,806,435       6,806,435        09/01/17        03/01/19
08-08-C-02-JNU, Juneau, AK......        10/08/09       9,905,870       9,897,370        11/01/17        11/01/17
92-01-I-08-SRQ, Sarasota, FL....        10/08/09      13,945,012      13,944,391        01/01/01        01/01/01
95-02-U-05-SRQ, Sarasota, FL....        10/08/09              NA              NA        01/01/01        01/01/01
95-03-C-06-SRQ, Sarasota, FL....        10/08/09       1,100,000         750,061        04/01/02        04/01/02
02-06-C-08-MSY, New Orleans, LA.        10/13/09     271,336,494     271,336,494        12/01/17        09/01/18
04-07-C-04-MSY, New Orleans, LA.        10/13/09      75,182,406      92,998,206        10/01/17        04/01/22
07-03-C-01-TRI, Blountville, TN.        10/14/09       1,264,140         668,500        10/01/14        07/01/13
06-12-C-02-BNA, Nashville, TN *.        10/15/09      21,671,262      11,400,201        02/01/11        10/01/10
98-05-C-01-PHX, Phoenix, AZ.....        10/16/09     193,445,920     147,875,677        04/01/02        04/01/02
02-06-C-01-PHX, Phoenix, AZ.....        10/16/09     221,402,900     208,085,801        11/01/05        11/01/05
03-04-C-01-TYR, Tyler, TX.......        10/26/09       2,140,662       1,437,855        02/01/17        10/01/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The amendments denoted by an asterisk (*) include a change to the PFC level charged from $3.00 per
  enplaned passenger to $4.50 per enplaned passenger. For Melbourne, FL and Nashville, TN, this change is
  effective on December 1, 2009.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 9, 2009.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. E9-29772 Filed 12-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42788-42789]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17666]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67445; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-25]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Exchange Rule 134 To Shorten the Time Frame for Assigning the
Contra Party to Unresolved Account Balances in the Exchange's Online
Comparison System

July 16, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 5, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 134 to shorten the
time frame for assigning the contra party to unresolved account
balances in the Exchange's Online Comparison System. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 134(e)(iii)
(Differences and Omissions-Cleared Transactions) to shorten the time
frame for assigning a designated market maker (``DMM'') unit as the
contra party for any unresolved omnibus account balances in the
Exchange's Online Comparison System (``OCS'').
Background
    The Exchange operates its OCS to assist in trade settlement. OCS
conducts comparison processing, which includes matching initial trade
submissions, correction processing, omnibus processing and questioned
trade (``QT'') resolution for trades that take place on the Exchange.
The OCS system is used by Exchange members and member organizations in
their roles as clearing firms, brokers and DMM units for Exchange trade
executions. OCS is linked internally to NYSE trading systems and
externally to The National Securities Clearing Corporation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') is a
clearing agency registered with the Commission under Section 17A of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NSCC provides centralized
clearance and settlement services for equity security trades for
U.S. broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To facilitate the comparison process, the Exchange utilizes omnibus
account designations to record trade data.\4\ Using omnibus account
designations allows for universal contras for one trade side, reducing
the number of different data elements that have to be independently
recorded into a broker's hand-held device or written on a Floor report
for a trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An ``omnibus account'' is an account in which the
transactions of multiple individual participants are combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May 2009, the Exchange amended Rule 134 to enable it to assign,
on the second business day after the trade date (``T+2''), any open
balance in any of the omnibus accounts it uses to compare trades to
either a DMM Unit or the member organization that has been identified
as the clearing firm for one side of an unresolved trade.\5\
Specifically, the Exchange added new subsection (e)(iii) to Rule 134 to
enable the Exchange to assign a Floor broker's clearing firm or DMM
Unit, at the close of business on T+2, as the contra side to an
imbalance in any omnibus account that is used by OCS. In June 2010, the
Exchange amended Rule 134 again to separate Rule 134(e)(iii) into two
subsections and clarify that DMM units are assigned as the contra party
to an omnibus account imbalance and that clearing firms are the
assigned contra party to an uncompared trade. The Exchange also
shortened the time frame for the assignment of uncompared e-Quote
transactions from T+2 to the first business day after the trade date
(``T+1'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59997 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 28086 (June 12, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-50).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64277 (July 9,
2010), 75 FR 41560 (July 16, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-48 and SR-NYSEAmex-
2010-61).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendment of NYSE Rule 134
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 134(e)(iii) to shorten the time
frame for when the DMM unit is assigned as the contra party to an
unresolved omnibus account imbalance. The current rule provides that at
the close of business on T+2 after the conclusion of the processes
described in sections (e)(i) and (e)(ii) of the Rule, but no earlier
than 7:00 p.m., the Exchange shall assign a DMM unit as the contra
party to any unresolved omnibus account imbalance remaining in OCS.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 134(e)(iii) to provide that a
DMM unit would be assigned as the contra party to any unresolved
omnibus account imbalances by the close of business on the trade date,
but no earlier than 5:00 p.m. The Exchange believes that shortening
this time period will result in speedier resolution of unresolved
account balances. The Exchange will be able to implement the proposed
change due to system developments in OCS, including the reduction in
the use of omnibus accounts other than for manual executions and
related ability for the DMM to identify post-trade the clearing member
organization behind a manual execution. The Exchange notes that the
proposed changes to Rule 134(e)(iii) will not impact the processes set
forth in Rule 134(e)(i) and (ii).
    Because this is a technology-based change, the Exchange proposes to
announce the implementation date by Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \7\ that an exchange

have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable principles
of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that
this rule proposal accomplishes these goals by enhancing the comparison
process at the Exchange thereby supporting the timely settlement of
securities transactions. In particular, the Exchange believes that the
speedier resolution of unresolved account balances support the
mechanism of a free and open market as it assures that the contra party
to a transaction will receive a cleared transaction in a timely and
efficient manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2012-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2012-25. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 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 such filings will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE
and on NYSE's Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2012-25 and should be submitted on
or before August 10, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17666 Filed 7-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71621-71622]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22816]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-361, OMB Control No. 3235-0411]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 489 and
Form F-N

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``Paperwork Reduction Act''), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting
comments on the collection of information summarized below. The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 489 (17 CFR 230.489) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) requires foreign banks and foreign insurance
companies and holding companies and finance subsidiaries of foreign
banks and foreign insurance companies that are exempted from the
definition of ``investment company'' by virtue of rules 3a-1 (17 CFR
270.3a-1), 3a-5 (17 CFR 270.3a-5), and 3a-6 (17 CFR 270.3a-6) under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) to file Form
F-N (17 CFR 239.43) to appoint an agent for service of process when
making a public offering of securities in the United States. The
information is collected so that the Commission and private

plaintiffs may serve process on foreign entities in actions and
administrative proceedings arising out of or based on the offer or
sales of securities in the United States by such foreign entities.
    The Commission received an average of 25 Form F-N filings per year
over the last three years (2020-2022). The Commission has previously
estimated that the total annual burden associated with information
collection and Form F-N preparation and submission is one hour per
filing. Based on the Commission's experience with disclosure documents
generally, the Commission continues to believe that this estimate is
appropriate. Thus the estimated total annual burden for rule 489 and
Form F-N is 25 hours.
    Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive
or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules
and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements
of rule 489 and Form F-N is mandatory to obtain the benefit of the
exemption. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept
confidential. 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.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted by December 18, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: October 11, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22816 Filed 10-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Memorandum to the Docket
From:		Ross Elliott, U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
Subject:	Personal Communication with Doug McCurrey, Vice President Marketing and Business Development, Kinder Morgan
Date: 		14 June 2011

On 21 July, 2010, Kathryn Caballero of U.S. EPA's Office of Civil Enforcement spoke with Mr. Doug McCurrey, Vice-President for Marketing and Business Development, Kinder Morgan CO2 Development Company.  Ms. Caballero asked Mr. McCurrey how Kinder Morgan tests their CO2 pipelines to ensure that no undesirable contaminants are added or transported.  Mr. McCurrey responded that they take a supercritical sample from the pipeline, gasify it, and run it through the gas chromatograph to identify organic impurities.  He also stated that Kinder Morgan's greatest concerns are for CO2 water content, which they monitor closely.  They are also concerned about inert materials in the CO2 supply stream, not only because they reduce the effectiveness of CO2 transport, but because they tend to take up needed space.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73477-73481]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0908; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-251-AD;
Amendment 39-16870; AD 2011-24-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
that applies to all BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146-
100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes; and Model Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A,
and 146-RJ100A airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing

airworthiness information (MCAI) originated 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:
* * * * *

    * * * BAE Systems (Operations) Limited amended Chapter 05-10-15
of the AMM [aircraft maintenance manual] to introduce a new
hydraulic filter assembly life limit and to remove the tables
containing the Mandatory Life Limitations (Landings) on the Bolts
and Pins as the information is now included in the SSID
[supplemental structural inspection document] which is already
mandated by the same AD. In addition, BAE Systems amended Chapter
05-10-15 of the AMM to enable the use of RJ85 MLG [main landing
gear] main fittings for lighter weight 146-200 aircraft using the
same safe life of 50,000 Flight Cycles (FC) and the use of RJ100 MLG
main fittings for lighter weight RJ85, 146-200 and 146-300 aircraft
using the same safe life of 40,000 FC.

* * * * *
The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking of certain structural elements
which could adversely affect the structural integrity of these
airplanes. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 3, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 3,
2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of June
25, 2010 (75 FR 28463, May 21, 2010).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 227-
1175; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2011 (76
FR 53348), and proposed to supersede AD 2010-10-22, Amendment 39-16301
(75 FR 28463, May 21, 2010). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products.
    Since we issued AD 2010-10-22, Amendment 39-16301 (75 FR 28463, May
21, 2010), we have determined that new life limits on certain MLG
components are necessary. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),
which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European
Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0166, dated
August 6, 2010 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    The BAe 146/AVRO 146-RJ Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM)
includes chapters 05-10 ``Time Limits'', 05-15 ``Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)--Fuel System Description
and Operation'' and 05-20 ``Scheduled Maintenance Checks'', some
sub-chapters of which have been identified as requirements for
continued airworthiness and [EASA] AD 2009-0215 [which corresponds
to FAA AD 2010-10-22, Amendment 39-16301 (75 FR 28463, May 21,
2010)] was issued to require operators to comply with those
instructions.
    Since the issuance of that AD [2009-0215], BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited has amended the AMM to remove the life limits
on shock absorber assemblies, but not the individual shock absorber
components, and amend the life limits on the different standards of
Main Landing Gear (MLG) Up-Locks and MLG Door Up-Locks in sub-
chapter 05-10-15. In addition BAE Systems has amended Chapter 05-10-
15 of the AMM to introduce and amend life limits on MLG components.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD amends the
requirements of AD 2009-0215, which is superseded, and requires the
implementation of the instructions, limitations, inspections and
corrective measures as specified in the defined parts of Chapter 05
of the AMM at Revision 100.

The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking of certain structural elements
which could adversely affect the structural integrity of these
airplanes. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in
the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (76 FR 53348, August 26,
2011) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Changes to the AD

    Since we issued the NPRM (76 FR 53348, August 26, 2011), we have
reviewed EASA AD 2011-0048, dated March 18, 2011, which supersedes EASA
AD 2010-0166, dated August 6, 2010, and has no substantive changes. The
actions required by this AD correspond with the actions specified in
EASA AD 2011-0048, dated March 18, 2011. We have revised the Summary
and paragraphs (e) and (m) of this AD to refer to EASA AD 2011-0048,
dated March 18, 2011. No other changes have been made to this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 2 products of U.S.
registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2010-10-22, Amendment 39-16301
(75 FR 28463, May 21, 2010) and retained in this AD take about 2 work-
hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour.
Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the currently required actions is $170 per product.
    We estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $170, or $85 per product.

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.

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 the NPRM (76 FR 53348, August 26,
2011), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-16301 (75 FR
28463, May 21, 2010) and adding the following new AD:

2011-24-06 BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited: Amendment 39-16870.
Docket No. FAA-2011-0908; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-251-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January
3, 2012.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2010-10-22, Amendment 39-16301 (75 FR
28463, May 21, 2010).

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes; and Model Avro 146-
RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any
category.

    Note 1:  This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections)
and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs).
Compliance with these actions and/or CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR
91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified,
altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator
may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the
revisions. In this situation to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the
operator must request approval of an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) according to paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. The
request should include a description of changes to the required
actions that will ensure the continued operational safety of the
airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
* * * * *
    * * * BAE Systems (Operations) Limited amended Chapter 05-10-15
of the AMM [aircraft maintenance manual] to introduce a new
hydraulic filter assembly life limit and to remove the tables
containing the Mandatory Life Limitations (Landings) on the Bolts
and Pins as the information is now included in the SSID
[Supplemental Structural Inspection Document] which is already
mandated by the same AD. In addition, BAE Systems amended Chapter
05-10-15 of the AMM to enable the use of RJ85 MLG [main landing
gear] main fittings for lighter weight 146-200 aircraft using the
same safe life of 50,000 Flight Cycles (FC) and the use of RJ100 MLG
main fittings for lighter weight RJ85, 146-200 and 146-300 aircraft
using the same safe life of 40,000 FC.
* * * * *

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2010-10-22, Amendment 39-
16301 (75 FR 28463, May 21, 2010)

New Airworthiness Limitations Revisions

    (g) Within 90 days after June 25, 2010 (the effective date of AD
2010-10-22, Amendment 39-16301 (75 FR 28463, May 21, 2010)), revise
the maintenance program, by incorporating Chapter 5 of the BAE
SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited BAe146 Series/Avro 146-RJ Series AMM to
incorporate new and more restrictive life limits for certain items
and new and more restrictive inspections to detect fatigue cracking
in certain structures, and to add fuel system critical design
configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) to prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks, in accordance with a method approved by
the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or
its delegated agent).

Note 2:

    Guidance on revising Chapter 5 of the BAE SYSTEMS (Operations)
Limited BAe146 Series/Avro 146-RJ Series AMM, Revision 97, dated
July 15, 2009, can be found in the applicable sub-chapters listed in
Table 1 of this AD.

                  Table 1--Applicable AMM Sub-Chapters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              AMM Sub-chapter                          Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
05-10-01..................................  Airframe Airworthiness
                                             Limitations before Life
                                             Extension Programme.
05-10-05 \1\..............................  Airframe Airworthiness
                                             Limitations, Life Extension
                                             Programme Landings Life
                                             Extended.
05-10-10 \2\..............................  Airframe Airworthiness
                                             Limitations, Life Extension
                                             Programme Calendar Life
                                             Extended.
05-10-15..................................  Aircraft Equipment
                                             Airworthiness Limitations.

05-10-17..................................  Power Plant Airworthiness
                                             Limitations.
05-15-00..................................  Critical Design
                                             Configuration Control
                                             Limitations (CDCCL)--Fuel
                                             System Description and
                                             Operation.
05-20-00 \3\..............................  Scheduled Maintenance.
05-20-01..................................  Airframe Scheduled
                                             Maintenance--Before Life
                                             Extension Programme.
05-20-05 \1\..............................  Airframe Scheduled
                                             Maintenance--Life Extension
                                             Programme Landings Life
                                             Extended.
05-20-10 \2\..............................  Airframe Scheduled
                                             Maintenance--Life Extension
                                             Programme Calendar Life
                                             Extended.
05-20-15..................................  Aircraft Equipment Scheduled
                                             Maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applicable only to airplanes post-modification HCM20011A or
  HCM20012A or HCM20013A.
\2\ Applicable only to airplanes post-modification HCM20010A.
\3\ Paragraphs 5 and 6 only, on the Corrosion Prevention and Control
  Program (CPCP) and the Supplemental Structural Inspection Document
  (SSID).

    Note 3: Sub-chapter 05-15-00 of the BAE SYSTEMS (Operations)
Limited BAe146 Series/Avro 146-RJ Series AMM, is the CDCCL.

    Note 4: Within Sub-chapter 05-20-00 of the BAE SYSTEMS
(Operations) Limited BAe146 Series/Avro 146-RJ Series AMM, the
relevant issues of the support documents are as follows: BAE SYSTEMS
(Operations) Limited BAe 146 Series/Avro 146-RJ Corrosion Prevention
and Control Program Document CPCP-146-01, Revision 3, dated July 15,
2008, including BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Temporary Revision
(TR) 2.1, dated December 2008; and BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited
BAe146 Series Supplemental Structural Inspection Document SSID-146-
01, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2009.

    Note 5: Within Sub-chapter 05-20-01 of the BAE SYSTEMS
(Operations) Limited BAe146 Series/Avro146-RJ Series AMM, the
relevant issue of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited BAe 146/Avro 146-
RJ Maintenance Review Board Report Document MRB 146-01, Issue 2, is
Revision 15, dated March 2009 (mis-identified in EASA AD 2009-0215,
dated October 7, 2009, as being dated May 2009).

    Note 6: Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational
requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or
installed on the affected airplanes before revision of Chapter 5 of
the AMM, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do not need to be
reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the ALS or AMM
has been revised, future maintenance actions on these components
must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.

    (h) Except as specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD:
After the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD have been
accomplished, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may
be approved for the structural elements specified in the documents
listed in paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (i) Modifying the main fittings of the main landing gear in
accordance with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-171, dated
August 11, 2009, extends the safe limit of the main landing gear
main fitting from 32,000 landings to 50,000 landings on the main
fitting.

New Requirements of This AD

New Airworthiness Limitations Revisions

    (j) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the maintenance program, by incorporating Subject 05-10-15,
``Aircraft Equipment Airworthiness Limitations'' of Chapter 05,
``Time Limits/Maintenance Checks,'' of the BAE SYSTEMS (Operations)
Limited BAe 146 Series/Avro 146-RJ Series AMM, Revision 104, dated
April 15, 2011, to remove life limits on shock absorber assemblies,
but not the individual shock absorber components, amend life limits
on MLG up-locks and door up-locks, and to introduce and amend life
limits on MLG components. Incorporating the new life limits and
inspections into the maintenance program terminates the requirements
of paragraph (g) of this AD for Subject 05-10-15, ``Aircraft
Equipment Airworthiness Limitations'' of Chapter 05, ``Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks,'' of the BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited BAe
146 Series/Avro 146-RJ Series AMM, Revision 104, dated April 15,
2011, and after incorporation has been done, the limitations
required by paragraph (g) of this AD for Subject 05-10-15,
``Aircraft Equipment Airworthiness Limitations'' of Chapter 05,
``Time Limits/Maintenance Checks,'' of the BAE SYSTEMS (Operations)
Limited BAe 146 Series/Avro 146-RJ Series AMM, Revision 104, dated
April 15, 2011, may be removed from the maintenance program.

No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    (k) After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (j)
of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals,
and/or CDCCLs may be used, unless the actions, intervals, and/or
CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this
AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 7: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (l) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (m) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0048, dated
March 18, 2011; Subject 05-10-15, ``Aircraft Equipment Airworthiness
Limitations,'' of Chapter 05, ``Time Limits/Maintenance Checks,'' of
the BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited BAe 146 Series/Avro 146-RJ
Series AMM, Revision 104, dated April 15, 2011; and Messier-Dowty
Service Bulletin 146-32-171, dated August 11, 2009; for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use Subject 05-10-15, ``Aircraft Equipment
Airworthiness Limitations,'' of Chapter 05, ``Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks,'' of the BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited BAe
146 Series/Avro 146-RJ Series Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM),
Revision 104, dated April 15, 2011, to do the applicable actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. If you do
the optional modification specified in this AD, you must use
Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-171, dated August 11, 2009, to
do those actions, unless the AD specifies

otherwise. Only the transmittal letter and Chapter 05 List of
Effective Pages contain the date of Revision 104 of the BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited BAe 146 Series/Avro 146-RJ Series AMM.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Subject 05-10-15, ``Aircraft Equipment
Airworthiness Limitations,'' of Chapter 05, ``Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks,'' of the BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited BAe
146 Series/Avro 146-RJ Series AMM, Revision 104, dated April 15,
2011, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-
171, dated August 11, 2009, on June 25, 2010 (75 FR 28463, May 21,
2010).
    (3) For BAE Systems (Operations) Limited service information
identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited,
Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport,
Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292
675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm.
    (4) For Messier-Dowty service information identified in this AD,
contact Messier-Dowty: Messier Services Americas, Customer Support
Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, Virginia 20166-8910; telephone
(703) 450-8233; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://techpubs.services/messier-dowty.com.
    (5) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-29804 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22622-22623]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9170]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

AP Henderson Group, BPO Management Services, Inc., Capital
Mineral Investors, Inc., CardioVascular BioTherapeutics, Inc., and 1st
Centennial Bancorp; Order of Suspension of Trading

April 12, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
AP Henderson Group because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
BPO Management Services, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Capital Mineral Investors, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
CardioVascular BioTherapeutics, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
1st Centennial Bancorp because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2008.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 12, 2012, through 11:59 p.m.
EDT on April 25, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9170 Filed 4-12-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79541-79544]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32652]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081; FRL-9609-4]
RIN 2060-AQ69

Revisions to Final Response to Petition From New Jersey Regarding
SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating Station

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action to amend the preamble
and rule text to the Final Response to Petition From New Jersey
Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating Station (Portland)
published November 7, 2011, to revise minor misstatements. These
revisions clarify the EPA's finding that Portland significantly
contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1-
hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) in the State of New Jersey, and not in specific
counties within the state. These revisions have no impact on any other
provisions of the rule.

DATES: The direct final rule is effective on March 21, 2012 without
further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by February 21,
2012. If the EPA receives an adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0081, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0081.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081, Environmental Protection Agency,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC. 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-HQ-OAR-
2011-0081. The 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 email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters and any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Todd Hawes<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Ms. Gobeail McKinley

(919) 541-5246<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C539-04,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?
II. Specific Revisions
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Judicial Review

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule
because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no
adverse comment since the changes will not affect the emission limits,
increments of progress, compliance schedules, or the reporting
provisions specified in the November 7, 2011, final rule. However, in
the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register, we are
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to
amend the preamble and regulatory text to the Final Response to
Petition From New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland
Generating Station if adverse comments are received on this direct
final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information about commenting on this rule, see the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Specific Revisions

    The preamble and rule text to the Final Response to Petition From
New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating Station
(See FR 76 69052) contain minor misstatements that the EPA is revising
in this action. In the preamble section IV.A, Summary of the Modeling
for the Proposed Rule, the EPA inadvertently referred to four specific
counties in New Jersey when discussing violations of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The statement reads, ``The EPA also modeled the
emissions from Portland using the AERMOD dispersion model and
determined that the modeled concentrations from Portland, when combined
with the relatively low background concentrations, cause violations of
the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Morris, Sussex, Warren and Hunterdon
Counties in New Jersey.'' This conclusion is not correctly stated as
the EPA's modeling did not separately examine air quality in each of
the four counties identified. A more accurate description of the EPA's
conclusion was presented in the April 7, 2011, proposal which did not
refer to those counties in our explanations of the modeling results.
Furthermore, between proposal and promulgation, the EPA did not
separately examine each of the four counties identified, so in the
final rule there was no reason to change this proposed description to
specifically list counties. Therefore, we are now revising the
statement in the November 7, 2011, final rule preamble to be consistent
with the description in the April 7, 2011, proposal by removing the
references to Morris, Sussex, Warren, and Hunterdon Counties. The
statement will now read, ``The EPA also modeled the emissions from
Portland using the AERMOD dispersion model and determined that the
modeled concentrations from Portland, when combined with the relatively
low background concentrations, cause violations of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey.''
    Similarly, in the rule text, Part 52--[Amended], Subpart NN-
Pennsylvania, section 52.2039 in 40 CFR part 52, of the final rule, the
EPA inadvertently referred to those same four counties in describing
the finding of significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
provision reads, ``The EPA has made a finding pursuant to section 126
of the Clean Air Act (the Act) that emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) from the Portland Generating Station in Northampton
County, Upper Mount Bethel Township, Pennsylvania (Portland)
significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) in Morris, Sussex, Warren, and Hunterdon Counties in
New Jersey.'' We are revising the rule text so that it now reads, ``The
EPA has made a finding pursuant to section 126 of the Clean Air Act
(the Act) that emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the
Portland Generating Station in Northampton County, Upper Mount Bethel
Township, Pennsylvania (Portland) significantly contribute to
nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour
SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in New
Jersey.''
    Although the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) modeling analysis submitted with the September 2010 petition
identified NAAQS violations at receptors in certain counties, the
purpose of the EPA modeling was not to identify or corroborate the
entire geographic footprint of the violations in New Jersey. The EPA
modeling analysis was conducted for the purpose of corroborating the
existence of NAAQS violations in New Jersey caused by Portland and for
determining the remedy needed to eliminate all NAAQS violations caused
by Portland. The EPA modeling thus focused upon identifying only the
area where the maximum concentration was expected to occur. We used the
same receptor grid for the final rule as for the proposed rule, which
was focused on the area of maximum impacts occurring in Warren County,
New Jersey. The remedy was determined by assessing the emission
reduction needed to eliminate the maximum modeled violation in New
Jersey, which occurs in close proximity to Portland in Warren County.
There was no need to make an assessment of impacts at all locations
within New Jersey since eliminating the NAAQS violations at the highest
impacted receptor provided the basis for the remedy which, by its
nature, would eliminate all modeled violations caused by Portland in
the entire state. Therefore, the EPA finding pursuant to section 126 of
the Clean Air Act (the Act) applies to New Jersey generally. The
revision finalized in this rule is consistent with NJDEP's request for
a finding that emissions from Portland significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. The revision is also consistent
with the language in sections 110 and 126 of the Act which is phrased
such that the petitioner can request a finding that a source in one
state is significantly contributing to

nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state. The addition of the counties was neither necessary nor
intentional and did not arise from a request from the petitioner or any
other commenter.
    The revision finalized in this rule will not affect the emission
limits, increments of progress, compliance schedules, or the reporting
provisions specified in the November 7, 2011, final rule. No
adjustments to the existing modeling or other technical analyses and no
new analyses were necessary to make the revisions. Accordingly, we are
publishing this direct final rule because we view this as a
noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. The
revisions do not change the conclusions that the EPA made in the final
rule. Therefore, the EPA is not revising any other aspect of the rule
published on November 7, 2011.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action simply revises minor wording errors in the November 7,
2011 rule. This action corrects a response to a petition that is narrow
in scope and affects a single facility. This type of action is exempt
from review under Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this rule under section 126 of the CAA will not in-and-of
itself create any new information collection burdens but simply revises
minor wording errors in the November 7, 2011, rule. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
revisions in this notice do not impose any new requirements on small
entities. These revisions clarify the EPA's finding that Portland
significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New
Jersey, and not in specific counties within the state.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year.
This action includes minor wording revisions to the November 7, 2011,
final rule in this notice that are not expected to exceed $100 million
or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. This action simply revises minor wording
errors in the November 7, 2011, rule. These revisions clarify the EPA's
finding that Portland significantly contributes to nonattainment or
interferes with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the
State of New Jersey, and not in specific counties within the state.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or
205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Again, this action
simply revises minor wording errors in the November 7, 2011, rule.
These revisions clarify the EPA's finding that Portland significantly
contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New Jersey, and not in
specific counties within the state.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The November 2011 rule primarily
affects private industry, and does not impose significant economic
costs on state or local governments. This action simply revises minor
wording errors in the November 7, 2011, rule. These revisions clarify
the EPA's finding that Portland significantly contributes to
nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the State of New Jersey, and not in specific
counties within the state. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
a substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the federal government and Indian tribes, or the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian
Tribes. This action simply revises minor wording errors in the November
7, 2011, rule. These revisions clarify the EPA's finding that Portland
significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New
Jersey, and not in specific counties within the state. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866, and because the agency does not believe the environmental health
or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate
risk to children. This action simply revises minor wording errors in
the November 7, 2011, rule. These revisions clarify the EPA's finding
that Portland significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes
with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New
Jersey, and not in specific counties within the state.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in EO 12866, and because the agency does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action simply revises minor
wording errors in the November 7, 2011, rule. These revisions clarify
the EPA's finding that Portland significantly contributes to
nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the State of New Jersey, and not in specific
counties within the state.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. Nonetheless,
this action will be effective March 21, 2012.

L. 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 District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the date the
final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition
for review by the Administrator of this final action 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
must be final, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: December 14, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble part 52 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal regulations are 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 NN--Pennsylvania [Amended]

0
2. Section 52.2039 is amended by revising the introductory text to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.2039  Interstate transport.

    The EPA has made a finding pursuant to section 126 of the Clean Air
Act (the Act) that emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from
the Portland Generating Station in Northampton County, Upper Mount
Bethel Township, Pennsylvania (Portland) significantly contribute to
nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour
SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in New
Jersey. The owners and operators of Portland shall comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-32652 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P