[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45279-45282]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17974]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70014; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-072]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

July 22, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 11, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III 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 its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. First, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the $200-per-month Hybrid Quoting
Infrastructure User Fee, which is assessed to Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs'') to help cover the costs associated with hardware and
maintenance services to third-party vendors that provide quoting
software used by TPHs to trade on the Exchange's Hybrid Trading System
(``Hybrid''). This elimination will allow TPHs to avoid paying this
fee, and may encourage more market participants to trade on CBOE.
    The Exchange also proposes to make an amendment to the Fees
Schedule regarding Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary
Facilitation fees. On April 10, 2013, the Exchange amended its Fees
Schedule to, in part, make more clear the fact that the Exchange will
assess no Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary transaction fees
for certain types of facilitation orders (as defined in Footnote 11 of
the Fees Schedule), including those executed via the Exchange's
Automated Execution Mechanism (``AIM''), in certain classes.\3\
However, regular (non-AIM) electronic Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary facilitation orders remained subject to transaction fees.
The Exchange hereby proposes to cease assessing transaction fees on
such orders.\4\ This will mean that electronic Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Proprietary Facilitation orders will be assessed no fees
regardless of whether they are executed via AIM or the Exchange's
regular electronic mechanism (placing such executions on the same
footing with regard to fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69422 (April 22,
2013), 78 FR 25112 (April 29, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-042).
    \4\ As such, along with amending the Equity Options Rate Table,
the ETF and ETN Options Rate Table, and the Index Options Rate
Table--All Index Products Excluding SPX, SPXW, SPXpm, SRO, OEX, XEO,
VIX and VOLATILITY INDEXES, to reflect this change, the Exchange
also proposes to amend Footnote 11 to state that no Clearing Trading
Permit Holder Proprietary transaction fees will be assessed for
facilitation orders electronically (including via AIM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule with regard
to fees for SPXPM. On February 19, 2013, the Exchange adopted a set of
fees for the trading of SPXPM.\5\ The Customer SPXPM fees were set at
the same rates as the Customer SPX fees. However, SPXPM trades on the
Exchange's Hybrid System, while SPX trades on the Exchange's Hybrid 3.0
trading platform. As such, SPXPM is eligible to trade on AIM, while SPX
currently does not trade on AIM. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to
create separate lines for

Customer rates in SPXPM on the Specified Proprietary Index Options Rate
Table--SPX, SPXW, SPXpm, SRO, OEX, XEO, VIX and VOLATILITY INDEXES and
remove SPXPM from those lines listing SPX rates in order to eliminate
any potential confusion about where SPXPM can trade. The rate amounts
for SPXPM AIM trades will be listed as the same as for other SPXPM
trades (as they are now; $0.44 per contract for SPXpm Premium > or = $1
and $0.35 per contract for SPXpm Premium < $1). The AIM Agency/Primary
and AIM Contra columns, which reference the AIM Agency/Primary and AIM
Contra Execution Fees, as well as delineate which securities (and types
of transactions) are eligible for AIM executions, will be modified to
state ``SPXpm and VIX Only'' to demonstrate that SPXPM is eligible for
AIM executions.

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

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69025 (March 4,
2013), 78 FR 15076 (March 8, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires that
Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other
persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes that the
elimination of the Hybrid Quoting Infrastructure User Fee is reasonable
because it will prevent market participants to whom the fee would
otherwise apply from having to pay the fee. This change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to cease assessing
transaction fees on regular (non-AIM) electronic Clearing Trading
Permit Holder Proprietary facilitation orders is reasonable because
Clearing Trading Permit Holders who would otherwise have had to pay for
such transactions now will not be required to do so. The Exchange
believes that this proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will place regular electronic (non-AIM)
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary facilitation orders on the
same footing (with regards to fees) as Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary facilitation orders executed in AIM. Further, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to permit
Clearing Trading Permit Holders to execute Proprietary Facilitation
orders electronically for free and not give this opportunity to other
market participants because Clearing Trading Permit Holders have a
number of obligations (such as membership with the Options Clearing
Corporation), significant regulatory burdens, and financial
obligations, that other market participants do not need to take on.
Finally, this proposed change applies to all regular electronic (non-
AIM) Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary facilitation orders
equally.
    The Exchange believes that the clarification regarding SPXPM and
its eligibility for AIM executions is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitation transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Making the Fees Schedule
more clear that SPXPM trades on AIM will remove any potential
confusion, thereby removing an impediment to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange also believes that assessing Customer transactions in
SPXPM (Premium < $1) a fee of $0.35 per contract is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange believes this is reasonable, as well as
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because it is the same
amount as is assessed to Customer transactions in SPX (Premium < $1)
(SPX and SPXPM are based on the same underlying index, the S&P 500).
The Exchange believes that assessing a higher fee for Customer
transactions in SPXPM options whose premium is greater than or equal to
$1.00 than for Customer transactions in SPXPM options whose premium is
less than $1.00 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
nearly all options based on the S&P 500 Index are priced at well above
$1.00. However, most Customers, at the end of an expiration cycle,
desire to continue to hold options based on the S&P 500 Index
(including both SPX and SPXPM), and because it is the end of an
expiration cycle, such options are priced very low. The Exchange
therefore offers lower pricing for Customer SPX and SPXPM options in
order to encourage such trading and thus encourage Customers to open
SPX and SPXPM options positions in the next cycle. As these new
positions will almost certainly be priced above $1.00, offering the
lower pricing for SPXPM options whose premium is below $1.00 therefore
benefits market participants trading SPXPM options whose premium is at
or above $1.00 by encouraging Customers to open up those positions
(thereby providing greater liquidity). Further, other options based on
the S&P 500 Index, such as SPX, offer higher pricing for options with a
premium of greater than or equal to $1.00 than for those with a premium
of less than $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to offer a higher fee for Customer SPXPM transactions
(Premium < $1) than for CBOE Market-Maker/DPM/e-DPM/LMM and Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary SPXPM transactions (Premium < $1)
because those market participants undertake certain obligations with
respect to trading at CBOE, such as quoting obligations (for CBOE
Market-Makers/DPMs/e-DPMs/LMMs) and membership with the Options
Clearing Corporation, significant regulatory burdens, and financial
obligations, (for Clearing Trading Permit Holders) that Customers do
not undertake. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to offer a lower Customer fee for SPXPM
transactions (Premium < $1) than for similar transactions by Joint
Back-Office, Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker,
Professional, and Voluntary Professional market participants because
such market participants often seek to trade with Customers. Further,
the lower fee for Customers will encourage more Customer trading, which
provides more liquidity and trading opportunities (with this preferred
trading partner) for these other market participants. Also, Customers
are often not as sophisticated market participants, and there is a long
history of permitting preferential pricing

treatment of Customers in the options industry (indeed, in a number of
places, the Exchange Fees Schedule offers lower pricing for Customers
than for other market participants). Finally, the Exchange believes
that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a higher
fee for Customer SPXPM transactions (Premium < $1) than for Customer
transactions in other index products (including non-proprietary index
products) (Premium < $1) because the Exchange has expended significant
resources developing SPXPM and desires to recoup some of such costs.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change to eliminate the Hybrid Quoting
Infrastructure User Fee will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because it applies to all CBOE market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to cease
assessing transaction fees on regular (non-AIM) electronic Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary facilitation orders will impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it places regular
(non-AIM) electronic Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary
facilitation orders on the same footing (with regards to fees) as
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary facilitation orders executed
in AIM. Further, Clearing Trading Permit Holders have a number of
obligations (such as membership with the Options Clearing Corporation),
significant regulatory burdens, and financial obligations, that other
market participants do not need to take on. Finally, this proposed
change applies to all regular electronic (non-AIM) Clearing Trading
Permit Holder Proprietary facilitation orders equally.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed clarification
regarding SPXPM fees will impose any burden on intramarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because it merely clarifies the Fees Schedule and also applies
equally. Further, the Exchange does not believe that assessing Customer
transactions in SPXPM (Premium < $1) a higher fee than for CBOE Market-
Maker/DPM/e-DPM/LMM and Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary
SPXPM transactions (Premium < $1) will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because those market participants undertake certain
obligations with respect to trading at CBOE, such as quoting
obligations (for CBOE Market-Makers/DPMs/e-DPMs/LMMs) and membership
with the Options Clearing Corporation, significant regulatory burdens,
and financial obligations, (for Clearing Trading Permit Holders) that
Customers do not undertake. The Exchange does not believe that
assessing Customer transactions in SPXPM (Premium < $1) a lower fee
than for similar transactions by Joint Back-Office, Broker-Dealer, Non-
Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker, Professional, and Voluntary
Professional market participants because such market participants often
seek to trade with Customers. Further, the lower fee for Customers will
encourage more Customer trading, which provides more liquidity and
trading opportunities (with this preferred trading partner) for these
other market participants. Also, Customers are often not as
sophisticated market participants, and there is a long history of
permitting preferential pricing treatment of Customers in the options
industry (indeed, in a number of places, the Exchange Fees Schedule
offers lower pricing for Customers than for other market participants).
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes to
eliminate the Hybrid Quoting Infrastructure User Fee and to cease
assessing transaction fees on regular (non-AIM) electronic Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary facilitation orders will impose any
burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because they may encourage
other exchanges to adopt fee changes that will provide more attractive
pricing on such exchanges (thereby enhancing intermarket competition).
Further, all the proposed rule changes apply only to trading on CBOE.
Indeed, the Exchange does not believe that assessing Customer
transactions in SPXPM (Premium < $1) a fee of $0.35 per contract will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because SPXPM is
only traded on CBOE. To the extent that market participants on other
exchanges may be attracted to CBOE due to the proposed changes, such
market participants may always elect to become CBOE market
participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2013-072 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-CBOE-2013-072. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the

submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-072, and should be
submitted on or before August 16, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17974 Filed 7-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 81125]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32379]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1105]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Rock
Island, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Crescent Railroad Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, mile
481.4, at Rock Island, Illinois. The deviation is necessary to allow
the bridge owner time to perform preventive maintenance that is
essential to the continued safe operation of the drawbridge.
Maintenance is scheduled in the winter and when there is less impact on
navigation; instead of scheduling work in the summer, when river
traffic increases. This deviation allows the bridge to open on signal
if at least 24 hours advance notice is given.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m., January 17, 2011 to
9 a.m. March 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-1105 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1105 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers,
United States Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
requested a temporary deviation for the Crescent Railroad Drawbridge,
across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 481.4, at Rock Island,
Illinois to open on signal if at least 24 hours advance notice is given
for 44 days from 12:01 a.m., January 17, 2011 to 9 a.m., March 1, 2011
to allow the bridge owner time for preventive maintenance. The Crescent
Railroad Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5,
which states the general requirement that drawbridges shall open
promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to open is
given in accordance with the subpart.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Upper Mississippi River.
    Winter conditions on the Upper Mississippi River coupled with the
closure of Army Corps of Engineer's Lock No. 20 (Mile 343.2 UMR), Lock
No. 21 (Mile 324.9 UMR) and Lock No. 22 (Mile 301.2 UMR) from January
3, 2011 to February 28, 2011 will preclude any significant navigation
demands for the drawspan opening for most of the deviation period.
    The Crescent Railroad Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation
position, provides a vertical clearance of 25.7 feet above normal pool.
Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and
recreational watercraft. The drawbridge will open if at least 24-hours
advance notice is given. This temporary deviation has been coordinated
with waterway users.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 13, 2010.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-32379 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 214)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62568-62570]
[DOCID:fr06no07-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28882; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-035-AD;
Amendment 39-15247; AD 2007-23-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Goodrich Evacuation Systems Approved
Under Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C69b and Installed on Airbus
Model A330-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, Model A340-200 and -300
Series Airplanes, and Model A340-541 and -642 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to Goodrich evacuation systems approved under TSO-
C69b and installed on certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series
airplanes, Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-541
and -642 airplanes. That AD currently requires inspecting to determine
the part number of the pressure relief valves on the affected Goodrich
evacuation systems, and corrective action if necessary. For certain
airplanes, this new AD requires an additional inspection to determine
the part number of the pressure relief valves, and corrective action if
necessary. This AD results from a report indicating that, during
maintenance testing, the pressure relief valves on the affected
Goodrich evacuation systems did not seal when activated, which caused
the pressure in the escape slide/raft to drop below the minimum
allowable raft mode pressure. We are issuing this AD

to prevent loss of pressure in the escape slides/rafts after an
emergency evacuation, which could result in inadequate buoyancy to
support the raft's passenger capacity during ditching, and increase the
chance for injury to raft passengers.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 11, 2007.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 11,
2007.
    On July 17, 2006 (71 FR 33606, June 12, 2006), the Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Goodrich
Service Bulletin 25-355, dated July 25, 2005.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Goodrich, Aircraft Interior Products, ATTN: Technical Publications,
3414 South Fifth Street, Phoenix, AZ 85040.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy Ton, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin
Safety/Mechanical and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (562)
627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-12-08, amendment
39-14633 (71 FR 33606, June 12, 2006). The existing AD applies to
Goodrich evacuation systems approved under Technical Standard Order
(TSO) TSO-C69b and installed on certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300
series airplanes, Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model
A340-541 and -642 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on August 6, 2007 (72 FR 43576). That NPRM proposed to
continue to require inspecting to determine the part number of the
pressure relief valves on the affected Goodrich evacuation systems, and
corrective action if necessary. For certain airplanes, that NPRM also
proposed to require an additional inspection to determine the part
number of the pressure relief valves, and corrective action if
necessary.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. No comments have been received on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 689 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 27 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2006-12-08 and retained in this
AD take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80
per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
currently required actions is $2,160, or $80 per airplane.
    All airplanes affected by the new required action are currently
operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry. If an affected
airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the
new actions will take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average
labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated
cost of the new actions specified in this AD for U.S. operators is $80
per airplane.

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 have 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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-14633 (71 FR 33606, June 12, 2006) and by adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2007-23-01 Goodrich (Formerly BF Goodrich): Amendment 39-15247.
Docket No. FAA-2007-28882; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-035-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective December 11, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-12-08.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Goodrich evacuation systems approved
under Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C69b, as installed on
Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -
323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; Model A340-211, -212, -213, -
311, -312, and -313 airplanes; and Model A340-541 and -642
airplanes; certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report indicating that, during
maintenance testing, the pressure relief valves on the affected
Goodrich evacuation systems did not seal when activated, which
caused the pressure in the escape slide/raft to drop below the
minimum allowable raft mode pressure. We are issuing this AD to
prevent loss of pressure in the escape slides/rafts after an
emergency evacuation, which could result in inadequate buoyancy to
support the raft's passenger capacity during ditching, and increase
the chance for injury to raft passengers.

Compliance

    (e) 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 Requirements of AD 2006-12-08

Inspection for Certain Part Number (P/N)

    (f) For all airplanes: Within 36 months after July 17, 2006 (the
effective date of AD 2006-12-08): Perform an inspection to determine
the part number of the pressure relief valve on the Goodrich
evacuation systems in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, dated July 25,
2005; or Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated July
24, 2006. After the effective date of this AD, only Goodrich Service
Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006, may be used.
    (1) If any pressure relief valve having P/N 4A3791-3 is
installed, before further flight, replace the valve with a new or
serviceable valve having P/N 4A3641-1 and mark the girt adjacent to
the placard, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the service bulletin.
    (2) If any pressure release valve having P/N 4A3641-1 is
installed, before further flight, mark the girt adjacent to the
placard in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
service bulletin.

Part Installation for Airplanes Identified in Original Issue of the
Service Bulletin

    (g) As of July 17, 2006, no person may install a pressure relief
valve having P/N 4A3791-3, on any airplane equipped with Goodrich
evacuation systems identified in Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355,
dated July 25, 2005.

New Requirements of This AD

Inspection for Certain Other P/N

    (h) For Model A340-541 airplanes: Within 36 months after the
effective date of this AD, perform an inspection to determine the
part number of the pressure relief valve on the Goodrich evacuation
systems in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006.
    (1) If any pressure relief valve having P/N 4A3791-6 is
installed, before further flight, replace the valve with a new or
serviceable valve having P/N 4A3641-26 and mark the girt adjacent to
the placard, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the service bulletin.
    (2) If any pressure release valve having P/N 4A3641-26 is
installed, before further flight, mark the girt adjacent to the
placard in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
service bulletin.

Parts Installation for All Airplanes

    (i) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
pressure relief valve having P/N 4A3791-3, on any airplane equipped
with Goodrich evacuation systems identified in Goodrich Service
Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006.
    (j) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
pressure relief valve having P/N 4A3791-6, on any airplane equipped
with Goodrich evacuation systems identified in Goodrich Service
Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-12-08
are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, dated July
25, 2005; or Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated
July 24, 2006; as applicable, to perform the actions that are
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355,
Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) On July 17, 2006 (71 FR 33606, June 12, 2006), the Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, dated July 25, 2005.
    (3) Contact Goodrich, Aircraft Interior Products, ATTN:
Technical Publications, 3414 South Fifth Street, Phoenix, AZ 85040,
for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html
.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 27, 2007.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-21685 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22742-22743]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10428]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; BMW of North America, LLC

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the BMW of North America, LLC's
(BMW) petition for exemption of the 8 series vehicle line in accordance
with Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard. This petition is
granted because the Agency has determined that the antitheft device to
be placed on the vehicle line as standard equipment is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention Standard). BMW also requested
confidential treatment for specific information in its petition.
Therefore, no confidential information provided for purposes of this
notice has been disclosed.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2019 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, West Building, Room W43-439,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated January 12, 2018, BMW
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the 8 series vehicle line beginning with MY
2019. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant
to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard,
based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment
for the entire vehicle line.
    Under 49 CFR part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its
petition, BMW provided a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for its 8 series vehicle line. BMW stated that its 8 series
vehicle line will be installed with a passive, electronically-coded,
vehicle immobilizer system (EWS) as standard equipment that will
prevent the vehicle from being driven away under its own engine power.
Key features of the antitheft device will include a remote-control w/
mechanical key, ring antenna (transponder coil), low frequency antenna
(LF), engine control unit (DME/DDE) with encoded start release input, a
passive immobilizer, and an EWS (BDC) control unit. BMW also stated
that it will not offer an audible or visible alarm feature on the
proposed device.
    BMW's submission is considered a complete petition as required by
49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in
Sec.  543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of Part 543.6, BMW
provided information on the reliability and durability of its device.
To ensure reliability and durability of its device, BMW stated that it
conducted tests on the antitheft device which complied with its own
specific standards. BMW further stated that its antitheft device
fulfills the requirements of the January 1995 European vehicle
insurance companies. In further addressing the reliability and
durability of its device, BMW provided information on the uniqueness of
its mechanical keys to be used on the 8 series vehicle line.
Specifically, BMW stated that the vehicle's mechanical keys are unique
because they require a special key blank, cutting machine and a unique
vehicle code to allow for key duplication. BMW also stated that the
mechanical keys cannot be used to deactivate the device but that
activation must be done electronically. BMW further stated that the new
keys will only be issued to authorized persons and will incorporate
special guide-way millings, making the locks almost impossible to pick
and the keys impossible to duplicate on the open market.
    BMW stated that activation of its antitheft device occurs
automatically when the engine is shut off and the vehicle key is
removed from the ignition system. BMW stated that a transponder
(transmitter/receiver) in the radio frequency remote control
communicates with the EWS (BDC) control unit providing the interface to
the loop antenna (coil), engine control unit and starter. After an
initial starting value, the authentication uses the challenge response
technique with symmetric secret key. BMW further stated that when the
control unit identifies the correct release signal, the ignition signal
and fuel supply are released allowing operation of the vehicle.
    BMW also stated that the vehicle is equipped with a central-locking
system that can be operated to lock and unlock all doors or to unlock
only the driver's door, preventing forced entry into the vehicle
through the passenger doors. BMW further stated that the vehicle can be
further secured by locking the doors and hood using either the key-lock
cylinder on the driver's door or the remote frequency remote control.
BMW stated that the frequency for the remote control constantly changes
to prevent an unauthorized person from opening the vehicle by
intercepting the signals of its remote control.
    BMW further stated that all of its vehicles are currently equipped
with antitheft devices as standard equipment, including its 8 series
vehicle line. BMW compared the effectiveness of its antitheft device
with devices which NHTSA has previously determined to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with
the parts-marking requirements of part 541. Specifically, BMW has
installed its antitheft device

on its X1 (MPV and passenger cars), X2, X3, X4 and X5 vehicle lines, as
well as its Carline 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Z4, MINI and MINI Countryman
vehicle lines, all which have been granted parts-marking exemptions by
the Agency. BMW asserts that theft data have indicated a decline in
theft rates for vehicle lines that have been equipped with antitheft
devices similar to that which it proposes to install on the 8 series
vehicle line. BMW stated that for MY/CY 2014, the Agency's data show
that the theft rates for its vehicle lines are: 0.47 (2-series), 0.91
(3-series), 0.80 (4-series), 0.90 (5-series), 1.83 (6-series) 2.85 (7-
series), 0.30 (X1), 0.60 (X3), 0.00 (X5), 0.43 (Z4), 0.00 (i3), 0.00
(i8) and 0.41 (MINI Cooper). Using an average of 3 MYs data (2012-
2014), NHTSA's theft rates for BMW's 2 series, 3 series, 4 series, 5
series, 6 series, 7 series, X1, X3, X5, Z4, i3, i8 and MINI Cooper
vehicle lines are 0.7416, 0.7566, 0.8041, 1.0805, 2.5509, 2.0632,
0.2672, 0.6117, 0.0000, 0.8159, 0.0000, 0.0000 and 0.2379 respectively,
all below the median theft rate of 3.5826.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by BMW, the Agency
believes that the antitheft device for the BMW 8 series vehicle line is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The Agency concludes that the
device will provide four of the five types of performance listed in
Sec.  543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat or
circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the Agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
supporting evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The Agency
finds that BMW has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the 8 series vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information BMW
provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Agency hereby grants in full BMW's
petition for exemption for the MY 2019 8 series vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The Agency notes that 49
CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted
from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given MY. 49 CFR part 543.7(f)
contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all
Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future
product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is
granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary
in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines
exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
    If BMW decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the Agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of
major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if BMW wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption.
    Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 exemption applies only to
vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped
with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based.
Further, Sec.  543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions
``to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device
similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.''
    The Agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The Agency did not intend Part 543 to require the submission of a
modification petition for every change to the components or design of
an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer
contemplates making any changes the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should consult the Agency before
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
Part 1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2018-10428 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


1. Background
On March 12, 2012, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final rule on the "Arkansas; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan To Address Pollution Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze." This rule partially approved and partially disapproved Arkansas's identification of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) eligible sources and subject-to-BART sources; requirements for BART, Chapter 15 of the Air Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APCEC) Regulation 19, the Long Term Strategy (LTS), and the Reasonable Progress Goal (RPG).  As a result of the disapproval of the aforementioned BART elements of the Arkansas Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (RHSIP), ADEQ has chosen to revise the RHSIP. To accomplish the revision and to comply with the statutory five-factor analysis requirements, ADEQ is requesting the subject-to-BART sources to update their five-factor analysis and perform the visibility improvement modeling.
2. Purpose and Objective
The purpose of this addendum is to update the June 7, 2006 draft Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol. The components in the aforementioned protocol to be changed are the CALPUFF modeling components, the background concentrations in CALPOST. In addition, CALMET is being changed from not having observations (NO OBS = 1) to the hybrid which incorporates observations (NO OBS = 0). This change from NO OBS = 1 to NO OBS = 0 will allow the use of the 8[th] highest change in deciview (dv) rather than the 1[st] highest.  Another change to the draft protocol is the use of the revised Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) equation which is discussed in another section. Please note EPA advised ADEQ to incorporate these changes for use in the visibility impact modeling of potential controls on the subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas.
The objective of this document is to present the dispersion modeling guidance for estimating the degree of visibility improvement from potential Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) control technology options and describe dispersion modeling and analysis methods for quantifying the degree of visibility improvement from potential BART control scenarios/strategies. However, it does not explain how the visibility results are factored into the BART determination process (i.e., five-step process).
3. Subject-to-BART Sources and Class I Areas Affected
BART determination modeling performed by ADEQ indicated there were six Arkansas facilities with subject-to-BART units whose emissions caused or contributed to visibility impairment at four Class I areas.  However, EPA disapproved ADEQ's BART exemption finding of Georgia-Pacific Paper's 6A and 9A boilers and found these units to be subject-to-BART.  Table 1 lists the facilities, subject-to-BART units and pollutants that were not approved. Figure 1 shows the location of the facilities relative to the 300 km radius of the following Class I areas: Upper Buffalo and Caney Creek Wilderness Areas, AR; Hercules-Glades and Mingo Wilderness Areas, MO; Sipsey Wilderness Area, AL. A short description of the facilities with subject-to-BART units and the Class I areas affected follows.
Table 1 Facilities with subject-to-BART units and the pollutants in the state of Arkansas
Facility Name
Unit ID - Description
Pollutants
American Electric Power  -  Flint Creek Plant
SN-01 - Boiler
SO2, NOx,
AR Electric Cooperative  -  Bailey Generating Station
SN-01  -  Boiler
SO2, NOx, PM
AR Electric Cooperative  -   John L. McClellan Generating Station
SN-01 - Boiler
SO2, NOx, PM

Entergy  -  Lake Catherine
SN-02  -  Unit 4 Boiler Natural Gas Firing
NOx,

SN-02  -  Unit 4 Boiler Oil Firing
SO2, NOx, PM

Entergy  -  White Bluff
SN-01  -  Unit 1 Bituminous and Sub-bituminous Coal Firing
SO2, NOx

SN-02  -  Unit 2 Bituminous and Sub-bituminous Coal Firing
SO2, NOx
Entergy  -  White Bluff
SN-05  -  Auxiliary Boiler

Domtar  -  Ashdown
SN-03  -  #1 Power Boiler
SO2, NOx

SN-05 - #2 Power Boiler
SO2, NOx, PM
Georgia-Pacific Paper  -  Crossett
6A Boiler
SO2, NOx, PM

9A Boiler
SO2, NOx, PM

Figure 1 Map showing the location of Arkansas's subject-to-BART sources relative to the 300 km buffers around Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Areas, AR, Mingo and Hercules-Glades Wilderness Areas, MO and Sipsey Wilderness Area, AL

American Electric Power  -  Flint Creek Power Plant (AFIN 04-00107) is located in Gentry, Benton County, Arkansas and is currently permitted to operate under ADEQ Operating Air Permit Number 0276-AOP-R5. It produces power using a 6324 million BTU per hour, dry bottom, wall fired boiler (SN-01) to produce sufficient steam to operate the turbine generator at the 558 megawatt gross electrical output capability of the unit. The boiler burns primarily low sulfur western coal, but can also combust fuel oil and tire derived fuels. Fuel oil firing is only allowed during startup and shutdown of the boiler, startup and shutdown of the pulverizer mills, for flame stabilization when the coal is frozen, fuel oil tank maintenance, to prevent boiler tube failure in extreme cold weather, and when the unit is offline for maintenance. Fly ash resulting from the coal combustion process is collected by two hot side electrostatic precipitators. BART determination modeling indicated SN-01 impacted Caney Creek (CACR) and Upper Buffalo Wilderness (UPBU) areas, AR and Hercules-Glades (HEGL) Wilderness area, MO (Figure 1).

Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation  -  Carl E. Bailey Generating Station (AFIN 74-00024) is located in Augusta, Woodruff County, Arkansas and is currently permitted to operate under ADEQ Operating Air Permit Number 0154-AOP-R3. It produces power using a 1350 million BTU per hour Riley Stoker boiler (SN-01) to drive a 122 megawatt generator. The primary fuel is natural gas but is also permitted to combust fuel oil. The facility is permitted to use any grade fuel oil with a sulfur content equal to or below 2.3 per cent. As shown in Figure 1, this facility is within the 300 km radius of Mingo (MING) and Hercules-Glades (HEGL) Wilderness areas, MO, and Upper Buffalo (UPBU) and Caney Creek (CACR) Wilderness areas, AR. Preliminary modeling of this unit showed emissions impacted visibility at all four of the Wilderness areas.

Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation - John L.  McClellan Generating Station (AFIN 52-00055) is located in Camden, Ouachita County, Arkansas and is currently permitted to operate under ADEQ Operating Air Permit Number 0181-AOP-R4. The plant produces power using a 1436 million BTU per hour Riley Stoker boiler (SN-01) to drive a 134 megawatt generator. The primary fuel is natural gas but is also permitted to combust fuel oil. The facility is permitted to use any grade fuel oil with a sulfur content equal to or below 2.8 per cent. Emissions from this source were shown to impact Upper Buffalo (UPBU) and Caney Creek (CACR) Wilderness areas' visibility (Figure 1).

Entergy  -  Lake Catherine (AFIN 30-00011) is located in Malvern, Hot Spring County, Arkansas and is currently permitted to operate under ADEQ Operating Air Permit Number 171-AOP-R5. Lake Catherine is a four unit electric generating station which generates electric energy for sale. Electricity for sale is produced by using natural gas as their primary and No.6 fuel oil as the secondary fuel in both boilers. The boilers produce steam to drive turbines which turn the electric generators. The subject-to-BART source is Unit 4 (SN-03) which is a Combustion Engineering tilting tangential fired 5,850 million BTU per hour boiler powering a 552 MW generator. The primary fuel is natural gas with No.6 fuel oil as the secondary fuel. BART determination modeling indicated emissions from this unit impacts the visibility at Hercules-Glades (HEGL), MO and Upper Buffalo (UPBU) and Caney Creek (CACR), AR (Figure 1).

Entergy  -  White Bluff (AFIN 35-00110) is located in Redfield, Jefferson County, Arkansas and is currently permitted to operate under ADEQ Operating Air Permit Number 0263-AOP-R6. Units Nos. 1 (SN-01) and 2 (SN-02)are identical Combustion Engineering tilting tangential 8950 million BTU per hour coal fired boilers with a maximum power rating of 850 MW each. The boilers use sub-bituminous or bituminous coal as the primary fuel and No.2 fuel oil as a start-up fuel. Particulate matter is controlled by an electrostatic precipitator on each boiler. The Auxiliary Boiler (SN-05) is a 183 million BTU per hour boiler burning No. 2 fuel oil as its only fuel type. The purpose of the Auxiliary Boiler is to provide steam for the start-up of the two primary boilers, SN-01 and SN-02. Results from the BART determination modeling indicated emissions from Units 1 and 2 and the auxiliary boiler impacted visibility at Hercules-Glades (HEGL), MO and Upper Buffalo (UPBU) and Caney Creek (CACR), AR (Figure 1).

Domtar  -  Ashdown (AFIN 41-00002) is located in Ashdown, Little River County, Arkansas and is currently permitted to operate under ADEQ Operating Air Permit Number 0287-AOP-R10. Domtar is a paper mill facility and has two Power Boilers, No. Power Boiler (SN-03) and No. 2 Power Boiler (SN-05), that are subject-to-BART. The No.1 Power Boiler was installed in 1968 as part of the original construction of the Ashdown Mill. It has a heat input rating of 580 million BTU per hour and an average steam generating rate of 120,000 pounds of steam per hour (lb/hr) at 850 psig. It combusts primarily bark, but it is also permitted to burn wood chips, wood waste, recycled sanitary products composed of cellulose and polypropylene, pelletized paper fuel (PPF), tire derived fuel (TDF), municipal yard waste, No. 6 fuel oil, reprocessed fuel oil, used oil generated on site, and natural gas. Natural gas is only used to supplement other fuels during high steam demand periods. The No.1 Power Boiler is equipped with a traveling grate and a combustion air system. To meet applicable Boiler MACT PM emissions standard of 0.07 lb/MMBTU Domtar Industries installed a wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) during the spring of 2007. The No. 2 Power Boiler started operation in February 1976. It has a heat input rating of 820 million BTU per hour and an average steam generating rate of approximately 600,000 lb/hr. It combust primarily bituminous coal (over 80 percent of the heat input is supplied by coal), but it is also permitted to burn bark, bark and wood chips used to absorb oil spills, wood waste, petroleum coke, recycled sanitary products based on cellulose and polypropylene, PPF, TDF, municipal waste, No. 6 fuel oil, reprocessed fuel oil, used oil generated on site, natural gas, and non-condensable gases (NCGs). The NCGs are produced in the pulp and evaporator areas. It consist of nitrogen, total reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds, methanol, SO2, and minor quantities of other compounds such as methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). Under normal conditions, natural gas is not combusted. The No.2 Power Boiler is equipped with a traveling grate, combustion air system including overfire air, multi-clones, and two parallel venture scrubbers. The SO2 loading to the boiler is significant since the boiler burns coal and NCGs. Therefore, the scrubbing fluid includes water and a source of alkali, such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and/or pulp mill extraction stage filtrate. BART determination modeling indicated emissions from the two Power Boilers impacted visibility at Upper Buffalo (UPBU) and Caney Creek (CACR), AR.

Georgia-Pacific Paper (AFIN 02-00013) is located in Crossett, Ashley County, Arkansas and is currently permitted under ADEQ Operating Air Permit Number 0597-AOP-R14. Georgia-Pacific is a Kraft paper mill that has two subject-to-BART sources, 6A (SN-19) and 9A (SN-22) boilers. The 6A Boiler is a 357 million BTU per hour boiler. The boiler burns natural gas and specification grade oil. Specification grade oil consists of new oil, used oil, and pitch from the production of tall oil. The boiler was installed in 1962. There are no emissions controls associated with the boiler. The 9A Boiler is a 720 million BTU per hour combination fuel boiler that is used to generate steam for general use throughout the facility. The boiler may serve as a backup combustion unit when the incinerator (SN-83) is offline. The boiler was installed in 1973. The combination of fuels permitted for the boiler are tire derived fuel (TDF), agriculture derived fuel (ADF), refuse derived fuel (RDF), non-condensable gases (NCGs), wood waste, specification grade oil, natural gas, and sludge. The 9A Boiler is equipped with a wet Venturi scrubber to control sulfur compound emissions. The scrubber was installed in 1980. ADEQ determined 6A boiler was pre-BART and emissions from 9A boiler did not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Caney Creek Wilderness area, AR. However, in the final rule on the AR RHR SIP, EPA found the 6A boiler to be BART eligible. EPA also found both the 6A and 9A boilers to be subject-to-BART and a full BART analysis is required (FR 14606).  However, Georgia-Pacific voluntarily reduced 9A boiler's SO2 emission rate by 70.7%. Modeling performed by them indicates the current emission rate impacts Caney Creek below 0.5 dv.  Based on a call with EPA, Region 6, the current permit limit for the 9A boiler exempts this facility from performing a five-factor analysis.

5. Visibility Impact Modeling (Appendix Y § IV.D.5)
All technically feasible options must be modeled for visibility improvement over baseline and all modeling files must be included in the analysis.  The BART Guidelines state: `In identifying "all" options, you must identify the most stringent option and a reasonable set of options for analysis that reflects a comprehensive list of available technologies." It is not necessary to model all permutations of available control levels that exist for a given technology  -  the modeling is complete if it includes the maximum level of control each technology is capable of achieving.

An approvable approach to visibility modeling is to use EPA approved CALPUFF version 5.8.  The current version of CALMET approved for regulatory action is CALMET version 5.8. The NO OBS = 0 option is the recommended CALMET setting in order to utilize surface and upper air station observations.  An existing CALMET dataset (with NO OBS = 0) utilized by contractors and EPA for visibility modeling in another state is available for modeling sources in Arkansas.  This meteorological data was prepared using CALMET 5.53a which is an earlier regulatory version, compatible with CALPUFF 5.8. There were some deviations from the EPA guidance when this meteorological data was prepared. However, given the time and resource constraints, this dataset is available for your use and EPA believes it to be acceptable for the purpose of evaluating visibility benefits due to the use of controls as part of a full five-factor BART analysis for subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas. The use of these versions will require remodeling of the baseline. As a result of the change from NO OBS = 1 to NO OBS = 0, the 8th highest change in deciview may be used in both the baseline and post-control results. Additionally, for the CALPOST run, method 8 rather than method 6 is the preferred method.  Table 2 lists the CALPUFF modeling components to be used. The protocol for the development of the hybrid CALMET is located in Appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains the CALMET input control parameters.

Table 2 CALPUFF modeling components
Processor
Version
Level
TERREL
    3.3
030402
CTGCOMP
    2.21
030402
CTGPROC
    2.63
050128
MAKEGEO
    2.2
030402
CALMET
    5.53a
040716
CALPUFF
    5.8
070623
POSTUTIL
    1.3
030402
CALPOST
    6.221
080724

As stated above, the use of the different versions of the CALPUFF modeling components will require remodeling of the baseline. The baseline years of 2001, 2002, and 2003 remain the same. The 24-hour highest emissions used in the BART determination modeling should be used. If the emissions were not from a Continuous Emissions Monitor (CEM), the source must include in their analysis documentation and justification for the emissions.  In the remodeling of the baseline, the source stack parameters used in the BART determination modeling should be used. For the post-control runs be sure to include a description of the source, LCC coordinates of each stack, and stack parameters in metrics reflective of each control

For both the baseline remodeling and the post-control modeling, ADEQ is requiring the subject-to-BART sources to use the CALPUFF and POSTUTIL control input parameters found in the June 7, 2006 draft Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol. The CALPOST control input parameters for visibility background is to remain the same except for the background concentrations.  In the subject-to-BART determination modeling, ADEQ used the CALPOST control input for Method 6 (MVISBK=6). This Method is based on the original IMPROVE equation. However, ADEQ is recommending the use of Method 8 (MVISBK=8) which is based on the revised IMPROVE equation.  The use of Method 8 will change the background concentrations of each Class I area modeled.  Table 3 lists the background concentrations to be used in the remodeling of baseline and the post-control modeling.

Table 3 Annual average natural background concentration (ug/m[3]) (FLAG 2010)

                       CALPOST control input parameters

                                     BKSO4
                                     BKNO3
                                     BKOC
                                     BKEC
                                    BKSOIL
                                     BKCM
                                    BKSALT
Class I Area
                               Ammonium sulfate
                               Ammonium nitrate
                                Organic carbon
                               Elemental carbon
                                     Soil
                                  Coarse mass
                                   Sea salt
Caney Creek
                                     0.23
                                     0.10
                                     1.80
                                     0.02
                                     0.50
                                     3.00
                                     0.03
Upper Buffalo
                                     0.23
                                     0.10
                                     1.80
                                     0.02
                                     0.50
                                     3.00
                                     0.03
Hercules-Glades
                                     0.23
                                     0.10
                                     1.80
                                     0.02
                                     0.50
                                     3.00
                                     0.02
Mingo
                                     0.23
                                     0.10
                                     1.83
                                     0.02
                                     0.51
                                     3.05
                                     0.04

EPA in their Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze states that the use of either the IMPROVE or the revised IMPROVE equation is acceptable provided that the same algorithm is utilized for both the base and future extinction calculations.  According to EPA, Region 6 the revised IMPROVE extinction equation "is appropriate and the more preferred method for analyses. . ."

All BART-eligible or subject-to-BART units at a facility and pollutants are to be modeled together. Although EPA found the PM emissions reasonable, PM must be included in the modeling.  The approved PM BART emission limit should be modeled in the baseline and the control case.  We note that in some cases the addition of SO2 controls may increase PM emissions and possibly may require the reevaluation of the PM emission limit.  Post-control emission rates are to be calculated based on the evaluation of the control effectiveness of the available and technically feasible control options.

Compare the pre-control and post-control scenarios. You may include tables and charts comparing the number of days pre- and post-control impact > 0.5 dv and the number of days pre- and post-control impact >= 1.0 dv and the percent improvement for each control option modeled.

6. IMPROVE Equations
The original IMPROVE equation converts particulate matter (PM) species concentrations to light extinction (bext) as follows:
      bext = 3 * f(RH) * [sulfate] + 3* f(RH) * [nitrate] + 4 * [organic carbon] + 10 * [elemental carbon] + 1 * [fine soil] + 0.6 * [coarse mass] + 10

Where, f(RH) is a water growth factor for sulfate and nitrate; its value depends on relative humidity (RH), ranging from 1 at low humidity to 18 at 98% humidity.  Brackets ([]) represent the concentrations of the PM species measured in micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m[3]).  The constants are the individual component's extinction efficiency. The 10 that is added accounts for Rayleigh scattering, which is due to the interaction of light with molecules of air itself with no pollutants and is measured in inverse mega meters (Mm[-1]).

In 2007, the IMPROVE workgroup published a more robust algorithm for calculating background visibility. The revised IMPROVE light extinction equation is expressed as follows:

      bext = 2.2 * fs(RH) * [small sulfate] + 4.8 * fL(RH) [large sulfate] + 2.4 * fs(RH) * [small nitrate] + 5.1 * fL (RH) *[large nitrate] + 2.8 * [small organic mass] + 6.1 * [large organic mass] + 10 * [elemental carbon] + 1 * [fine soil] + 1.7 * fss(RH) * [sea salt] + 0.6 * [coarse mass] + Rayleigh scattering (site-specific) + 0.33 * [NO2(ppb)]

Sulfate, nitrate, and organic mass are each split into two fractions representing small and large distributions of those species.  Though not explicitly shown in the equation, the organic mass concentration used in this new algorithm is 1.8 times the organic carbon mass concentration, changed from 1.4 times carbon mass concentration as used for input for the original IMPROVE algorithm. Sea salt and light absorption by nitrogen dioxide (NO2) which is measured in parts per billion (ppb) have been added.  Distinct water growth curves for small sulfates and nitrates, large sulfates and nitrates, and sea salt have also been added. Site-specific Rayleigh scattering is calculated for the elevation and annual average temperature of each of the IMPROVE monitoring sites compared to the original equation that assumed extinction due to Rayleigh scattering was 10 Mm[-1].
The apportionment of the total concentration of sulfate compounds into the concentrations of the small and large size fractions is accomplished using the following equations.
      [Large sulfate] = [Total sulfate]/20 * [Total sulfate], for [Total sulfate] < 20 ug/m[3]
      [Large sulfate] = [Total sulfate], for [Total sulfate] >= 20 ug/m[3]
      [Small sulfate] = [Total sulfate]  -  [Large sulfate]

The same equations are used to apportion total nitrate and total organic mass concentrations into the small and large size fractions.

After comparison of IMPROVE monitoring data with nephelometer direct measurements of visibility extinction, the IMPROVE program found the original IMPROVE equation over-predicts low extinction conditions and under-predicts for high extinction. These biases have direct relevance for estimates for the 20% worst visibility days that are used to assess visibility impact. The new algorithm shows broader scatter overall, but less bias in matching visibility measurement under high and low visibility conditions.  The main factor in reducing bias is the split between small and large particles. The revised IMPROVE equation has less bias, is more refined, accounts for more pollutants, incorporates more recent data, and is based on considerations of relevance for the calculations needed for assessing progress under the Regional Haze Rule.
EPA guidance states that the use of either the original IMPROVE or the revised IMPROVE equation is acceptable provided that the same algorithm is used for both the base and future extinction calculations. Because Arkansas subject-to-BART sources are required to remodel the baseline and EPA believes the revised equation is the more preferred method, ADEQ is recommending the use of the revised equation in both the baseline and post-control modeling.
7. CSAPR and Arkansas
On May 30, 2012, EPA finalized a rule that allows the trading programs in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to serve as an alternative to determining source-by-source Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). This rule provides that states in the CSAPR region can substitute participation in CSAPR for source-specific BART for sulfur dioxide and/or nitrogen oxides emissions from power plants. This is commonly referred to as CSAPR being "better than BART." EPA also determined "that a state in the Transport Rule region whose EGUs are subject to the requirements of the Transport Rule trading program only for ozone season NOx is allowed to rely on our determination that the Transport Rule makes greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART for NOx."  This determination applies to Arkansas and thus Arkansas's subject-to-BART EGUs will not be required to perform a five-factor analysis of NOx emissions.

                          APPENDIX 1: CALMET Protocol

\s

                    Appendix 2:  CALMET Control Parameters

\s


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 35384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15573]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-2389-000]

Grazing Yak Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Grazing Yak Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 5, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov/. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 16, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15573 Filed 7-22-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P