MEMORANDUM – DERIVATION OF STACK TEST METHOD AND EFFECTIVE
FACILITY-WIDE DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCY EQUATIONS FOR SUBPART I
 2012 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

To:	Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028

From:	Alexis McKittrick, EPA/Climate Change

Date: 	September 11, 2012

Subject:	Derivation of subpart I stack test method equations in 40 CFR
part 98.93(i) and effective facility-wide destruction or removal
efficiency equations in 40 CFR part 98.96(r).

Introduction

In this memorandum, we present the derivation of equations for the
periodic stack test method in proposed 40 CFR part 98.93(i)(3).
Specifically, we show the derivation for proposed Equations I-17, I-19,
I-21, I-23, and I-24 in subpart I, which would be used by reporters to
calculate annual emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-GHGs) for
stack systems that are tested in an electronics manufacturing fab. We do
not show the derivation of equations which apply to by-product F-GHGs
(e.g., proposed Equations I-18, I-20, I-22 in subpart I); however, the
same derivation methodology presented in this memorandum applies to the
by-product F-GHG equations. For more information regarding the use of
the stack test method in proposed 40 CFR 98.96, see “Technical Support
for the Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities Under Subpart I,”
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.

We also present the derivation of equations used to calculate an
effective facility-wide destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) that all
facilities would be required to provide in proposed 40 CFR 98.96(r).

2.0	Derivation of Stack Test Method Equations

To calculate annual F-GHG emissions for a fab using the periodic stack
test method in proposed amendments to subpart I, reporters would perform
stack testing of all stack systems that do not meet the criteria in
proposed 40 CFR 98.93(i)(2) while concurrently monitoring the F-GHG
consumption of the tools exhausting to those stack systems and the
abatement system downtime in the fab for a sampling period (e.g., 8
hours). Reporters would then calculate fab-specific emission factors
using the collected data. Reporters would use the fab-specific emission
factors, along with activity data for the reporting year, to calculate
annual F-GHG emissions for all non-exempt stack systems in the fab. The
following is an explanation and derivation of equations used in the
stack test method.

∆tm”) and then multiplied by the flow rate of the stack system (with
the appropriate conversions) to obtain the mass of F-GHG input gas i
emitted over the sampling period.

 	(Eq. I-17 in subpart I)

Where:

Eis	=	Total fluorinated GHG input gas i, emitted from stack system s,
during the sampling period (kg).

Xism	=	Average concentration of fluorinated GHG input gas i in stack
system s, during the time interval m (ppmv).

MWi	=	Molecular weight of fluorinated GHG input gas i
(g/g-mole).儍ॳऽ汆睯爠瑡景琠敨猠慴正猠獹整ⱳ搠
牵湩桴慳灭楬杮瀠牥潩洨⼳業⥮മ噓㴉匉慴摮牡
潭慬⁲潶畬敭漠慧⁳〨〮㈲〴洠⼳ⵧ潭敬愠⁴㠶䚰
愠摮ㄠ愠浴⸩

∆tm	=	Length of time interval m (minutes). Each time interval in the
sampling period must be less than or equal to 60 minutes (for example an
8 hour sampling period would consist of at least 8 time intervals).

1/103	=	Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1,000 grams).

106	=	Conversion factor for Xism from ppmv to fractional volume.

i	=	Fluorinated GHG input gas.

s	=	Stack system.

N	=	Total number of time intervals m in sampling period.

m	=	Time interval.

Reporters would also calculate “UTf,” the total uptime of abatement
systems that are vented to the stack systems being tested during the
sampling period using proposed Equation I-23 in subpart I. Reporters
would evaluate the terms “Tdpf” and “UTpf” for the sampling
period, instead of the reporting year, when developing fab-specific
F-GHG emission factors. The terms “Tdpf” and “UTpf” would be
evaluated for the reporting year for all abatement systems in the fab
when determining fab emissions as required in proposed Equation I-21 in
subpart I.

 	(Eq. I-23 in subpart I)

Where:

UTf	=	The total uptime of all abatement systems, for fab f (expressed as
a decimal fraction).

Tdpf	=	The total time, in minutes, that abatement system p, connected to
process tool(s) in fab f, is not in operational mode as defined in the
current 40 CFR 98.98.

UTpf	=	Total time, in minutes per year, in which the tool(s) connected
at any point during the year to abatement system p, in fab f could be in
operation. For determining the amount of tool operating time, a facility
could assume that tools that were installed for the whole of the year
were operated for 525,600 minutes per year. For tools that were
installed or uninstalled during the year, a facility would have to
prorate the operating time to account for the days in which the tool was
not installed; and treat any partial day that a tool was installed as a
full day (1,440 minutes) of tool operation. For an abatement system that
has more than one connected tool, the tool operating time would be
525,600 minutes per year if there was at least one tool installed at all
times throughout the year. If a facility had tools that are idle with no
gas flow through the tool, they could calculate total tool time using
the actual time that gas is flowing through the tool.

f	=	Fab.

p	=	Abatement system.

Proposed Equation I-23 makes a simplifying assumption that abatement
systems for F-GHG are almost always “point-of-use” abatement systems
with only one tool per system, and that a system would rarely, if ever,
have more than one tool connected at a time. This assumption is
consistent with typical fab configurations.  Otherwise, for abatement
systems connected to multiple tools, both Tdpf and UTpf would need to be
multiplied by the number of tools connected to the abatement system to
ensure that system was properly weighted in the calculation.

Additionally, reporters would calculate “dif,” the average
consumption-weighted fraction of F-GHG input gas i destroyed or removed
in point-of-use abatement systems in fab f, using proposed Equation I-24
in subpart I.

 	(Eq. I-24 in subpart I)

Where:

dif	=	The average weighted fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i
destroyed or removed in abatement systems in fab f (expressed as a
decimal fraction).

Cijf	=	The amount of fluorinated GHG input gas i consumed for process
type j fed into abatement systems in fab f (kg).

DREij	=	Destruction or removal efficiency for fluorinated GHG input gas
i in abatement systems connected to process tools where process type j
is used (expressed as a decimal fraction) determined according to
proposed amendments 40 CFR 98.94(f).

f	=	fab.

i	=	Fluorinated GHG input gas.

j	=	Process type.

With the results of Equations I-17, I-23, and I-24, total emissions from
fab f would be calculated for the sampling period using the simplified
formula presented in Equation A of this memorandum.

 	(Eq. A)

The left side of Equation A represents the summation of the mass of
F-GHG input gas i emitted from all stack systems tested in the fab.

The first set of terms on the right side of Equation A (EFif * UTf *
Activityif) represent emissions during the time that abatement systems
are in an operational mode. The term “EFif” is the emission factor
for F-GHG input gas i in fab f if all abatement systems are operating.
The term “Activityif” represents the consumption of F-GHG input gas
i in fab f during the sampling period. The product of the emission
factor and the consumption represents emissions from fab f of F-GHG
input gas i if all abatement systems are operating; however, abatement
systems may not be in operation for the entire duration of the
evaluation period, therefore, the consumption is multiplied by the
uptime factor to calculate the amount of F-GHG input gas i consumed
during the sampling period while the abatement systems are in operation.

The second set of terms on the right side of Equation A represent
emissions during the time that abatement systems are not in operation.
The first term, “EFif,” is divided by “(1-aif*dif)” to yield an
emission factor which does not include abatement (i.e., these are
emissions from the tools before abatement). The term “aif”
represents the fraction of F-GHG input gas i used in fab f in tools with
abatement systems. The term “dif” represents the DRE of F-GHG input
gas i for the abatement systems connected to those tools in fab f. The
second term “(1- UTf)” is the total time for which abatement systems
are not operating, for fab f, expressed as a decimal fraction.
Multiplication of the terms results in emissions from the stack system
when abatement systems are not in an operational mode. The addition of
the terms on the left and right sides of the plus sign represent the
total emissions of F-GHG input gas i from all stacks in the fab.

All terms in Equation A are known except “EFif.” Equation A can be
rearranged to solve for “EFif,” first by grouping similar terms:

 	(Eq. A1)

Then, a simple rearrangement yields proposed Equation I-19 in subpart I:

 	(Eq. I-19 in subpart I)

Where:

EFif	=	Emission factor for fluorinated GHG input gas i, from fab f,
representing 100 percent abatement system uptime (kg emitted/kg input
gas consumed).

Eis	=	Mass emission of fluorinated GHG input gas i from stack system s,
during the sampling period (kg emitted).

Activityif	=	Consumption of fluorinated GHG input gas i, for fab f, in
the tools vented to the stack systems being tested, during the sampling
period, as determined following the procedures specified proposed 40 CFR
98.94(j)(3) (kg consumed).

UTf	=	The total uptime of all abatement systems for fab f, during the
sampling period, as calculated in proposed Equation I-23 in subpart I
(expressed as decimal fraction). If the stack system does not have
abatement systems on the tools vented to the stack system, the value of
this parameter is zero.

aif	=	Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i used in fab f in tools
with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction).

dif	=	Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in
abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, as calculated in
proposed Equation I-24 in subpart I (expressed as decimal fraction). If
the stack system does not have abatement systems on the tools vented to
the stack system, the value of this parameter is zero.

f	=	Fab.

i	=	Fluorinated GHG input gas.

s	=	Stack system.

Replacement of the term “Activityif” in equation A of this memo,
which represents the consumption of F-GHG input gas i in fab f during
the sampling period, with the term “Cif” which represents the
consumption of F-GHG input gas i in fab f during the reporting year,
yields proposed Equation I-21 in subpart I. Proposed Equation I-21 in
subpart I is used to calculate annual fab-level emissions. Note that the
value of the term “UTf,” would be determined for the reporting year,
instead of the sampling period when using proposed Equation I-21 in
subpart I.

 	(Eq. I-21 in subpart I)

Where:

Eif	=	Annual emissions of fluorinated GHG input gas i (kg/year) from the
stack systems that are tested for fab f.

EFif	=	Emission factor for fluorinated GHG input gas i emitted from fab
f, as calculated in proposed Equation I-19 in subpart I (kg emitted/kg
input gas consumed).

Cif	=	Total consumption of fluorinated GHG input gas i in tools that are
vented to stack systems that are tested, for fab f, for the reporting
year, as calculated using Equation I-13 in subpart I (kg/year).

UTf	=	The total uptime of all abatement systems for fab f, during the
reporting year, as calculated using proposed Equation I-23 in subpart
I(expressed as a decimal fraction).

aif	=	Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i used in fab f in tools
with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction).

dif	=	Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in
abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f that are included
in the stack testing option, as calculated in proposed Equation I-24 in
subpart I (expressed as decimal fraction).

f	=	Fab.

i	=	Fluorinated GHG input gas.

3.0	Derivation of Facility-Wide Destruction or Removal Efficiency

In order to determine the extent to which GHG emissions from electronics
manufacturing are being abated, EPA is proposing to include in 40 CFR
98.96(r) a requirement for each facility to calculate and report an
effective facility-wide DRE. This factor would be calculated as one
minus the ratio of actual reported emissions to the emissions that would
occur if there were no abatement. EPA has developed three equations,
Equations I-26, I-27, and I-28 of the proposed subpart I, to support
this calculation. These equations would not require reporters to collect
any additional data, but instead rely on data already collected to
calculate and report GHG emissions from a facility.

Reporters would use proposed Equation I-26 in subpart I to calculate an
effective facility-wide DRE as follows:

 	(Eq. I-26)

Where:

DREFAC 	=	Facility-wide effective destruction or removal efficiency
value, expressed as a decimal fraction.

FGHGi	=	Total emissions of each fluorinated GHG i emitted from
electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, calculated
according to the procedures specified in proposed 40 CFR 98.93.

N2Oj	=	Emissions of N2O from each N2O-emitting electronics manufacturing
process j in the facility, expressed in metric ton CO2 equivalents,
calculated according to the procedures in proposed 40 CFR 98.93.

UAFGHG 	=	Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG emitted from
electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, expressed in metric
ton CO2 equivalents as calculated in proposed Equation I-27 of subpart
I.

SFGHG	=	Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG emitted from
electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, expressed in metric
ton CO2 equivalents, as calculated in proposed Equation I-28 of subpart
I.

CN2O,j 	=	Consumption of N2O in each N2O emitting process j, expressed
in metric ton CO2 equivalents.

1-UN2O,j	=	N2O emission factor for each N2O emitting process j from
proposed Table I-8 of subpart I.

GWPi	=	GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG i from Table A-1 of 40 CFR part
98, subpart A. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A-1 of 40 CFR
part 98, subpart A does not define a GWP value, a facility would use a
GWP value of 2,000.

GWPN2O	=	GWP of N2O from Table A-1 of 40 CFR part 98, subpart A.

i	=	Fluorinated GHG.

j	=	Process Type.

The fraction on the right side of proposed Equation I-26 in subpart I
represents the actual reported total GHG emissions from a facility
divided by the total GHG emissions that would occur if there were no
abatement. In the numerator, the terms “FGHGi” and “N2Oj”
represent the actual reported emissions, in metric tons of all F-GHG and
N2O respectively, that facilities would report under proposed 40 CFR
98.96(c). The terms for each F-GHG and for N2O in the numerator are
multiplied by the appropriate global warming potential (GWP) from Table
A-1 of 40 CFR part 98, subpart A to convert to mtCO2e. Note that these
CO2e emissions are already calculated as part of the total,
facility-wide CO2e emissions reported under §98.3(c)(4)(i).  In the
denominator, the terms “UAFGHG” and “SFGHG” represent the total
unabated emissions, in mtCO2e, of all F-GHG emitted from electronics
manufacturing processes whose emissions of F-GHG were calculated by the
default utilization and by-product formation rate procedures in proposed
40 CFR 98.93(a) or 98.93(i)(4) and according to the stack testing
procedures in proposed 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3), respectively. The far right
term in the denominator represents the total unabated emissions of N2O,
calculated by summing the product of N2O consumption and utilization
across each process type (in addition to multiplying by the appropriate
GWP to convert to mtCO2e).

Note that the Equation I-26 is calculated on a facility-wide basis, not
on a fab basis. If a facility reporting under subpart I has more than
one fab, then data and emissions from all the fabs at a facility must be
aggregated to perform this facility-wide calculation.

The term “UAFGHG” is calculated using proposed Equation I-27 in
subpart I. The term “UAFGHG” represents unabated emission of F-GHGs
whose emissions were calculated and reported according to proposed 40
CFR 98.93(a) or 98.93(i)(4), based on default emission factors. Unabated
emissions of input gases are calculated by summing the product of the
consumption of input gas i for process type j and one minus the
utilization of input gas i for process type j for all input gases and
process types (multiplied by the appropriate GWP). Unabated emissions of
by-products are calculated by summing the product of the consumption of
input gas i for process type j and the by-product formation rate of
by-product k, from input gas i, for process type j across all input
gases and process types (multiplied by the appropriate GWP). The values
Cij, (1-Uij), Cij, and Bijk are the same as those used in Equations I-8
and I-9.

 	(Eq. I-27)

Where:

UAFGHG 	=	Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG i emitted from
electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, expressed in metric
ton CO2e for which the facility calculated total emissions according to
the procedures in proposed 40 CFR 98.93(a) or 98.93(i)(4).

Cij	=	Total consumption of fluorinated GHG i, apportioned to process j,
expressed in metric ton CO2e  which the facility used to calculate total
emissions according to the procedures in proposed 40 CFR 98.93(a) or
98.93(i)(4).

Uij	=	Process utilization rate for fluorinated GHG i, process type j,
which the facility used to calculate total emissions according to the
procedures in proposed 40 CFR 98.93(a) or 98.93(i)(4).

GWPi	=	GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG i from Table A-1 of 40 CFR part
98, subpart A. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A-1 of 40 CFR
part 98, subpart A does not define a GWP value, a facility would use a
GWP value of 2,000.

GWPk	=	GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG by-product k, from Table A-1 of 40
CFR part 98, subpart A. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A-1
of 40 CFR part 98, subpart A does not define a GWP value, a facility
would use a GWP value of 2,000.

Bijk	=	By-product formation rate of fluorinated GHG k created as a
by-product per amount of fluorinated GHG input gas i (kg) consumed by
process type j (kg).

i	=	Fluorinated GHG.

j	=	Process Type.

k	=	Fluorinated GHG by-product.

The term “SFGHG,” is calculated by using proposed Equation I-28 in
subpart I. The term “SFGHG” represents unabated F-GHG emissions for
all fabs within a facility whose emissions were calculated and reported
according to the proposed 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3), based on stack testing.
The first term in brackets (“[ ]”) on the right side of proposed
Equation I-28 in subpart I represents unabated emission of input gases.
The term, “EFif,” is divided by “(1-aif*dif)” to yield an
emission factor which does not include abatement. The term “aif”
represents the fraction of F-GHG input gas i used in fab f in tools with
abatement systems. The term “dif” represents the DRE of F-GHG input
gas i for the abatement systems connected to those tools in fab f. A
similar division is performed for the by-product emission factor in the
second term in brackets on the right side of the equation. The
“unabated” emission factors are multiplied by consumption and the
appropriate GWP value and summed across input gases and by-products for
all fabs to calculate unabated input gas and by-product emissions for
the facility, respectively, whose emissions were calculated and reported
according the proposed 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3). The values EFif and EFkf are
the same as those calculated using Equations I-19 and I-20,
respectively, and the values Cif, aif, dif, akf, and dkf are the same as
those used in Equations I-21 and I-22.

 	(Eq. I-28)

Where:

SFGHG 	=	Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG i emitted from
electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, expressed in metric
ton CO2e for which a facility calculated total emission according to the
procedures in proposed 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3).

EFif	=	Emission factor for fluorinated GHG input gas i, emitted from fab
f, as calculated in proposed Equation I-19 of subpart I (kg emitted/kg
input gas consumed).

aif	=	Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i used in fab f in tools
with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction).

dif	=	Fraction of fluorinated GHG i destroyed or removed in abatement
systems connected to process tools in fab f, which a facility used to
calculate total emissions according to the procedures in proposed 40 CFR
98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction).

Cif	=	Total consumption of fluorinated GHG input gas  i, of tools vented
to stack systems that are tested, for fab f, for the reporting year,
expressed in metric ton CO2e which a facility used to calculate total
emissions according to the procedures in proposed 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3)
(expressed as a decimal fraction).

EFkf	=	Emission factor for fluorinated GHG by-product gas k, emitted
from fab f, as calculated in proposed Equation I-20 of subpart I (kg
emitted/kg of all input gas consumed in tools vented to stack systems
that are tested).

akf	=	Fraction of all input gas used in fab f in tools with abatement
systems (expressed as a decimal fraction).

dkf	=	Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product k destroyed or removed in
abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, which a facility
used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in
proposed 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction).

GWPi	=	GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG i from Table A-1 of 40 CFR part
98, subpart A. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A-1 of 40 CFR
part 98, subpart A does not define a GWP value, a facility would use a
GWP value of 2,000.

GWPk	=	GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG by-product k, from Table A-1 of 40
CFR part 98, subpart A. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A-1
of 40 CFR part 98, subpart A does not define a GWP value, a facility
would use a GWP value of 2,000.

i	=	Fluorinated GHG.

j	=	Process Type.

k	=	Fluorinated GHG by-product.

 Proposed Equations I-18, I-20, and I-22 apply specifically to
by-product F-GHGs. These by-product equations apply to F-GHGs which are
not input gases and are created during electronics manufacturing
production processes or in abatement systems and F-GHGs which are input
gases whose emissions exceed consumption because such gases are
generated as by-products of other input gases.

 EPA is proposing to define “stack system” to mean “one or more
stacks that are connected by a common header or manifold, through which
a fluorinated GHG-containing gas stream originating from one or more fab
processes is, or has the potential to be, released to the atmosphere.
For purposes of this subpart, stack systems do not include emergency
vents or bypass stacks through which emissions are not usually vented
under typical operating conditions.”

…

†

#

$

H

h

À

É

Ë

Ó

„

…

†

‰

摧䯇

h

搒Ǡ摧䐛@

摧⌁<

h

h

h

(ions from each of the stack systems that are not tested can be
attributed to only one particular collection of process tools during the
test.

 In proposed Equation I-24 in subpart I, the ratio formed as a result of
the multiplication and subsequent division by the term “Cijf” is an
approximation of the ratio of input gas i fed to abatement systems in
process type j since proposed Equation I-24 does not account for the
utilization of input gas i in process type j.

 As proposed in subpart I, the revised definition of “operational
mode” would mean “the time in which an abatement system is properly
installed, maintained, and operated according to manufacturers’
specifications as required in proposed 40 CFR 98.93(f)(1). This includes
being properly operated within the range of parameters in the operations
manual provided by the system manufacturer.”

DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Page   PAGE  11  of   NUMPAGES   11


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26808-26809]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10879]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66890; File No. SR-BYX-2012-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Exchange Rule 11.9 To Allow Optional Attribution of Orders

May 1, 2012.
    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 April 25, 2012, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') 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 is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Rule
11.9, entitled ``Orders and Modifiers'', to allow optional attribution
of orders submitted to the Exchange in Exchange data feeds.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change 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 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 purpose of this filing is to allow Users to optionally enter
orders into the Exchange's systems that will be displayed in Exchange
data feeds with such User's market participant identifiers or
``MPIDs''. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.9 to
add a definition of an Attributable Order, which shall mean an order
that is designated for display (price and size) including the User's
MPID. The Exchange also proposes to adopt a definition in Rule 11.9 for
a Non-Attributable Order, which shall mean an order that is designated
for display (price and size) on an anonymous basis by the Exchange. The
proposed definitions of Attributable Order and Non-Attributable Order
are substantively identical to definitions contained in the Rules of
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), as described in further
detail below.
    All display-eligible orders entered into the Exchange are currently
displayed by the Exchange on an anonymous basis without attribution to
the entering User. The Exchange is proposing to allow Users to utilize
Attributable Orders to include their MPID on published quotations in
the Exchange's data feeds. The Exchange believes that such display is
consistent with traditional market making on the floor of an exchange
as well as existing rules of at least one of the Exchange's
competitors.\3\ The addition of Attributable Orders will allow a party
engaged in market making to identify itself as the party willing to buy
or sell securities on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Nasdaq Rule 4751(e)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ In particular, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ because it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the proposal
will benefit market participants and help to

promote transparency by providing additional information regarding
quotations displayed on the Exchange. Specifically, any User that
wishes to publicly disclose their identity when quoting on the Exchange
will be permitted to do so, and such attributed quotations will be
analogous to the quotations they provide in other contexts (e.g., on
the floor of a floor-based stock exchange or in the over-the-counter
market through direct interaction). The proposal also promotes
transparency in that other Users will be able to see with whom they are
interacting when trading against displayed, attributed orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change is also consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)
of the Act \6\ in that it seeks to assure fair competition among
brokers and dealers by providing functionality that is consistent with
that of functionality offered by at least one of the Exchange's
competitors.\7\ The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
promotes just and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes
uniformity across markets concerning the ability to display an
attributed order on an exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
    \7\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it would permit the Exchange to immediately implement the
proposed rule change that would allow the Exchange to compete with
other exchanges that offer a similar optional attribution of quotations
functionality.\10\ The Exchange represented that the proposed rule is
substantially similar to and based on rules of other exchanges and that
the waiver of the 30-day operative delay would help ensure uniformity
across market centers concerning the display of attributed quotations.
Further, the Exchange believes that because the attribution
functionality is optional, there will be no need for a phased
implementation as Users that do not wish to avail themselves of the
options functionality would not have to make any systems changes. The
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Such waiver would allow the Exchange to offer a functionality to market
participants that is substantially similar other exchanges without
delay. The Commission notes that the proposed rule change is based on
and similar to NASDAQ Rule 4751(e)(1) and (2).\11\ Additionally, the
Commission notes that this attribution functionality is optional.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See SR-BYX-2012-008, Item 7.
    \11\ See supra note 3.
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-BYX-2012-008 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-BYX-2012-008. 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 such 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2012-008 and should be
submitted on or before May 29, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10879 Filed 5-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 227)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70868-70871]
[DOCID:fr24no08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1081]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, Dredge Project

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around
the Dredge R.S. Weeks during dredging operations in Oregon Inlet, North
Carolina. This safety zone will enhance the safety of vessels
transiting Oregon Inlet, North Carolina during periods of dredging
operations. This project is being undertaken to increase the water
depth in Oregon Inlet, North Carolina to 14 feet. Entry into the safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, North
Carolina.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on November 7, 2008 through 5
p.m. November 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-1081 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2008-1081
in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in
the Docket ID column. They are also available for inspection or copying
at two locations: 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, and the United
States Sector North Carolina, 2301 East Fort Macon Road, Atlantic
Beach, North Carolina 28512 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call CWO4 Stephen Lyons, Waterways Management Division
Chief, Sector North Carolina, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the publishing of an NPRM would be
impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is
needed to protect the maritime public form the hazards associated with
the dredge project in Oregon Inlet, North Carolina.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would
be contrary to public interest, since immediate action is needed to
ensure the public's safety.

Background and Purpose

    Due to the dynamic nature of Oregon Inlet, near continuous dredging
and frequent realignment of the approach channel east of the Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge have become routine. Passage of tropical storms and
strong low pressure systems accelerate the shoaling and need for
maintenance dredging. The Federal Navigation Project is maintained by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) through the employment of
USACE assets or by contracts issued and administered by the USACE. The
Army Corps of Engineers has contracted Weeks Marine Inc. of Covington,
LA to perform maintenance dredging in Oregon Inlet, NC. The contractor
will be utilizing the 280 foot hydraulic Dredge R.S. Weeks. The dredge
has a 65 foot beam and uses a 30 inch diameter 1600 foot floating
discharge line that will be connected to a submerged shore connection.
During periods of operation the dredge may reduce the available
horizontal clearance of Oregon Inlet by 1880 feet and may entirely
obstruct the navigational channel to vessel traffic. Vessel use of the
alternate spans will not be sanctioned by the Coast Guard because the
alternate spans are not clearly marked by navigational aids. In
addition, due to concerns about the structural integrity of the bridge,
potential vessel strikes, and the absence of a fender system in the
alternate spans, the only safe passage for vessels is through the main
navigational span.

Discussion of Rule

    This safety zone is necessary to safeguard mariners from the
hazards associated with dredging on the waters of Oregon Inlet, North
Carolina. This regulation establishes a 100 yard moving safety zone on
the waters of Oregon Inlet around the perimeter of the Dredge R.S.
Weeks during dredging operations. In addition, it establishes a 50 yard
safety zone around the perimeter of the floating discharge line which
leads from the dredge to the submerged shore connection. Entry into
these zones will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port.
    Alternate routes for any vessel wishing to transit through Oregon
Inlet include traveling through Hatteras Inlet, Beaufort Inlet, or
through the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
    Law enforcement, aids to navigation, and other waterway maintenance
vessels are specifically exempt from this regulation.
    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this regulation will restrict access to Oregon Inlet, the
effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety
zones only restrict vessels during dredging operations; (ii) the Coast
Guard will make extensive notifications of the safety zone to the
maritime public via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly; (iii) the safety zones will be in effect for a
limited duration of time; and (iv) mariners will have alternate routes
to transit through Oregon Inlet, including traveling through Hatteras
Inlet, Beaufort Inlet, or through the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect vessels intending to transit on the waters of
Oregon Inlet, North Carolina from 8 a.m. on November 7, 2008 through 5
p.m. on November 30, 2008. Although the safety zones will apply to the
waters of the Oregon Inlet the zones will not have significant impact
on small entities because the safety zones only restrict vessels during
dredging operations, the Coast Guard will make extensive notifications
of the safety zone to the maritime public via maritime advisories so
mariners can adjust their plans accordingly, the safety zones will be
in enforced for a limited duration of time, and mariners will have
alternate routes to transit through Oregon Inlet, including traveling
through Hatteras Inlet, Beaufort Inlet, or through the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway.

Assistance for Small Entities

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

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
under the Instruction that there are no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR
part 165 as follows:

PART 165--SAFETY ZONES

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-1081 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-1081  Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet, NC.

    (a) Definitions. Captain of the Port Representative means the
Commander, Sector North Carolina, or any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized to act on the Captain
of the Port's behalf.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: Waters of Oregon
Inlet within 100 yards of the Dredge R.S. Weeks and within 50 yards of
the floating discharge line.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing safety zones
found in Sec.  165.23 of this part apply to the safety zone described
in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of
this part, entry into these safety zones is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or a Captain of the Port
Representative. All vessel movement within the safety zones is
prohibited except as specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
or a Captain of the Port Representative.
    (3) This section applies to all vessels operating within the safety
zone except vessels that are engaged in the following operations:
    (i) Enforcing laws;
    (ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and
    (iii) Surveying, maintaining or improving waters in the safety
zone.
    (4) Any deviation from paragraph (c)(2) of this section due to
extreme circumstances must be authorized by the Captain of the Port or
a Captain of the Port representative. Vessels granted permission to
transit must do so in accordance with the directions provided by the
Captain of the Port or a Captain of the Port representative to that
vessel. To seek permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port
can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) Due to continual shoaling in Oregon Inlet, all vessels should
use caution while transiting the area. Mariners are advised to view the
latest U.S. Army Corps of Engineers survey

data prior to attempting to transit the area. Mariners can view the
survey at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/nav/OREGON.htm.
    (6) Mariners are reminded that the fendered span of the Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge is the only recommended route for passing under the
bridge. Passing through any unfendered span presents a significant
hazard to the vessel and the bridge.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the regulated navigation area by Federal, State, and
local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m.
November 7, 2008, through 5 p.m. November 30, 2008.

    Dated: November 7, 2008.
J.E. Ryan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, North Carolina.
[FR Doc. E8-27844 Filed 11-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 67722]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28343]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-178-000]

PPL Energy Supply, 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
PPL Energy Supply, 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 November 15, 2011.
    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
14 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 review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site 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_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 26, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28343 Filed 11-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58336-58338]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0939; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-200-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A330-202, -203, -223, -243, -302, -323, -342, and
-343 airplanes; and Model A340-313 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by reports that a specific batch of cargo doors might have
deviations in quality related to door structure, such as irregular bore
holes, improper application of sealant and paint, or uncleanliness.
This proposed AD would require inspecting to identify the part and
serial numbers of the forward and aft cargo doors, and replacing the
affected cargo doors. We are proposing this AD to prevent the degraded
structural capability of the cargo door, a primary structure, from
leading to failure of the door, which could lead to a breach through
the door or the door detaching from the airplane, resulting in
potential rapid decompression.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced 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>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0939;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-200-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0177, dated September 15, 2011 (corrected
September 28, 2011) (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    Investigations have shown that a specific batch of cargo doors
might have deviations in

quality, such as irregular bore holes, improper application of
sealant and paint or cleanliness. These production deviations are
related to the quality of the door structure.
    This condition, if not corrected, may degrade the structural
integrity of the affected Forward (Fwd) and Aft cargo doors.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time inspection to identify the [part and serial numbers of the] Fwd
and Aft cargo doors, and replacement of the affected cargo doors.
* * * * *

The unsafe condition is the degraded structural capability of the cargo
door, a primary structure, which could lead to failure of the door,
which could detach from the airplane or have a breach through the door,
resulting in potential decompression. Required actions include
contacting the FAA, or EASA (or its delegated agent), for repair
instructions for any door part/serial number that cannot be identified
for a specified airplane. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-52-3083 (for
affected Model A330 airplanes) and A340-52-4093 (for Model A340-313
airplanes), both dated May 31, 2011. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 6 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $1,020, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 52 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of
$4,420 per product; the manufacturer has agreed to reimburse these
labor costs. Where the service information lists required parts costs
that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. We have no way of determining the number of products that may
need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2012-0939; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-
200-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 5, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Model A330-202, -203, -223, -243, -302, -323, -342, and -343
airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) 0796, 0832, 0840, 0845,
0849, 0853, 0855, 0861, 0862, 0866, 0868, 0871, 0873, 0876, 0879,
0882, 0885, 0887, 0889, 0891, 0892, 0896, 0898, 0899, 0903, 0904,
0905, 0907, 0913, 0927, 0930, 0935, 0936, 0937, 0940, 0943, 0944,
0946, 0949, 0952, 0954, 0964, 0971, 0975, 0982 through 0986
inclusive, 0988, 0989, 0990, 0992, 0994, 0995, 0997, 0998, 0999,
1001, 1002, 1003, 1006, 1007, 1009 through 1016 inclusive, 1018,
1020, 1022, 1023, 1026, 1028, 1029, 1037, 1045, 1049, 1052, 1053,
1055, 1058, 1060, 1061, 1065 through 1067 inclusive, 1071 through
1075 inclusive, 1077, 1080, and 1082.
    (2) Model A340-313 airplane, MSN 0955.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52: Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that a specific batch of cargo
doors might have deviations in quality related to door structure,
such as irregular bore holes, improper application of sealant and
paint, or uncleanliness. We are issuing this AD to prevent the
degraded structural capability of the cargo door, a primary
structure, from leading to failure of the door, which could detach
from the airplane or have a breach through the door, resulting in
potential rapid decompression.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the

compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been
done.

(g) Inspection

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD: Inspect to identify the part number and serial
number of the airplane's forward and aft cargo doors, as applicable
to MSN, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-52-3083, dated May 31, 2011 (for
Model A330 airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-52-
4093, dated May 31, 2011 (for Model A340 airplanes). A review of
airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this
inspection if the part number and serial number of the door can be
conclusively determined from that review.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 7,400 total flight cycles, or
72 months after the airplane's first flight, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Replacement

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
the part number and serial number of the airplane's forward and/or
aft cargo doors, as applicable to airplane MSN, are identified in
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-52-3083, dated May 31, 2011
(for Model A330 airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A340-52-4093, dated May 31, 2011 (for Model A340 airplanes): Before
further flight, replace the affected door with a new or serviceable
door, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-52-3083, dated May 31, 2011; or
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-52-4093, dated May 31, 2011;
as applicable.

(i) Repair

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
there is any discrepancy between the installed forward and/or aft
cargo doors part/serial number and the airplane MSN, as that part/
serial number and MSN are identified in Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A330-52-3083, dated May 31, 2011 (for Model A330
airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-52-4093, dated
May 31, 2011 (for Model A340 airplanes): Within 10 days after
accomplishing the inspection, contact the FAA, or the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent), for further
instructions and time limits, and accomplish those instructions
within the specified time limits.

(j) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on
any airplane a forward or aft cargo door that was removed from any
airplane as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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.

(l) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0177, dated
September 15, 2011 (corrected September 28, 2011), and the service
information identified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD,
for related information.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-52-3083, dated May
31, 2011.
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-52-4093, dated May
31, 2011.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 6, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-23147 Filed 9-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P