[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5706-5707]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02325]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0897; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-22]

Establishment of Class E Airspace, Spanish Fork, UT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface, at Spanish Fork Airport Springville-
Woodhouse Field, Spanish Fork, UT, to accommodate new area navigation
(RNAV) procedures at the airport. This action ensures the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the
National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 29, 2018. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Spanish Fork Airport Springville-Woodhouse Field,
Spanish Fork, UT, to support standard instrument approach procedures
for IFR operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (82 FR 55965; November 27, 2017) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0897
to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Spanish Fork Airport Springville-Woodhouse Field, Spanish
Fork, UT. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA

Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Spanish Fork Airport
Springville-Woodhouse Field.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM UT E5 Spanish Fork, UT [New]

Spanish Fork Airport Springville-Woodhouse Field, UT
    (Lat. 40[deg]08'42'' N, long. 111[deg]40'04'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Spanish Fork Airport Springville-
Woodhouse Field.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 29, 2018.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-02325 Filed 2-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 29524]
[DOCID:fr22jn09-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, June
24, 2009 at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be: The Commission will
consider whether to propose amendments governing the operations of
money market funds.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 17, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14657 Filed 6-18-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 92)]
[Notices]
[Page 27023-27024]
[DOCID:fr12my08-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0086; Notice 1]

Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, Ltd., Receipt of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Goodyear Dunlop Tires North American, Ltd, (GDTNA), has determined
that certain tires that it manufactured during the period beginning
January 2003 through July 2004, do not fully comply with paragraph
S6.5(f) of 49 CFR 571.119 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 119 New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles With a GVWR of
More than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles. GDTNA has
filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), GDTNA has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of GDTNA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 3,050 150/60R18 Dunlop D251 motorcycle
tires produced from January 2003 through July 2004. Paragraph S6.5(f)
of 49 CFR 571.119 requires:

    S6.5(f) The actual number of piles and the composition of the
ply cord material in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread
area.

    GDTNA explained that the subject tires are marketed with incorrect
construction materials information on the sidewalls. The labeling
incorrectly lists ``TREAD 5 PLIES 2 RAYON + 3 NYLON'' and ``SIDEWALL: 2
PLIES 2 RAYON'' whereas this labeling should be ``TREAD 4 PLIES 2 NYLON
+ 2 NYLON'' and ``SIDEWALL 2 PLIES 2 NYLON''.
    GDTNA stated that it believes the noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety because most consumers do not base tire
purchase or vehicle operation on the construction information listed on
the tire sidewalls, the tires meet or exceed all other applicable
FMVSS, they were designed, manufactured and tested to the standards and
regulations as applicable, and they meet all of the internal and
regulatory performance test requirements.
    GDTNA also stated that it has corrected the problem with the
affected tire mold and that all subsequent production will have the
correct material information shown on the sidewall.
    GDTNA additionally stated that no customer complaints have been
received.
    GDTNA requested that NHTSA consider its petition and grant an
exemption from the recall requirements of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act on the basis that the noncompliance described
above is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: June 11, 2008.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

    Issued on: May 5, 2008.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
 [FR Doc. E8-10481 Filed 5-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


mechanisms by participating in the Order Execution Quality Disclosure
Plan.\217\ Each Exchange must join this plan before it begins
operations as an exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ 17 CFR 242.605.
    \217\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44177 (April 12,
2001), 66 FR 19814 (April 17, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Order Routing

    As discussed above, DE Holdings wholly owns EDGA, EDGX, and
DECN.\218\ As such, each Exchange is affiliated with DECN,\219\ which
is a registered broker-dealer and member of FINRA. The Exchanges also
anticipate that DECN will be a member of each Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ See Section III.A, supra.
    \219\ The Exchanges state that DECN will do business under the
name of ``DE Route.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each Exchange's Rule 2.10 provides generally that, without prior
Commission approval, the Exchange may not, directly or indirectly,
acquire or maintain an ownership interest in a member organization of
such Exchange. In addition, each Exchange's Rule 2.10 provides that,
without prior Commission approval, none of the Exchange's members may
be or become an affiliate of the Exchange or an affiliate of an
affiliate of the Exchange. However, each Exchange proposes that its
affiliate, DECN, become a member of the Exchange to provide certain
routing services on behalf of the Exchange. Specifically, each Exchange
proposes to (1) operate DECN as a facility of such Exchange to provide
outbound routing services to other securities exchanges,\220\ automated
trading systems, electronic communications networks, or other broker-
dealers (collectively, ``Trading Centers''), and (2) receive through
DECN orders routed inbound to such Exchange from its affiliated
exchange (i.e., EDGX in the case of EDGA, and EDGA in the case of
EDGX).\221\ Accordingly, each Exchange seeks Commission approval of an
exception in the Exchange's Rule 2.10 that will permit the affiliation
between the Exchange and its member, DECN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ Securities exchanges to which each Exchange proposes to
route orders include its affiliated exchange (i.e., EDGX in the case
of EDGA, and EDGA in the case of EDGX).
    \221\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that the Commission has previously expressed concern
regarding the potential for conflicts of interest in instances where a
member firm is affiliated with an exchange, particularly where a member
is routing orders to such affiliated exchange,\222\ each Exchange has
proposed limitations and conditions on DECN's affiliation with the
Exchange. Specifically, each Exchange proposes that DECN operate as an
affiliated outbound router on behalf of the Exchange, subject to
certain conditions set forth in the Exchange's Rule 2.11; and that DECN
operate as an affiliated inbound router on behalf of the Exchange
subject to certain conditions set forth in the Exchange's Rule
2.12.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53382
(February 27, 2006), 71 FR 11251 FR (March 6, 2006).
    \223\ See Exchange Rules 2.11 and 2.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. DECN as Outbound Router
    Each Exchange proposes that DECN would operate as a facility of the
Exchange providing outbound routing services from the Exchange to other
Trading Centers.\224\ DECN's operation as a facility providing outbound
routing services for each Exchange is subject to the conditions that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ See Exchange Rule 2.11. See also Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange regulates DECN as a facility of the Exchange;
     FINRA, a self-regulatory organization unaffiliated with
the Exchange, is DECN's designated examining authority;
     DECN only provides routing services unless otherwise
approved by the Commission;
     The use of DECN for outbound routing by Exchange members
is optional; and
     The Exchange will establish and maintain procedures and
internal controls reasonably designed to adequately restrict the flow
of confidential and proprietary information between the Exchange and
its facilities (including DECN) and any other entity.\225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a facility of each Exchange, DECN will be subject to each
Exchange's and the Commission's regulatory oversight; and each Exchange
will be responsible for ensuring that DECN's outbound routing function
is operated consistent with section 6 of the Act and the Exchange's
rules. In addition, each Exchange will be required to file with the
Commission rule changes and fees relating to DECN's outbound routing
function. Any such fees relating to DECN's outbound router function
will be subject to exchange non-discrimination requirements. Further,
the Commission believes that the proposed conditions on which DECN will
operate as a facility providing outbound routing services for each
Exchange should minimize the potential for conflicts of interest and
informational advantages involved where a member firm is affiliated
with an exchange to which it is routing orders. The Commission notes
that the proposed conditions for the operation of DECN as affiliated
outbound router on behalf of each Exchange are consistent with
conditions the Commission has approved for other exchanges.\226\ The
Commission therefore finds the proposed operation of DECN as an
affiliated outbound router of each Exchange to be consistent with the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59153
(December 23, 2008), 73 FR 80485 (December 31, 2008) (order
approving outbound routing by broker-dealer affiliate of Nasdaq
Stock Exchange); and BATS Exchange Order, supra note 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. DECN as Inbound Router
    Each Exchange also proposes that DECN, operating as a facility of
the Exchange, provide routing services from EDGX to EDGA, in the case
of EDGA, and from EDGA to EDGX, in the case of EDGX (i.e, ``inbound''
routing), subject to the following conditions and limitations:
     The Exchange enters into (1) a 17d-2 agreement with FINRA,
a non-affiliated SRO,\227\ to relieve the Exchange of regulatory
responsibilities for DECN with respect to rules that are common rules
between the Exchange and the non-affiliated SRO, and (2) a regulatory
services agreement with FINRA, a non-affiliated SRO, to perform
regulatory responsibilities for DECN for unique Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ The Rule 17d-2 agreement is discussed at Section III.E.4,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The regulatory service agreement requires the Exchange to
provide the non-affiliated SRO with information, in an easily
accessible manner, regarding all exception reports, alerts, complaints,
trading errors, cancellations, investigations, and enforcement matters

(collectively ``Exceptions'') in which DECN is identified as a
participant that has potentially violated Exchange or Commission Rules,
and requires that FINRA provide a report, at least quarterly, to the
Exchange quantifying all Exceptions in which DECN is identified as a
participant that has potentially violated Exchange or Commission rules.
     The Exchange has in place a rule that requires DE Holdings
to establish and maintain procedures and internal controls reasonably
designed to ensure that DECN does not develop or implement changes to
its system based on non-public information obtained as a result of its
affiliation with the Exchange, until such information is available
generally to similarly situated members of the Exchange.
     Routing of orders from DECN to the Exchange, in DECN's
capacity as a facility of the affiliated exchange (i.e., EDGX, in the
case of EDGA, and EDGA, in the case of EDGX), be authorized for a pilot
period of 12 months.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ See Exchange Rule 2.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Commission continues to be concerned about potential
unfair competition and conflicts of interest between an exchange's
self-regulatory obligations and its commercial interest when the
exchange is affiliated with one of its members, for the reasons
discussed below, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the
Act to permit DECN to be affiliated with each Exchange and to provide
inbound routing to each Exchange on a pilot basis, subject to the
conditions described above.
    Each Exchange has proposed five conditions applicable to DECN's
inbound routing activities, which are enumerated above. The Commission
believes that these conditions mitigate its concerns about potential
conflicts of interest and unfair competitive advantage. In particular,
the Commission believes that FINRA's oversight of DECN,\229\ combined
with FINRA's monitoring of DECN's compliance with the equity trading
rules and quarterly reporting to each Exchange, will help to protect
the independence of each Exchange's regulatory responsibilities with
respect to DECN. The Commission also believes that the requirement that
each Exchange establish and maintain procedures and internal controls
reasonably designed to ensure that DECN does not develop or implement
changes to its system based on non-public information obtained as a
result of its affiliation with the Exchange, until such information is
available generally to similarly situated members of the Exchange is
reasonably designed to ensure that DECN cannot use any information
advantage it may have because of its affiliation with the Exchange.
Furthermore, the Commission believes that each Exchange's proposal to
allow DECN to route orders inbound to its affiliated exchange (i.e.,
from EDGX, in the case of EDGA, and from EDGA, in the case of EDGX), on
a pilot basis, will provide each Exchange and the Commission an
opportunity to assess the impact of any conflicts of interest of
allowing an affiliated member of an Exchange to route orders inbound to
the Exchange and whether such affiliation provides an unfair
competitive advantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ This oversight will be accomplished through the Rule 17d-2
agreement and the RSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Commission notes that the proposed conditions for the
operation of DECN as affiliated inbound router on behalf of each
Exchange are similar to conditions the Commission has approved for
other exchanges.\230\ The Commission therefore finds the proposed
operation of DECN as an affiliated inbound router of each Exchange is
consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Release Nos. 60598
(September 1, 2009), 74 FR 46280 (September 8, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-
45); 59154 (December 23, 2008) 73 FR 80468 (December 31, 2008) (SR-
BSE-2008-48) (order approving proposed rulebook of NASDAQ OMX BX);
and 59009 (November 24, 2008), 73 FR 73363 (December 2, 2008) (order
granting accelerated approval to File No. SR-NYSEALTR-2008-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Listing Requirements/Unlisted Trading Privileges

    The Exchanges initially do not intend to list any securities.
Accordingly, the Exchanges have not proposed rules that would allow
them to list any securities at this time.\231\ Instead, the Exchanges
have proposed to trade securities pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges, consistent with section 12(f) of the Act and Rule 12f-5
thereunder. Rule 12f-5 requires an exchange that extends unlisted
trading privileges to securities to have in effect a rule or rules
providing for transactions in the class or type of security to which
the exchange extends unlisted trading privileges.\232\ Each Exchange's
rules allow it to extend unlisted trading privileges to any security
listed on another national securities exchange or with respect to which
unlisted trading privileges may otherwise be extended in accordance
with section 12(f) of the Act.\233\ Each Exchange's rules provide for
transactions in the class or type of security to which the exchange
intends to extend unlisted trading privileges.\234\ In addition,
pursuant to its rules, each Exchange will cease trading any equity
security admitted to unlisted trading privileges that is no longer
listed on another national securities exchange or to which unlisted
trading privileges may no longer be extended, consistent with Section
12(f). The Commission finds that these rules are consistent with the
Act.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ The Exchanges have incorporated listing standards for
certain derivative securities products in their rules. However, each
Exchange's rules will prohibit the Exchange from listing any
derivative security product pursuant to these listing standards
until the Exchange submits a proposed rule change to the Commission
to amend its listing standards to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the
Act and incorporate qualitative listing criteria. See Exchange Rule
14.1(a).
    \232\ 17 CFR 240.12f-5. See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 35737 (April 21, 1995), 60 FR 20891 (April 28, 1995) (adopting
Rule 12f-5).
    \233\ See Exchange Rule 14.1(a).
    \234\ Id. The Exchanges' rules currently do not provide for the
trading of options, security futures, or other similar instruments.
    \235\ Each Exchange has represented to the Commission that it
intends to phase-in the trading of securities currently trading on
the DECN to each Exchange, and that it will provide appropriate
advance notice to its members of the phase-in schedule. The
Commission believes that this approach is appropriate and should
help maintain an orderly transition to the Exchanges. See Amendment
No. 2, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Exchange Fees

    In the Form 1 Applications, the Exchanges generally describes their
proposed fees and note that they, may, in the future, prescribe such
reasonable dues, fees, and assessments or other charges as they may
deem appropriate.\236\ Nasdaq, however, argues that the Form 1
Applications are deficient because the Exchanges have not included
their fee schedules in the Form 1 Applications.\237\ The Commission
notes that it previously approved Form 1 applications that did not
include fee schedules. For example, the Commission approved the Form 1
application of BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') on August 18, 2008,\238\
and BATS subsequently filed its fee schedule on October 21, 2008,
pursuant to Exchange Act Section 19(b).\239\ The

Commission also notes that any fees to be charged by the Exchanges
would need to be filed with the Commission pursuant to section 19(b) of
the Act and would not be effective until filed with, or filed with and
approved by, the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ See Form 1 Applications, Exhibit E, Response F.
    \237\ See Nasdaq Letter, supra note 4, at 7-8. Nasdaq also
raises questions concerning fees that Nasdaq proposed in File No.
SR-NASDAQ-2009-054. See Nasdaq Letter, supra note 4, at 8. The
Commission believes that Nasdaq's proposed fees should be addressed
in the context of Nasdaq's proposal, rather than in connection with
the Form 1 Applications.
    \238\ See BATS Exchange Order, supra note 65.
    \239\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58871 (October 28,
2008), 73 FR 65428 (November 3, 2008) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-BATS-2008-009) (implementing
the fee schedule that would be in effect on the date BATS commenced
operations as a national securities exchange). Similarly, DE
Holdings notes that Nasdaq filed fee schedules for two of its
facilities, Nasdaq BX and the Nasdaq Options Market, after the
Commission approved rules establishing the facilities. See DE
Holdings Response, supra note 4, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Exemption From Section 19(b) of the Act With Regard to FINRA Rules
Incorporated by Reference

    Each Exchange proposes to incorporate by reference certain rules of
FINRA.\240\ Thus, for certain EDGA rules, EDGA members will comply with
an EDGA rule by complying with the referenced FINRA rule. Similarly,
for certain EDGX rules, EDGX members will comply with an EDGX rule by
complying with the referenced FINRA rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ Specifically, each Exchange proposes to incorporate by
reference the following FINRA rules: FINRA's 1010 Series (Membership
Proceedings) (referenced in each Exchange's Rule 2.4); FINRA's
12,000 Series (Code of Arbitration for Customer Disputes) and
FINRA's 13,000 Series (Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry
Disputes) (referenced in each Exchange's Rules 9.1 and 9.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with its proposal to incorporate FINRA rules by
reference, each Exchange requested, pursuant to Rule 240.0-12,\241\ an
exemption under Section 36 of the Act from the rule filing requirements
of Section 19(b) of the Act for changes to those Exchange rules that
are effected solely by virtue of a change to a cross-referenced FINRA
rule.\242\ Each Exchange proposes to incorporate by reference
categories of rules (rather than individual rules within a category)
that are not trading rules. Each Exchange agrees to provide written
notice to its members whenever FINRA proposes a change to a cross-
referenced rule \243\ and whenever any such proposed changes are
approved by the Commission.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ 17 CFR 240.0-12.
    \242\ See letter from Eric W. Hess, General Counsel and
Secretary, EDGA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated February 11, 2010; and letter from Eric W. Hess, General
Counsel and Secretary, EDGX, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated February 11, 2010 (together, the ``Exchange 19(b)
Exemption Request Letters'').
    \243\ See Exchange 19(b) Exemption Request Letters, supra note
242.
    \244\ Each Exchange will provide such notice through a posting
on the same Web site location where each Exchange will post its own
rule filings pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under Act, within the time frame
required by that Rule. The Web site posting will include a link to
the location on the FINRA Web site where FINRA's proposed rule
change is posted. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using its authority under Section 36 of the Act, the Commission
previously exempted certain SROs from the requirement to file proposed
rule changes under Section 19(b) of the Act.\245\ Each such exempt SRO
agreed to be governed by the incorporated rules, as amended from time
to time, but is not required to file a separate proposed rule change
with the Commission each time the SRO whose rules are incorporated by
reference seeks to modify its rules. In addition, each SRO incorporated
by reference only regulatory rules (e.g., margin, suitability,
arbitration), not trading rules, and incorporated by reference whole
categories of rules (i.e., did not ``cherry-pick'' certain individual
rules within a category). Each exempt SRO had reasonable procedures in
place to provide written notice to its members each time a change is
proposed to the incorporated rules of another SRO in order to provide
its members with notice of a proposed rule change that affects their
interests, so that they would have an opportunity to comment on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57478
(March 12, 2008) 73 FR 14521, (March 18, 2008) (order approving
rules governing the trading of options on the NASDAQ Options
Market); Nasdaq Exchange Registration Order, supra note 75; and BATS
Exchange Registration Order, supra note 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is granting each Exchange's request for exemption,
pursuant to Section 36 of the Act, from the rule filing requirements of
Section 19(b) of the Act with respect to the rules that each Exchange
proposes to incorporate by reference into their respective rules. This
exemption is conditioned upon each Exchange providing written notice to
its members whenever FINRA proposes to change a rule that each Exchange
has incorporated by reference. The Commission believes that this
exemption is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors because it will promote more efficient use of
Commission and SRO resources by avoiding duplicative rule filings based
on simultaneous changes to identical rule text sought by more than one
SRO. Consequently, the Commission grants each Exchange's exemption
request.

V. Conclusion

    It is ordered that the applications of each of EDGX and EDGA for
registration as a national securities exchange be, and hereby is,
granted.
    It is further ordered that operation of each of EDGX and EDGA is
conditioned on the satisfaction of the requirements below:
    A. Participation in National Market System Plans. Each Exchange
must join the CTA Plan, the CQ Plan, the Nasdaq UTP Plan, and the Order
Execution Quality Disclosure Plan.
    B. Intermarket Surveillance Group. Each Exchange must join the
Intermarket Surveillance Group.
    C. Minor Rule Violation Plan. A MRVP filed by each Exchange under
Rule 19d-1(c)(2) must be declared effective by the Commission.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. 17d-2 Agreement. An agreement pursuant to Rule 17d-2 \247\
between FINRA and each Exchange that allocates to FINRA regulatory
responsibility for those matters specified above \248\ must be approved
by the Commission, or each Exchange must demonstrate that it
independently has the ability to fulfill all of its regulatory
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \248\ See Sections III.E.4 and III.H.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    E. Regulatory Contracts. Each Exchange and FINRA, and each Exchange
and ISE LLC, must finalize the provisions in the Regulatory Contracts,
as described above,\249\ that will specify the Exchange and Commission
rules for which FINRA and ISE will provide certain regulatory
functions, or each Exchange must demonstrate that it independently has
the ability to fulfill all of its regulatory obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ See Sections III.E.3 and III.H.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    F. Examination by the Commission. Each Exchange must have, and
represent in a letter to the staff in the Commission's Office of
Compliance Inspections and Examinations that it has, adequate
procedures and programs in place to effectively regulate the Exchange.
    G. Trade Processing and Exchange Systems. Each Exchange must have,
and represent in letters to the staff in the Commission's Division of
Trading and Markets that it has, adequate procedures and programs in
place, as noted in Commission Automation Policy Review guidelines,\250\
to effectively process trades and maintain the confidentiality,
integrity, and availability of the Exchange's systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ On November 16, 1989, the Commission published its first
Automation Review Policy (``ARP I''), in which it created a
voluntary framework for self-regulatory organizations to establish
comprehensive planning and assessment programs to determine systems
capacity and vulnerability. On May 9, 1991, the Commission published
its second Automation Review Policy (``ARP II'') to clarify the
types of review and reports that were expected from SROs. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 27445 (November 16, 1989), 54
FR 48703 (November 24, 1989); and 29185 (May 9, 1991), 56 FR 22490
(May 15, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is further ordered, pursuant to section 36 of the Act,\251\ that
each Exchange shall be exempt from the rule filing requirements of
section 19(b) of

the Act \252\ with respect to the FINRA rules the Exchange proposes to
incorporate by reference into the Exchange's rules, subject to the
conditions specified in this Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ 15 U.S.C 78mm.
    \252\ 15 U.S.C 78s(b).

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5868 Filed 3-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79051-79054]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32467]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0218; Directorate Identifier 92-ANE-56-AD;
Amendment 39-16894; AD 2011-26-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lycoming Engines, Fuel Injected
Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain fuel injected reciprocating engines manufactured by
Lycoming Engines. That AD currently requires inspection, replacement if
necessary, and proper clamping of externally

mounted fuel injector fuel lines. That AD also states that it is not
applicable to engines that have a Maintenance and Overhaul Manual with
an Airworthiness Limitations Section that requires inspection and
replacement, if necessary, of externally mounted fuel injector lines.
This new AD requires the same actions. This AD was prompted by Lycoming
Engines revising their Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) to add engine
models requiring inspections. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure
of the fuel injector fuel lines that would allow fuel to spray into the
engine compartment, resulting in an engine fire.

DATES: This AD is effective January 25, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 25,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lycoming Engines, 652 Oliver Street, Williamsport, PA 17701, or go to
www.lycoming.textron.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Engine Certification Office, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(781) 238-7125.

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 (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is 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: Norm Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:
(516) 228-7337; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2008-14-07, Amendment 39-15602 (73 FR 39574,
July 10, 2008). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2011 (76 FR 8661).
That NPRM proposed to inspect, replace if necessary, and properly clamp
externally mounted fuel injector fuel lines. That AD also states that
it is not applicable to engines that have a Maintenance and Overhaul
Manual with an Airworthiness Limitations Section that requires
inspection and replacement, if necessary, of externally mounted fuel
injector lines.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to the comment.

Question

    One commenter asked why the AD requirements are only for Lycoming
engines, and not also for Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) engines.
The commenter inferred that we write ADs, just to make owners maintain
their aircraft.
    In response, any AD made applicable to TCM engines with externally
mounted fuel injector lines, would have to be written by the Atlanta
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), because that office has oversight
of TCM. The Atlanta ACO has informed us that at this time, there is
insufficient data to justify an AD for TCM engines with externally
mounted fuel injector lines, however, they realize there may be
justification for issuing a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin
(SAIB), for TCM engines on this subject. They are looking into possibly
issuing an SAIB.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 21,180 four-cylinder engines,
21,449 six-cylinder engines, and 256 eight-cylinder engines installed
on aircraft of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about
0.2 work-hour to inspect all lines on a four-cylinder engine, 0.5 work-
hour to inspect all lines on a six-cylinder engine, and 0.7 work-hour
to inspect all lines on an eight-cylinder engine. We also estimate that
the average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. We do not anticipate any
additional costs on U.S. operators, as the inspection would be done in
conjunction with other work performed concurrently. We anticipate no
parts to be required. Based on these figures, the total cost of the AD
to U.S. operators for one inspection of the fleet is $1,286,875.

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),
    (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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2008-14-07, Amendment 39-15602 (73 FR 39574, July 10, 2008), and adding
the following new AD:

2011-26-04 Lycoming Engines (formerly Textron Lycoming Division,
AVCO Corporation): Amendment 39-16894; Docket No. FAA-2007-0218;
Directorate Identifier 92-ANE-56-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 25, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2008-14-07, Amendment 39-15602 (73 FR
39574, July 10, 2008).

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to fuel injected reciprocating engines
manufactured by Lycoming Engines that incorporate externally mounted
fuel injection lines (engines with an ``I'' in the prefix of the
engine model designation) as listed in the following Table 1:

                     Table 1--Engine Models Affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Engine                               Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEIO-320.....................  -D1B, -D2B, -E1B, -E2B
AIO-320......................  -A1B, -BIB, -C1B
IO-320.......................  -B1A, -B1C, -C1A, -D1A, -D1B, -E1A, -E1B,
                                -E2A, -E2B
LIO-320......................  -B1A, -C1A
AEIO-360.....................  -A1A, -A1B, -A1B6, -A1D, -A1E, -A1E6, -
                                B1F, -B2F, -B1G6, -B1H, -B4A, -H1A, -H1B
AIO-360......................  -A1A, -A1B, -B1B
HIO-360......................  -A1A, -A1B, -B1A, -C1A, -C1B, -D1A, -
                                E1AD, -E1BD, -F1AD, -G1A
IO-360.......................  -A1A, -A1B, -A1B6, -A1B6D, -A1C, -A1D, -
                                A1D6, -A2A, -A2B, -A3B6, -A3B6D, -B1B, -
                                B1D, -B1E, -B1F, -B1G6, -B2F, -B2F6, -
                                B4A, -C1A, -C1B, -C1C, -C1C6, -C1D6, -
                                C1E6, -C1F, -C1G6, -F1A, -J1A6D, -M1B, -
                                L2A, -M1A
IVO-360......................  -A1A
LIO-360......................  -C1E6, -M1A
TIO-360......................  -A1B, -C1A6D
IGO-480......................  -A1B6
AEIO-540.....................  -D4A5, -D4B5, -D4D5, -L1B5, -L1B5D, -L1D5
IGO-540......................  -B1A, -B1C
IO-540.......................  -A1A5, -AA1A5, -AA1B5, -AB1A5, -AC1A5, -
                                AE1A5, -B1A5, -B1C5, -C1B5, -C4B5, -
                                C4D5D, -D4A5, -E1A5, -E1B5, -G1A5, -
                                G1B5, -G1C5, -G1D5, -G1E5, -G1F5, -J4A5,
                                -V4A5D, -K1A5, -K1A5D, -K1B5, -K1C5, -
                                K1D5, -K1E5, -K1E5D, -K1F5, K1H5, -K1J5,
                                -K1F5D, -K1G5, -K1G5D, -K1H5, -K1J5D, -
                                K1K5, -K1E5, -K1E5D, -K1F5, -K1J5, -
                                L1C5, -M1A5, -M1B5D, -M1C5, -N1A5, -
                                P1A5, -R1A5, -S1A5, -T4A5D, -T4B5, -
                                T4B5D, -T4C5D, -V4A5, -V4A5D, -W1A5, -
                                W1A5D, -W3A5D
IVO-540......................  -A1A
LTIO-540.....................  -F2BD, -J2B, -J2BD, -N2BD, -R2AD, -U2A, -
                                V2AD, -W2A
TIO-540......................  -A1A, -A1B, -A2A, -A2B, -A2C, -AE2A, -
                                AH1A, -AA1AD, -AF1A, -AF1B, -AG1A, -
                                AB1AD, -AB1BD, -AH1A, -AJ1A, -AK1A, -
                                C1A, -E1A, -G1A, -F2BD, -J2B, -J2BD, -
                                N2BD, -R2AD, -S1AD, -U2A, -V2AD, -W2A
TIVO-540.....................  -A2A
IO-720.......................  -A1A, -A1B, -D1B, -D1BD, -D1C, -D1CD, -
                                B1B, -B1BD, -C1B
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) Engine models in Table 1 of this AD are installed on, but
not limited to, Piper PA-24 Comanche, PA-30 and PA-39 Twin Comanche,
PA-28 Arrow, and PA-23 Aztec; Beech 23 Musketeer; Mooney 20, and
Cessna 177 Cardinal airplanes.
    (3) This AD is not applicable to engines having internally
mounted fuel injection lines, which are not accessible. Those engine
models are not included in Table 1 of this AD.
    (4) This AD is not applicable to engines that have a Maintenance
and Overhaul Manual with an Airworthiness Limitations Section that
requires inspection of externally mounted fuel injector lines. Those
engine models are not included in Table 1 of this AD.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by Lycoming Engines revising their
Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) to add engine models requiring
inspection. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel
injector fuel lines that would allow fuel to spray into the engine
compartment, resulting in an engine fire.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(f) Engines That Have Had Initial Inspections

    For engines that have had initial inspections in accordance with
Textron Lycoming MSB No. 342, dated March 24, 1972; Textron Lycoming
MSB No. 342A, dated May 26, 1992; Textron Lycoming MSB No. 342B,
dated October 22, 1993; Supplement No. 1 to MSB No. 342B, dated
April 27, 1999; Textron Lycoming MSB No. 342C, dated April 28, 2000;
Textron Lycoming MSB No. 342D, dated July 10, 2001; Lycoming Engines
MSB No. 342E, dated May 18, 2004, or Lycoming Engines MSB 342F,
dated June 4, 2010, inspect in accordance with paragraph (h) of this
AD.

(g) Engines That Have Not Had Initial Inspections

    For engines that have not had initial inspections previously
done in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB No. 342, dated March
24, 1972; Textron Lycoming MSB No. 342A, dated May 26, 1992; Textron
Lycoming MSB No. 342B, dated October 22, 1993; Supplement No. 1 to
MSB No. 342B, dated April 27, 1999; Textron Lycoming MSB No. 342C,
dated April 28, 2000; Textron Lycoming MSB No. 342D, dated July 10,
2001; Lycoming Engines MSB No. 342E, dated May 18, 2004, or Lycoming
Engines MSB 342F, dated June 4, 2010, inspect as follows:
    (1) For engines that have not yet had any fuel line maintenance
done, or have not had any fuel line maintenance done since new or
since the last overhaul, inspect in accordance with paragraph (i) of
this AD within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) For all other engines, inspect in accordance with paragraph
(i) of this AD within 10 hours TIS after the effective date of this
AD.

(h) Repetitive Inspections

    Thereafter, inspect at intervals of 100 hours TIS (not to exceed
110 hours), at each engine overhaul, and after any maintenance has
been done on the engine where any clamp (or clamps) on a fuel
injector line (or lines) has

been disconnected, moved, or loosened, in accordance with paragraph
(i) of this AD.

(i) Inspection Criteria

    Inspect the fuel injector fuel lines and clamps between the fuel
manifold and the fuel injector nozzles, and replace as necessary any
fuel injector fuel line and clamp that does not meet all conditions
specified in Lycoming Engines MSB No. 342F, dated June 4, 2010.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. AMOCs approved previously in
accordance with AD 2008-14-07, Amendment 39-15602, are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding requirements in paragraph (h) of this
AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Norm Perenson,
Aerospace Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin No. NE-07-49,
dated September 20, 2007, is not mandatory, but has additional
information on this subject.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use Lycoming Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin No.
342F, dated June 4, 2010, to perform the actions required by this
AD.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (3) Contact Lycoming Engines, 652 Oliver Street, Williamsport,
PA 17701, or go to www.lycoming.textron.com for a copy of this
service information. You may review copies at the FAA, New England
Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 5, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-32467 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72581-72583]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28965]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0678; FRL-9903-33-Region-5]

Direct Final Approval of Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerator Negative Declaration for Designated Facilities and
Pollutants: Michigan and Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is notifying the public that we have received negative
declarations from Michigan and Wisconsin regarding Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) units within those states. The
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted its
negative declaration on August 9, 2013. The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) submitted its negative declaration on July 15,
2013. Each state notified EPA in its negative declaration letter that
there are no HMIWI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d)
and 129 of the Clean Air Act (Act) currently operating in its state.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective February 3, 2014,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 2, 2014. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2013-0678, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Toxics and Global Atmosphere
Section, Air Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Toxics and Global
Atmosphere Section, Air Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2013-0678. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Margaret Sieffert, Environmental
Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sieffert, Environmental
Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard (AT-18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. Final EPA Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 111(d) of the Act requires that EPA develop regulations
providing that states must submit to EPA plans establishing standards
of performance for certain existing sources of pollutants when a
standard of performance would apply to the existing source if it were a
new source, and if the pollutants are noncriteria pollutants (i.e.,
pollutants for which there is no national ambient air quality
standards) and are not on a list published under section 108 of the Act
or emitted from a source category regulated under section 112 of the
Act. Section 129 of the Act and 40 CFR part 60, Subpart B apply the
section 111(d) requirements to existing solid waste combustors,
including HMIWIs, and provide that EPA should include, as part of the
performance standards, emissions guidelines (EGs) that include the plan
elements required by section 129.
    EPA promulgated new source performance standards and EGs for HWIMIs
on September 15, 1997 and December 19, 1995, respectively (62 FR 48382,
60 FR 65414), and amended them most recently on April 4, 2011 (76 FR
18407). The standards and EGs are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts
Ec and Ce, respectively. Thus, states were required to develop plans
for existing HWIMIs, pursuant to sections 111(d) and 129 of the Act and
40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
    A HMIWI unit is defined in 40 CFR 60.51c as any device that
combusts any amount of hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste.
The designated facilities to which the EGs apply are existing HMIWI
units that: (1) commenced construction on or before June 20, 1996, or
for which a modification was commenced on or before March 16, 1998; or
(2) commenced construction after June 20, 1996 but no later than
December 1, 2008, or for which a modification commenced after March 16,
1998 but no later than April 6, 2010, with limited exceptions as
provided in paragraphs 40 CFR 60.32e(b) through (h).
    40 CFR part 60, subpart B contains general provisions applicable to
the

adoption and submittal of state plans for subject facilities under
sections 111(d) and 129 (111(d)/129 plan). 40 CFR part 62, subpart A
provides the procedural framework for the submission of the plans.
However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that, if there are no
existing sources of the designated pollutant in a state, the state may
submit a letter of certification to that effect (i.e., a negative
declaration) in lieu of a plan. The negative declaration exempts the
state from the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B that require the
submittal of a 111(d)/129 plan.
    On August 9, 2013, MDEQ submitted its HMIWI negative declaration,
in which it certifies that there are no HWIMI units currently operating
in Michigan. EPA received the negative declaration on August 16, 2013.
On July 15, 2013, WDNR submitted its HMIWI negative declaration, in
which it certifies that there are no HWIMI units currently operating in
Wisconsin. EPA received WDNR's negative declaration on July 23, 2013.

II. Final EPA Action

    In this direct final action, EPA is providing the public with
notice of, and amending 40 CFR part 62 to reflect, EPA's receipt of the
Michigan and Wisconsin negative declarations. EPA is publishing this
rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a non-
controversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in
the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to amend
40 CFR part 62 to reflect receipt of the negative declarations in the
event adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective
February 3, 2014 without further notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by January 2, 2014. If we receive such
comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by
publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action.
EPA then will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on
any part of this action and if that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not
receive any comments, this action will be effective February 3, 2014.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely notifies the public of EPA receipt of a negative declaration
from an air pollution control agency without any existing HMIWI units
in its state. This action imposes no requirements. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not
have tribal implications because it will 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,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely recognizes the negative declaration for existing
HMIWI units from the MDEQ and WDNR, and does not alter the relationship
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the
Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    With regard to negative declarations for designated facilities
received by EPA from states, EPA's role is to notify the public of the
receipt of such negative declarations and revise 40 CFR Part 62
accordingly. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing
requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS),
EPA has no authority to disapprove a section 111(d)/129 plan negative
declaration submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a section
111(d)/129 negative declaration submission, to use VCS in place of a
section 111(d)/129 negative declaration that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 3, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action approving Michigan's and Wisconsin's section 111(d)/129
negative declarations for HMIWI sources may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 8, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Subpart X is amended by adding new Sec.  62.5610 and a new
undesignated center heading to read as follows:

CONTROL OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM HOSPITAL/MEDICAL/INFECTIOUS WASTE
INCINERATORS

Sec.  62.5610  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    On August 9, 2013, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
submitted a negative declaration letter to EPA certifying that there
are no existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI)
units in the State of Michigan subject to the emissions guidelines at
40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce.

0
3. Subpart YY is amended by adding new Sec.  62.12320 and a new
undesignated center heading to read as follows:

CONTROL OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM HOSPITAL/MEDICAL/INFECTIOUS WASTE
INCINERATORS

Sec.  62.12320  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    On July 15, 2013, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
submitted a negative declaration letter to EPA certifying that there
are no existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI)
units in the State of Wisconsin subject to the emissions guidelines at
40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce.

[FR Doc. 2013-28965 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 2005 SUBJECT: Information Obtained from State Agencies on NO X Control Technologies for Diesel Internal Combustion Engines FROM: Bradley Nelson, Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc.

TO: Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group This memorandum summarizes the information obtained from State agencies concerning the reduction of NO X emissions from diesel fired internal combustion engines ( ICE). Several agencies were contacted about the types of control technologies that were used on permitted diesel engines from their State. The State agencies that were contacted included New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. The State of Washington was also contacted after some of the State contacts stated that a number of diesel engines had been permitted in that State within the last couple of years.

Information from State Agencies The EPA was notified that conEdison, Inc. had installed selective catalytic reduction ( SCR) control on 10 diesel fired engines in New York. Mike Jennings from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources Bureau was contacted to obtain additional information about these engines. Mr. Jennings stated he was unaware of any diesel fired engines that used SCR in the State of New York. He stated that he is currently working on new NO X regulations and had recently done an inventory of engines in the State. Current New York regulations require RACT, or Reasonably Available Control Technology on existing sources in areas that are not meeting national ambient air quality standards ( i. e., non attainment areas) for diesel engines. The State uses a $ 3,750 per ton cost effectiveness as the RACT limit, and the only technologies that were able to meet that cost criteria were: airto fuel ratio, timing retard, and ignition retard. The State currently uses the EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual for calculating cost effectiveness of control technologies for RACT. 2 The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality was contacted to find information on control technologies used by diesel fired engines. Randy Hamilton stated that he was unaware of any diesel engines in Texas that used add on control devices. He stated there were a few that had some combustion process modifications and some that added exhaust gas recirculation, but there were none that had SCR. He said that most diesel engines meet the State's NO X limit by using combustion control or taking a limit on the number of hours the engine can operate. Mr. Hamilton said that the State of Washington had permitted a number of diesel fired engines in 2001, and that I should contact someone from that agency.

For Massachusetts, Don Squires from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection was contacted for diesel engine information. He said that Massachusetts does not have many diesel fired engines, and none with any air pollution control devices. He said that the diesel fired engines in the State take a restriction on the number of hours that they can operate to meet any applicable State regulations.

Keith Pierce of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources was contacted to obtain information on control technologies used on diesel engines in Wisconsin. He stated that Wisconsin had never required SCR for NO X control for diesel engines.

Information from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources was obtained from Jay Hollingsworth. He said the State currently has three locations where SCR is used to reduce NO X emissions from diesel fired engines. Two of the sources are located at ski resorts, Killington and Okemo, and the other source is at Mill River Lumber. A summary of the diesel engines, NO X emission estimates, and cost information for each of these sites is provided in the following sections.

Okemo Mountain, Ludlow, Vermont: The Okemo site operates 25 diesel engine generators, however only one, a 1480 brake horsepower ( bhp) Caterpillar 3516 engine is equipped with a SCR system installed by the Miratech Corporation. Emissions of NO X from this engine were calculated based on the SCR manufacturer's guarantee of 1.6 g/ bhp hr. Based on 1,500 hours per year of operation and a diesel sulfur limit of 0.50 percent by weight, the NO X emissions from the engine were calculated to be 5.2 pounds per hour ( lbs/ hr) and 3.9 tons per year ( T/ yr). This represents an 85 percent reduction of NO X using the SCR technology, based on emission estimates without the SCR technology.

Killington Resort, Killington, Vermont: The Killington Resort operates a number of diesel fired engines used to make snow for skiing, however only one of the engines is equipped with a SCR installed by the RJM Corporation. The State estimates the NO X reduction from installing the SCR is approximately 90 percent with a cost effectiveness of $ 2,509 per ton of NO X removed. The State estimates the cost of the addition of SCR 3 to be $ 160,500 which includes $ 127,500 for the SCR, $ 3,000 for initial stack test, $ 20,000 for urea tank, and $ 10,000 labor to install. Additional indirect costs include $ 29,000 for urea, additional stack testing, and a fuel penalty ( approximately 2 to 4 percent) due to back pressure from the installation of the SCR.

Mill River Lumber, North Clarendon, Vermont: Mill River Lumber is a sawmill that operates two diesel engine generators at their facility. The facility added a more fuel efficient engine ( Caterpillar 3508B, 1,341 horsepower ( hp)) and installed SCR and an oxidation catalyst on a 1,023 hp Caterpillar 3412C. Based on a NO X control efficiency of 90 percent for the SCR, the NO X emissions from the engine were estimated to be 1.7 pounds per hour, which corresponds to approximately 0.75 g/ hp hr. The Caterpillar 3508B, which does not have any of add on control, has a NO X manufacturer's guarantee of 6.9 g/ hp hr.

At the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the contact was Naishadh Bhatt. He stated there were a number of diesel fired engines in Pennsylvania that had installed SCR for NO X control. He did not have any information on the number of units, but said he was currently working on putting together cost information on control devices for engines, but did not have any formal information to share at this time.

From the Washington Department of Ecology, Central Regional Office, Bob Swackhamer provided information on diesel engines in the State of Washington. He said that many engines were permitted in the year 2001 due to high wholesale electricity prices and outages in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the high demand for electrical generating sources, the State offered temporary operating permits to merchant power projects to meet demand for summer electrical use. Additional test data information on electric generating sites in Moses Lake were received through Greg Flibbert from a regional office in the State of Washington.

Ophir Substation, Okanogan, Washington: Only one generating plant, Ophir Substation, was permitted and built in the Central Region in 2001, but it no longer has a permit to operate due to changes in the energy market and internal disputes with the equipment owners. The Ophir Substation consisted of 16 Cummins Model QSK60 G6 diesel generators equipped with RJM SCR. Some of the engines were also equipped with CO catalyst. Test data from an emissions evaluation of two of the engines at the substation was provided by the State. Unit 5 is equipped with both a SCR and oxidation catalyst and averaged NO X concentrations of 684.4 ppm @ 15 percent O 2 at the inlet and 98.5 ppm @ 15 percent O 2 at the outlet for a removal efficiency of 85.9 percent. The CO concentrations were 126.7 ppm @ 15 percent O 2 at the inlet and 0.0 ppm @ 15 percent O 2 at the outlet for a removal efficiency of greater than 99.9 percent. Unit 6 is equipped with SCR and averaged NO X concentrations of 663.8 ppm @ 15 percent O 2 at the inlet and 50.6 ppm @ 15 percent O 2 at the outlet for a removal 4 efficiency of 92.4 percent. The CO concentrations were 63.8 ppm @ 15 percent O 2 at the inlet and 87.0 ppm @ 15 percent O 2 at the outlet for a removal efficiency of  36.9 percent. When comparing these two test results, the CO catalyst appears to reduce the effectiveness of the SCR for NO X, but reduces the CO emissions from the engine to minimal emissions.

Grant County Public Utility District No. 2, Moses Lake, Washington: This facility operates 20 Caterpillar Model 3516B diesel generators equipped with SCR control devices. Emissions data was collected in March 2003 on two of the engines using CEM analyzers and EPA methods. The average NO X concentrations from Engine 9 were 1981.6 ppm @ 5 percent O 2 at the inlet location, and 167.6 ppm @ 5 percent O 2 at the outlet, resulting in a removal efficiency of 91.5 percent. The average NO X concentrations from Engine 10 were 1991.9 ppm @ 5 percent O 2 at the inlet location, and 119.3 ppm @ 5 percent O 2 at the outlet, resulting in a removal efficiency of 94.0 percent. The average outlet CO concentrations for Engines 9 and 10 were 143.7 and 130.4 ppm @ 5 percent O 2 respectively. The average inlet CO concentrations for Engines 9 and 10 were 77.4 and 69.5 ppm @ 5 percent O 2 respectively.

Moses Lake Generating LLC, Moses Lake, Washington: This facility generates electricity using 26 Mitsubishi S16 dual fuel generator sets. Emissions tests were conducted on Engines 2, 19, 10, and 25, which were all equipped with SCR. During the tests conducted in May 2002 and September 2003, the engines were firing approximately 70 percent natural gas and 30 percent diesel fuel. The average outlet NO X results using EPA Method 7E from Engines 2 and 29 were 54.2 ppm and 69.5 ppm respectively. The average inlet and outlet NO X concentrations from Engine 10 were 834.4 ppm @ 5 percent O 2 and 122.7 ppm @ 5 percent O 2 respectively, which corresponds to a NO X removal efficiency of 85.3 percent. The average CO concentration for this engine was 59.3 ppm @ 5 percent O 2. The average NO X concentrations from Engine 25 were 272.4 ppm @ 5 percent O 2 at the inlet location and 118.1 ppm @ 5 percent O 2 at the outlet location, which corresponds to a NO X removal efficiency of 56.4 percent. The average CO concentration for this engine was 99.5 ppm @ 5 percent O 2.