§ 63.12 ......................... State authority and delegations ...................... Yes.

§ 63.13 ......................... Addresses ....................................................... Yes.

§ 63.14 ......................... Incorporation by reference .............................. Yes.

§ 63.15 ......................... Availability of information ................................ Yes.

3. Appendix A to Part 63 is proposed to be amended by adding, in numerical order, Method 323 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 63   Test Methods * * * * *

Method 323   Measurement of Formaldehyde Emissions from Natural Gas Fired Stationary Sources   Acetyl Acetone Derivitization Method 1.0 Introduction This method describes the sampling and analysis procedures of the acetyl acetone colorimetric method for measuring formaldehyde emissions in the exhaust of natural gas fired, stationary combustion sources. This method, which was prepared by the Gas Research Institute ( GRI), is based on the Chilled Impinger Train Method for Methanol, Acetone, Acetaldehyde, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and Formaldehyde ( Technical Bulletin No. 684) developed and published by the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. ( NCASI). 1 However, this method has been prepared specifically for formaldehyde and does not include specifications ( e. g., equipment and supplies) and procedures ( e. g., sampling and analytical) for methanol, acetone, acetaldehyde, and methyl ethyl ketone. To obtain reliable results, persons using this method should have a thorough knowledge of at least Methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

1.1 Scope and Application 1.1.1 Analytes. The only analyte measured by this method is formaldehyde ( CAS Number 50   00   0). 1.1.2 Applicability. This method is for analyzing formaldehyde emissions from uncontrolled and controlled natural gas fired, stationary combustion sources. 1.1.3 Data Quality Objectives. If you adhere to the quality control and quality assurance requirements of this method, then you and future users of your data will be able to assess the quality of the data you obtain and estimate the uncertainty in the measurements.

2.0 Summary of Method An emission sample from the combustion exhaust is drawn through a midget impinger train containing chilled reagent water to absorb formaldehyde. The formaldehyde concentration in the impinger is determined by reaction with acetyl acetone to form a colored derivative which is measured colorimetrically.

3.0 Definitions [ Reserved]

4.0 Interferences The presence of acetaldehyde, amines, polymers of formaldehyde, periodate, and sulfites can cause interferences with the acetyl acetone procedure which is used to determine the formaldehyde concentration. However, based on experience gained from extensive testing of natural gas fired combustion sources using FTIR to measure a variety of compounds, GRI expects only acetaldehyde to be potentially present when combusting natural gas. Acetaldehyde has been reported to be a significant interferent only when present at concentrations above 50 ppm. 4 However, GRI reports that the concentration of acetaldehyde from gas fired sources is very low ( typically below the FTIR detection limit of around 0.5 ppmv); therefore, the potential positive bias due to acetaldehyde interference is expected to be negligible. 5.0 Safety 5.1 Prior to applying the method in the field, a site specific Health and Safety Plan should be prepared. General safety precautions include the use of steel toed boots, safety glasses, hard hats, and work gloves. In certain cases, facility policy may require the use of fire resistant clothing while on site. Since the method involves testing at high temperature sampling locations, precautions must be taken to limit the potential for exposure to high temperature gases and surfaces while inserting or removing the sample probe. In warm locations, precautions must also be taken to avoid dehydration. 5.2 Potential chemical hazards associated with sampling include formaldehyde, nitrogen oxides ( NOX), and carbon monoxide ( CO). Formalin solution, used for field spiking, is an aqueous solution containing formaldehyde and methanol. Formaldehyde is a skin, eye, and respiratory irritant and a carcinogen, and should be handled accordingly. Eye and skin contact and inhalation of formaldehyde vapors should be avoided. Natural gas fired combustion sources can potentially emit CO at toxic concentrations. Care should be taken to minimize exposure to the sample gas while inserting or removing the sample probe. If the work area is enclosed, personal CO monitors should be used to insure that the concentration of CO in the work area is maintained at safe levels. 5.3 Potential chemical hazards associated with the analytical procedures include acetyl acetone and glacial acetic acid. Acetyl acetone is an irritant to the skin and respiratory system, as well as being moderately toxic. Glacial acetic acid is highly VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 47 Jan 13, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14JAP2. SGM 14JAP2 1926 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2003 / Proposed Rules corrosive and is an irritant to the skin, eyes, and respiratory system. Eye and skin contact and inhalation of vapors should be avoided. Acetyl acetone and glacial acetic acid have flash points of 41 ° C ( 105.8 ° F) and 43 ° C ( 109.4 ° F), respectively. Exposure to heat or flame should be avoided.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies 6.1 Sampling Probe. Quartz glass probe with stainless steel sheath or stainless steel probe. 6.2 Teflon Tubing. Teflon tubing to connect the sample probe to the impinger train. A heated sample line is not needed since the sample transfer system is rinsed to recover condensed formaldehyde and the rinsate combined with the impinger contents prior to sample analysis. 6.3 Midget Impingers. Three midget impingers are required for sample collection. The first impinger serves as a moisture knockout, the second impinger contains 20 mL of reagent water, and the third impinger contains silica gel to remove residual moisture from the sample prior to the dry gas meter. 6.4 Vacuum Pump. Vacuum pump capable of delivering a controlled extraction flow rate between 0.2 and 0.4 L/ min. 6.5 Flow Measurement Device. A rotameter or other flow measurement device to indicate consistent sample flow. 6.6 Dry Gas Meter. A dry gas meter is used to measure the total sample volume collected. The dry gas meter must be sufficiently accurate to measure the sample volume to within 2 percent, calibrated at the selected flow rate and conditions actually encountered during sampling, and equipped with a temperature sensor ( dial thermometer, or equivalent) capable of measuring temperature accurately to within 3 ° C ( 5.4 ° F). 6.7 Spectrophotometer. A spectrophotometer is required for formaldehyde analysis, and must be capable of measuring absorbance at 412 nm.

7.0 Reagents and Standards 7.1 Sampling Reagents 7.1.1 Reagent water. Deionized, distilled, organic free water. This water is used as the capture solution, for rinsing the sample probe, sample line, and impingers at the completion of the sampling run, in reagent dilutions, and in blanks. 7.1.2 Ice. Ice is necessary to pack around the impingers during sampling in order to keep the impingers cold. Ice is also needed for sample transport and storage.

7.2 Analysis 7.2.1 Acetyl acetone Reagent. Prepare the acetyl acetone reagent by dissolving 15.4 g of ammonium acetate in 50 mL of reagent water in a 100 mL volumetric flask. To this solution, add 0.20 mL of acetyl acetone and 0.30 mL of glacial acetic acid. Mix the solution thoroughly, then dilute to 100 mL with reagent water. The solution can be stored in a brown glass bottle in the refrigerator, and is stable for at least two weeks. 7.2.2 Formaldehyde. Reagent grade. 7.2.3 Ammonium Acetate. 7.2.4 Glacial Acetic Acid.

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, Storage, and Transport 8.1 Pre test 8.1.1 Collect information about the site characteristics such as exhaust pipe diameter, gas flow rates, port location, access to ports, and safety requirements during a pre test site survey. You should then decide the sample collection period per run and the target sample flow rate based on your best estimate of the formaldehyde concentration likely to be present. You want to assure that sufficient formaldehyde is captured in the impinger solution so that it can be measured precisely by the spectrophotometer. You may use Equation 323   1 to design your test program. As a guideline for optimum performance, if you can, design your test so that the liquid concentration ( Cl) is approximately 10 times the assumed spectrophotometer detection limit of 0.2 ppmw. However, since actual detection limits are instrument specific, we also suggest that you confirm that the laboratory equipment can meet or exceed this detection limit. 8.1.2 Prepare and then weigh the midget impingers prior to configuring the sampling train. The first impinger is initially dry. The second impinger contains 20 mL of reagent water, and the third impinger contains silica gel that is added before weighing the impinger. Each prepared impinger is weighed and the pre sampling weight is recorded to the nearest 0.5 gm. 8.1.3 Assemble the sampling train ( see Figure 1). Ice is packed around the impingers in order to keep them cold during sample collection. A small amount of water may be added to the ice to improve thermal transfer. 8.1.4 Perform a sampling system leakcheck ( from the probe tip to the pump outlet) as follows: Connect a rotameter to the outlet of the pump. Close off the inlet to the probe and observe the leak rate. The leak rate must be less than 2 percent of the planned sampling rate of 0.2 or 0.4 L/ min. 8.1.5 Source gas temperature and static pressure should also be considered prior to field sampling to ensure adequate safety precautions during sampling.

8.2 Sample Collection 8.2.1 Set the sample flow rate between 0.2   0.4 L/ min, depending upon the anticipated concentration of formaldehyde in the engine exhaust. ( You may have to refer to published data 5 6 for anticipated concentration levels.) If no information is available for the anticipated levels of formaldehyde, use the higher sampling rate of 0.4 L/ min. 8.2.2 Record the sampling flow rate every 5   10 minutes during the sample collection period. 8.2.3 Monitor the amount of ice surrounding the impingers and add ice as necessary to maintain the proper impinger temperature. Remove excess water as needed to maintain an adequate amount of ice. 8.2.4 Record measured leak rate, beginning and ending times and dry gas meter readings for each sampling run, impinger weights before and after sampling, and sampling flow rates and dry gas meter exhaust temperature every 5   10 minutes during the run, in a signed and dated notebook. 8.2.5 If possible, monitor and record the fuel flow rate to the engine and the exhaust oxygen concentration during the sampling period. This data can be used to estimate the engine exhaust flow rate based on the Method 19 approach. This approach, if accurate fuel flow rates can be determined, is preferred for reciprocating IC engine exhaust flow rate estimation due to the pulsating nature of the engine exhaust. The F Factor procedures described in Method 19 may be used based on measurement of fuel flow rate and exhaust oxygen concentration. One example equation is Equation 323   2. 8.3 Post test. Perform a sampling system leak check ( from the probe tip to pump outlet). Connect a rotameter to the outlet of the pump. Close off the inlet to the probe and observe the leak rate. The leak rate must be less than 2 percent of the sampling rate. Weigh and record each impinger immediately after sampling to determine the moisture weight gain. The impinger weights are measured before transferring the impinger contents, and before rinsing the sample probe and sample line. The moisture content of the exhaust gas is determined by measuring the weight gain of the impinger solutions and volume of gas sampled as described in Method 4. Rinse the sample probe and sample line with reagent water. Transfer the impinger catch to an amber 40 mL VOA bottle with a Teflon lined cap. If there is a small amount of liquid in the dropout impinger (< 10 mL), the impinger catches can be combined in one 40 mL VOA bottle. If there is a larger amount of liquid in the dropout impinger, use a larger VOA bottle to combine the impinger catches. Rinse the impingers and combine the rinsate from the sample probe, sample line, and impingers with the impinger catch. In general, combined rinse volumes should not exceed 10 mL. The volume of the rinses during sample recovery should not be excessive as this may result in your having to use a larger VOA bottle. This in turn would raise the detection limit of the method since after combining the rinses with the impinger catches in the VOA bottle, the bottle should be filled with reagent water to eliminate the headspace in the sample vial. Keep the sample bottles over ice until analyzed on site or received at the laboratory. Samples should be analyzed as soon as possible to minimize possible sample degradation. Based on a limited number of previous analyses, samples held in refrigerated conditions showed some sample degradation over time.

8.4 Quality Control Samples 8.4.1 Field Duplicates. During at least one run, a pair of samples should be collected concurrently and analyzed as separate samples. Results of the field duplicate samples should be identified and reported with the sample results. The percent difference in exhaust ( stack) concentration indicated by field duplicates should be within 20 percent of their mean concentration. Data are to be flagged as suspect if the duplicates do not meet the acceptance criteria.

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 47 Jan 13, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14JAP2. SGM 14JAP2 1927 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2003 / Proposed Rules 8.4.2 Spiked Samples. An aliquot of one sample from each source sample set should be spiked at 2 to 3 times the formaldehyde level found in the unspiked sample. It is also recommended that a second aliquot of the same sample be spiked at around half the level of the first spike; however, the second spike is not mandatory. The results are acceptable if the measured spike recovery is 80 to 120 percent. Use Equation 323   4. Data are to be flagged as suspect if the spike recovery do not meet the acceptance criteria. 8.4.3 Field Blank. A field blank consisting of reagent water placed in a clean impinger train, taken to the test site but not sampled, then recovered and analyzed in the same manner as the other samples, should be collected with each set of source samples. The field blank results should be less than 50 percent of the lowest calibration standard used in the sample analysis. If this criteria is not met, the data should be flagged as suspect.

9.0 Quality Control QA/ QC Specification Acceptance criteria Frequency Corrective action Leak check   Sections 8.1.4, 8.3 ... < 2% of Sampling rate ................... Pre and Post sampling ................ Pre sampling: Repair leak and recheck Post sampling: Flag data and repeat run if for regulatory compliance. Sample flow rate ............................ Between 0.2 and 0.4 L/ min .......... Throughout sampling .................... Adjust. VOA vial headspace ...................... No headspace .............................. After sample recovery .................. Flag data. Sample preservation ...................... Maintain on ice ............................. After sample recovery .................. Flag data. Sample hold time ........................... 14 day maximum .......................... After sample recovery .................. Flag data. Field Duplicates   Section 8.4.1 ..... Within 20% of mean of original and duplicate sample. One duplicate per source sample set. Flag data.

Spiked Sample   Section 8.4.2 ...... Recovery between 80 and 120% One spike per source sample set Flag data. Field Blank   Section 8.4.3 ............ < 50% of the lowest calibration standard. One blank per source sample set Flag data.

Calibration Linearity   Section 10.1 Correlation coefficient of 0.99 or higher. Per source sample set ................. Repeat calibration procedures.

Calibration Check Standard   Section 10.3. Within 10% of theoretical value .... One calibration check per source sample set. Repeat check, remake standard and repeat, repeat calibration. Lab Duplicates   Section 11.2.1 .... Within 10% of mean of original and duplicate sample analysis. One duplicate per 10 samples ..... Flag data.

Analytical Blanks   Section 11.2.2 < 50% of the lowest calibration standard. One blank per source sample set Clean glassware/ analytical equipment and repeat.

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 10.1 Spectrophotometer Calibration. Prepare a stock solution of 10 ppm formaldehyde. Prepare a series of calibration standards from the stock solution by adding 0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.7, 1.0, and 1.5 mL of stock solution ( corresponding to 0, 1.0, 3.0, 7.0, 10.0, and 15.0 µ g formaldehyde, respectively) to screw capped vials. Adjust each vial's volume to 2.0 mL with reagent water. Add 2.0 mL of acetyl acetone reagent, thoroughly mix the solution, and place the vials in a water bath ( or heating block) at 60 ° C for 10 minutes. Remove the vials and allow to cool to room temperature. Transfer each solution to a cuvette and measure the absorbance at 412 nm using the spectrophotometer. Develop a calibration curve from the analytical results of these standards. The acceptance criteria for the spectrophotometer calibration is a correlation coefficient of 0.99 or higher. If this criteria is not met, the calibration procedures should be repeated. 10.2 Spectrophotometer Zero. The spectrophotometer should be zeroed with reagent water when analyzing each set of samples. 10.3   Calibration Checks. Calibration checks consisting of analyzing a standard separate from the calibration standards must be performed with each set of samples. The calibration check standard should not be prepared from the calibration stock solution. The result of the check standard must be within 10 percent of the theoretical value to be acceptable. If the acceptance criteria are not met, the standard must be reanalyzed. If still unacceptable, a new calibration curve must be prepared using freshly prepared standards. 11.0 Analytical Procedure 11.1 Sample Analysis. A 2.0 mL aliquot of the impinger catch/ rinsate is transferred to a screw capped vial. Two mL of the acetyl acetone reagent are added and the solution is thoroughly mixed. Once mixed, the vial is placed in a water bath ( or heating block) at 60 ° C for 10 minutes. Remove the vial and allow to cool to room temperature. Transfer the solution to a cuvette and measure the absorbance using the spectrophotometer at 412 nm. The quantity of formaldehyde present is determined by comparing the sample response to the calibration curve. Use Equation 323   5. If the sample response is out of the calibration range, the sample must be diluted and reanalyzed. Such dilutions must be performed on another aliquot of the original sample before the addition of the acetyl acetone reagent. The full procedure is repeated with the diluted sample.

11.2 Analytical Quality Control 11.2.1 Laboratory Duplicates. Two aliquots of one sample from each source sample set should be prepared and analyzed ( with a minimum of one pair of aliquots for every 10 samples). The percent difference between aliquot analysis should be within 10 percent of their mean. Use Equation 323   3. Data are flagged if the laboratory duplicates do not meet this criteria. 11.2.2 Analytical blanks. Blank samples ( reagent water) should be incorporated into each sample set to evaluate the possible presence of any cross contamination. The acceptance criteria for the analytical blank is less than 50 percent of the lowest calibration standard. If the analytical blank does not meet this criteria, the glassware/ analytical equipment should be cleaned and the analytical blank repeated.

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis 12.1 Nomenclature A = measured absorbance of 2 mL aliquot B = estimated sampling rate, lpm Cl = target concentration in liquid, ppmw D = estimated stack formaldehyde concentration ( ppmv) E = estimated liquid volume, normally 40, mL ( the size of the VOA used) cform = formaldehyde concentration in gas stream, ppmvd cform @ 15% 02 = formaldehyde concentration in gas stream corrected to 15% oxygen, ppmvd Csm = measured concentration of formaldehyde in the spiked aliquot Cu = measured concentration of formaldehyde in the unspiked aliquot of the same sample Cs = calculated concentration of formaldehyde spiking solution added to the spiked aliquot df = dilution factor, 1 unless dilution of the sample was needed to reduce the absorbance into the calibration range Fd = dry basis F factor from Method 19, dscf per million btu GCVg = Gross calorific value ( or higher heating value), btu per scf Kc = spectrophotometer calibration factor, slope of the least square regression line ( Note: Most spreadsheets are capable of calculating a least squares line.) K1 = 0.3855 ° K/ mm Hg for metric units, ( 17.65 ° R/ in. Hg for English units.) MW = molecular weight, 30 g/ g mole, for formaldehyde VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 47 Jan 13, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14JAP2. SGM 14JAP2 1928 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2003 / Proposed Rules 24.05 = mole specific volume constant, liters per g mole m = mass of formaldehyde in liquid sample, mg Pstd = Standard pressure, 760 mm Hg ( 29.92 in. Hg) Pbar = Barometric pressure, mm Hg ( in. Hg) PD = Percent Difference Qe = exhaust flow rate, dscf per minute Qg = natural gas fuel flow rate, scf per minute Tm = Average DGM absolute temperature, ° K ( ° R). Tstd = Standard absolute temperature, 293 ° K ( 528 ° R). t = sample time ( minutes) Vm = Dry gas volume as measured by the DGM, dcm ( dcf). Vm( std) = Dry gas volume measured by the DGM, corrected to standard conditions, dscm ( dscf). Vt = actual total volume of impinger catch/ rinsate, mL Va = volume ( 2.0) of aliquot analyzed, mL X1 = first value X2 = second value O2d = oxygen concentration measured, percent by volume, dry basis % R = percent recovery of spike Zu = volume fraction of unspiked ( native) sample contained in the final spiked aliquot [ e. g., Vu/( Vu + Vs), where Vu + Vs should = 2.0 mL ] Zs = volume fraction of spike solution contained in the final spiked aliquot [ e. g., Vs/( Vu + Vs)] R = 0.02405 dscm per g mole, for metric units Y = Dry Gas Meter calibration factor 12.2 Pretest Design C B t D E l =         30 24 05 1 . Eq. 323

12.3 Exhaust Flow Rate Q F Q GCV O Eq d g g d =               10 20 9 20 9 2 6 2 .

. . 323

12.4 Percent Difference.   ( Applicable to Field and Lab Duplicates)

PD X X X X Eq =   ( ) +

          1 2 1 2 2 100 3 323 . 12.5 Percent Recovery of Spike % . R C ZC Z C Eq sm u u s s =   ( )  323 100 4 12.6 Mass of Formaldehyde in Liquid Sample m KAF V V Eq c t a =             . 323 5 12.7 Dry Sample Gas Volume, Corrected to Standard Conditions V V YT P T P Eq YV P T m std m std bar m std m bar m ( ) . =( ) ( ) 323 6 = Ki 12.8 Formaldehyde Concentration in Gas Stream c R MW m V Eq form m std =                         × ( ) ( ) . 1 1 106 g 1000 mg ppm 323 7 12.9 Formaldehyde Concentration, Corrected to 15% Oxygen c c O Eq form O form d @ ( . )

. . 15% 2 2 20 9 15 20 9 =       ( ) 323 8 13.0 Method Performance 13.1 Precision. Based on a Method 301 validation using quad train arrangement with post sampling spiking study of the method at a natural gas fired IC engine, the relative standard deviation of six pairs of unspiked samples was 11.2 percent at a mean stack gas concentration of 16.7 ppmvd. 13.2 Bias. No bias correction is allowed. The single Method 301 validation study of the method at a natural gas fired IC engine, indicated a bias correction factor of 0.91 for that set of data. An earlier spiking study got similar average percent spike recovery when spiking into a blank sample. This data set is too limited to justify using a bias correction factor for future tests at other sources. 13.3 Range. The range of this method for formaldehyde is 0.2 to 7.5 ppmw in the liquid phase. ( This corresponds to a range of 0.27 to 10 ppmv in the engine exhaust if sampling at a rate of 0.4 Lpm for 60 minutes and using a 40 mL VOA bottle.) If the liquid sample concentration is above this range, perform the appropriate dilution for accurate measurement. Any dilutions must be taken from new aliquots of the original sample before reanalysis. 13.4 Sample Stability. Based on a sample stability study conducted in conjunction with the method validation, sample degradation for 7 and 14 day hold times does not exceed 2.3 and 4.6 percent, respectively, based on a 95 percent level of confidence. Therefore, the recommended maximum sample holding time for the underivatized impinger catch/ rinsate is 14 days, where projected sample degradation is below 5 percent.

14.0 Pollution Prevention Sample gas from the combustion source exhaust is vented to the atmosphere after passing through the chilled impinger sampling train. Reagent solutions and samples should be collected for disposal as aqueous waste.

15.0 Waste Management Standards of formaldehyde and the analytical reagents should be handled according to the Material Safety Data Sheets.

16.0 References 1 National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., `` Volatile Organic Emissions from Pulp and Paper Mill Sources, Part X   Test Methods, Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Procedures, and Data Analysis Protocols,'' Technical Bulletin No. 684, December 1994. 2 National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., `` Field Validation of a Source Sampling Method for Formaldehyde, Methanol, and Phenol at Wood Products Mills,'' 1997 TAPPI International Environmental Conference. 3 Roy F. Weston, Inc., `` Formaldehyde Sampling Method Field Evaluation and Emission Test Report for Georgia Pacific Resins, Inc., Russellville, South Carolina,'' August 1996. 4 Hoechst Celanese Method CL 8   4, `` Standard Test Method for Free Formaldehyde in Air Using Acetyl acetone,'' Revision 0, September 1986. 5 Shareef, G. S., et al. `` Measurement of Air Toxic Emissions from Natural Gas Fired Internal Combustion Engines at Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities.'' Report No. GRI   96/ 0009.1, Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, February 1996. 6 Gundappa, M., et al. `` Characteristics of Formaldehyde Emissions from Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines in Gas Transmission. Volume I: Phase I Predictive Model for Estimating Formaldehyde Emissions from 2   Stroke Engines.'' Report No. GRI   97/ 0376.1, Gas VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 47 Jan 13, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14JAP2. SGM 14JAP2 EP14JA03.001</ MATH> EP14JA03.002</ MATH> EP14JA03.003</ MATH> EP14JA03.004</ MATH> EP14JA03.005</ MATH> EP14JA03.007</ MATH> EP14JA03.008</ MATH> EP14JA03.009</ MATH> 1929 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2003 / Proposed Rules Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, September 1997. 17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data BILLING CODE 6560   50   P [ FR Doc. 03   86 Filed 1   13   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   C VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 47 Jan 13, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14JAP2. SGM 14JAP2 EP14JA03.010</ GPH>


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52275-52276]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20788]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2013-0624; FRL 9915-98-Region 6]

Texas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Texas has applied to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous
waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
EPA proposes to grant Final authorization to the State of Texas. In the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is

authorizing the changes by direct final rule. EPA did not make a
proposal prior to the direct final rule because we believe this action
is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have
explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the
direct final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this
authorization during the comment period, the direct final rule will
become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take
further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose
this action, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not
take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final
rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for
comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this
time.

DATES: Send your written comments by October 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization Coordinator, (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the
materials submitted by the State of Texas during normal business hours
at the following locations: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, (TCEQ) 12100 Park S. Circle, and Austin, Texas
78753-3087,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please follow the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule
which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the
direct final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 5, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-20788 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1346-1349]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33318]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1279; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-258-AD;
Amendment 39-16568; AD 2010-02-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300, A300-600, A310,
A318, A319, A320, A321, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, A340-
600, and A380-800 Series Airplanes; and Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-
203, A330-223, A330-243 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document publishes in the Federal Register an amendment
adopting airworthiness directive (AD) 2010-02-05 that was sent
previously by individual notices to the known U.S. owners and operators
of affected airplanes identified above. This AD requires modifying the
flight deck door. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that
certain equipment of the flight deck door is defective. We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of this equipment, which could jeopardize
flight safety.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 18, 2011 to all persons except
those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by AD 2010-02-
05, which contained the requirements of this amendment.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 18,
2011.
    We must receive comments on this AD by February 24, 2011.

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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD for Model A300, A300-
600, and A310 series airplanes, contact Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness
Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France;
telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    For service information identified in this AD for Model A318, A319,
A320, and A321 series airplanes, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--
EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France;
telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    For service information identified in this AD for Model A330-300,
A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, A340-600 series airplanes, and Model
A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-243 airplanes, 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; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    For service information identified in this AD for Model A380-800
series airplanes, contact Airbus SAS--EANA (Airworthiness Office); 1
Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33
562 110 253; Fax +33 562 110 307; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.

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 street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 8, 2010, we issued AD 2010-02-05,
which applies to certain Airbus Model A300, A300-600, A310, A318, A319,
A320, A321, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, A340-600, and A380-
800 series airplanes; and Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223,
A330-243 airplanes.

Background

    We have received a report indicating that certain equipment of the
flight deck door is defective. This condition, if not corrected, could
jeopardize flight safety.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed the Airbus service bulletins identified in the
following table.

                        Airbus Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Airbus Service Bulletin--                     Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300-25-0486, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
A300-25-6218, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
A310-25-2206, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
A320-25-1666, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
A330-25-3424, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
A340-25-4326, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
A340-25-5169, including Appendix..  September 18, 2009.
A380-25-8058, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The service bulletins describe procedures for modifying the flight deck
door.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of this AD

    Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop
on other airplanes of the same type design, we issued AD 2010-02-05 to
prevent failure of certain equipment of the flight deck door, which
could jeopardize flight safety. The AD requires modifying the flight
deck door.
    We have determined that notice and opportunity for prior public
comment on AD 2010-02-05 were contrary to the public interest, and good
cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual
notices issued on January 8, 2010, to the known U.S. owners and
operators of affected Airbus Model A300, A300-600, A310, A318, A319,
A320, A321, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, A340-600, and A380-
800 series airplanes; and Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223,
A330-243 airplanes. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby
published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to
all persons.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2010-1279; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-258-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2010-02-05 Airbus: Amendment 39-16568. Docket No. FAA-2010-1279;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-258-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective January 18, 2011, to all persons
except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by AD
2010-02-05, issued on January 8, 2010, which contained the
requirements of this amendment.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4),
and (c)(5) of this AD.
    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B4-2C, B2K-3C, B4-103, B2-203, B4-
203, B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-
622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and A310-203, -204, -221, -
222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; all manufacturer serial
numbers on which Airbus modification 12558, 12640, or 12715 has been
embodied in production, or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-25-
2143, A300-25-6169, A310-25-2147, A300-25-0472, or A300-25-6173 has
been embodied in service.
    (2) Model A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, A318-122, A319-111,
A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-
133, A320-111, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-231, A320-232,
A320-233, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-
213, A321-231 and A32-232 airplanes; all manufacturer serial numbers
on which Airbus modification 32088 has been embodied in production,
or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1287, A320-25-1305, or
A320-25-1282 has been embodied in service; except those on which
Airbus modification 150816 has been embodied in production.
    (3) Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-243,
A330-301, A330-302, A330-303, A330-321, A330-322, A330-323, A330-
341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes; all manufacturer serial
numbers on which Airbus modification 50014 has been embodied in
production, or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3161 or
A330-25-3159 has been embodied in service; except those on which
Airbus modification 200446 has been embodied in production.
    (4) Model 340-211, A340-212, A340-213, A340-311, A340-312, A340-
313, A340-541, and A340-642 airplanes; all manufacturer serial
numbers on which Airbus modification 50014 has been embodied in
production, or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4181 or
A340-25-4178 has been embodied in service; except those on which
Airbus modification 200446 has been embodied in production.
    (5) Model A380-841, A380-842, and A380-861 airplanes, all
manufacturer serial numbers except those on which Airbus
modification 69512 has been embodied in production.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25:
Equipment/furnishings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by a report indicating that certain
equipment on the flight deck door is defective. We are issuing this
AD to prevent failure of this equipment, which could jeopardize
flight safety.

Compliance

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

Modification

    (g) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the cockpit door, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin
identified in Table 1 of this AD.

                                           Table 1--Service Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Use Airbus Service Bulletin--
             For model--                                                                Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300 series airplanes................  A300-25-0486, including        September 21, 2009.
                                        Appendix.
A300-600 series airplanes............  A300-25-6218, including        September 21, 2009.
                                        Appendix.
A310 series airplanes................  A310-25-2206, including        September 21, 2009.
                                        Appendix.
A318, A319, A320, and A321 series      A320-25-1666, including        September 21, 2009.
 airplanes.                             Appendix.
A330-200 and -300 series airplanes...  A330-25-3424, including        September 21, 2009.
                                        Appendix.
A340-200 and -300 series airplanes...  A340-25-4326, including        September 21, 2009.
                                        Appendix.
A340-500 and -600 series airplanes...  A340-25-5169, including        September 18, 2009.
                                        Appendix.
A380-800 series airplanes............  A380-25-8058, including        September 21, 2009.
                                        Appendix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim
Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use the service information contained in Table 2 of
this AD, as applicable, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.

               Table 2--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Airbus Service Bulletin--                     Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300-25-0486, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
A300-25-6218, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
A310-25-2206, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
A320-25-1666, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
A330-25-3424, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
A340-25-4326, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
A340-25-5169, including Appendix..  September 18, 2009.
A380-25-8058, including Appendix..  September 21, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information contained in
Table 2 of this AD under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) Use the contact information specified in paragraphs
(i)(2)(i), (i)(2)(ii), (i)(2)(iii), and (i)(2)(iv), as applicable,
for service information identified in this AD.
    (i) For Model A300, A300-600, and A310 series airplanes, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (ii) For Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (iii) For Model A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, A340-600
series airplanes, and Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223,
A330-243 airplanes, 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; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (iv) For Model A380-800 series airplanes, contact Airbus SAS--
EANA (Airworthiness Office); 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 562 110 253; Fax +33 562 110
307; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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 Renton, Washington, on December 14, 2010.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-33318 Filed 1-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19009-19012]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07569]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0413; FRL-9909-10-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or
revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are promulgated,
the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The plan is required to
address basic program elements, including, but not limited to
regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and
adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure
requirements. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has made a submittal
addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead (Pb)
NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0413. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Knapp,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of SIP Revision

    On July 16, 2013 (78 FR 42482), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proposing
approval of Pennsylvania's September 24, 2012 SIP submittal to satisfy
several requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of the following
infrastructure elements: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I),
(D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and
(M). The NPR does not include section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to
the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA,
since this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year
submission deadline of section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a
separate process. EPA is taking separate action on the portion of
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to CAA section 128 (State Boards).
    The rationale supporting EPA's proposed action, including the scope
of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in the NPR and the
technical support document (TSD) accompanying the NPR and will not be
restated here. The TSD is available online at www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0413. On August 20, 2013, EPA
received public comments on its July 16, 2013 NPR from the Berks County
Commissioners (referred to herein as the commenter). A summary of the
comments submitted and EPA's responses are provided in section II of
this action.

II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Comment: The commenter has raised several concerns related to lead
monitoring and permitting in Berks County, Pennsylvania near the Exide
Technologies secondary lead smelter facility (Exide). The commenter
does not believe that EPA should approve the lead infrastructure SIP
submitted by the Commonwealth for the 2008 lead NAAQS for several
reasons, most of which are related to the commenter's concerns about
the adequacy of the lead monitoring network and relate to the
commenter's interpretation of the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B)
of the CAA.
    First, the commenter contends that the existing network being used
by the Commonwealth is not adequate and does not meet applicable EPA
guidance (EPA-454/R-92-009) and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D.
Specifically, the commenter contends that the two

monitoring stations (Laureldale South and Laureldale North) being used
by the Commonwealth to assess lead NAAQS compliance in the area are not
located at points of maximum ambient concentration and asserts the
Pennsylvania monitors must be located at the point of maximum
concentration.
    Additionally, the commenter states other lead monitors in the area
show higher concentrations of lead. The commenter states that the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) refused to
consider voluminous monitoring station data demonstrating more
significant nonattainment than at the PADEP monitors. The commenter
believes these monitors, known as the St. Mike's monitors, operated and
collected data until at least April 2013.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter regarding the adequacy
of Pennsylvania's lead monitoring network. The Laureldale South lead
monitor (AQS ID 42-011-0717) was established January 1, 1976 and has
been in continual operation since that date. The monitor has been
effective in identifying violations of the Pb NAAQS as recently as
January 2013. Additionally, collocated monitors were established at
Laureldale North (AQS ID 42-011-0020) on January 1, 2010 to comply with
the November 2008 lead NAAQS.\1\ The monitors at Laureldale North have
also been effective in identifying violations of the lead NAAQS as
recently as December 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA issued a final rule on November 12, 2008 that
revised the NAAQS for lead and associated ambient air lead
monitoring requirements (73 FR 66964, codified at 40 CFR part 58).
As part of the lead monitoring requirements, monitoring agencies are
required to monitor ambient air near lead sources which are expected
to or have been shown to have a potential to contribute to a 3-month
average lead concentration in ambient air in excess of the level of
the NAAQS. At a minimum, 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D requires
monitoring agencies to monitor near non-airport lead sources that
emit 0.50 ton per year (tpy) or more into the ambient air.
Pennsylvania's monitors at Laureldale South and Laureldale North
monitor near a lead source (Exide) that emits or has emitted over
0.50 tpy or more of lead, and the monitors meet the EPA's monitor
requirements from the 2008 rule and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4.5(a) of Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 provides for siting
of monitors where lead concentrations from all sources are expected to
be at the maximum taking into account logistics and the potential for
population exposure. PADEP has effectively deployed monitors in
locations that are both within the bounds of the 2008 rule and 40 CFR
part 58 Appendix D considering important factors such as logistics,
while still identifying local NAAQS violations.
    Prior to deploying the Laureldale North monitors, PADEP submitted a
modeling study and conducted site visits with EPA. PADEP evaluated the
location of the St. Mike's monitors during this period but concluded
that the existing electrical power infrastructure at the St. Mike's
monitoring site was insufficient to support and maintain appropriate
state-run monitors in addition to the existing St. Mike's monitors
operated and maintained by Exide at the St. Mike's monitor locations.
During PADEP's study, PADEP concluded it would need additional
infrastructure including a new transformer and additional power poles
to add monitors at the St. Mike's location, which was a logistical
impediment to locating any monitor at these locations given the
additional financial costs of using these sites.
    PADEP selected the Laureldale North site because it was
logistically feasible; analysis indicated it would monitor levels above
the NAAQS; and it met siting requirements of CFR part 58 appendix D.
Subsequently, the Laureldale North site was properly sited and has
recorded monitored violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS with appropriately
quality assured and quality controlled data in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. Since this location along with Laureldale South has recorded
violations of the NAAQS, these sites may need to be maintained for
decades after the area reaches attainment.
    The current location of the monitors (Laureldale North and South)
was approved by EPA based on the modeling study in conjunction with 40
CFR part 58 Appendix D paragraph 4.5(a), which provides in part that
many factors like logistics are considered when deploying any ambient
air monitor other than simply the modeled maximum concentration. Such
factors include, but are not limited to, access, leasing agreements,
accessibility to electricity, costs and worker safety. PADEP's
conclusions regarding appropriate monitors for the 2008 lead NAAQS was
reasonable based on the factors PADEP considered, including logistics.
EPA believes Pennsylvania has valid concerns regarding logistics and
resources with adding additional monitors (or relocating monitors) in
this area (including at the St. Mike's locations). EPA has approved
Pennsylvania's 2013 annual ambient air monitoring network plan and
earlier plans because they met the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
    It appears from material submitted by the commenter that the
commenter has at times in the past indicated to PADEP that it would
help ``defray'' some costs if PADEP were to place a monitor at the St.
Mike's sites.\2\ However, the current monitoring network meets the
applicable requirements and establishing an additional monitor would
lead to PADEP incurring significant costs for lab work, personnel, and
maintenance associated with Pennsylvania operating an additional
monitor. While the commenter states that it offered to ``help offset''
some of the operational costs of Pennsylvania maintaining and operating
an appropriate monitor at the St. Mike's location in addition to the
Laureldale North and South monitors, the commenter has not established
any factual evidence or assurances to contradict Pennsylvania's
concerns about maintaining such a monitoring site over many years if
needed. Since the current network meets the applicable requirements,
EPA believes Pennsylvania's logistical and financial concerns still
support its Laureldale North and South monitors as adequate for the
2008 lead NAAQS, as they are appropriate devices and methods to
monitor, compile and analyze data on ambient air quality as required by
section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA believes these nonapproved monitors which were referred
to by the commenter as the St. Mike's monitors were owned and
operated by Exide until at least January 2012 at which point EPA
believes Exide ceased operating the monitors because the facility
also ceased operation. While the commenter asserts the St. Mike's
monitors were operated through at least April 2013, and EPA believes
the monitors ceased operations sooner, EPA does not believe the date
the St. Mike's monitors stopped operating and collecting data is
relevant to the issue here which is the adequacy of Pennsylvania's
monitoring network for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA concludes that Pennsylvania meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA for monitoring for the 2008 lead NAAQS, as
discussed in EPA's Lead Infrastructure Guidance and as described in
detail in EPA's technical support document accompanying the NPR. EPA's
analysis will not be restated here. The TSD is available in the docket
for this action at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0413. While the St. Mike's monitors which are not included in
Pennsylvania's approved monitoring network may show divergent ambient
lead concentration data from the Laureldale North and South monitors,
EPA does not view that data as dispositive regarding the adequacy of
Pennsylvania's monitoring network for the 2008 lead NAAQS, particularly
in light of the logistical issues discussed above. Pennsylvania's
network meets all applicable

requirements in the 2008 rule, 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D and in
applicable EPA guidance (EPA-454/R-92-009). EPA notes that data from
monitors which do not meet federal monitoring requirements, such as the
Federal quality assurance and quality control requirements in
Appendices A, C, and E to 40 CFR part 58, have limited use and cannot
be compared to the NAAQS for regulatory purposes by EPA.
    EPA also notes that because Laureldale North and South have shown
recent violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS with appropriately quality
assured, quality controlled data from a monitor system audited by an
independent auditor for performance, any monitor data from nonapproved
monitors which may show potentially higher lead concentrations would
likely not alter the nonattainment status or requirements of the area
near the Exide facility. EPA also notes that the area is required to
attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
December 31, 2015, and the area would generally need both a modeling
analysis and monitored data to demonstrate it was attaining the NAAQS.
    Comment: The commenter also asserts that the Laureldale North
monitor was not placed in an appropriate location because the analysis
used for siting its location did not assess fugitive lead emissions
from the Exide facility. The commenter states that the PADEP has taken
no apparent action with respect to the issues regarding the Title V
permit for Exide which has allegedly been remanded to PADEP for further
consideration of fugitive lead emissions and that PADEP's failure to
make final determinations regarding accurate identification and
quantification of fugitive emissions from the Exide facility
exacerbates the inaccuracy of the SIP monitoring station conclusions
made by PADEP.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter regarding the alleged
inadequacy of Pennsylvania's lead monitoring network due to failure to
assess fugitive lead emissions when siting the monitors. EPA is aware
that PADEP did not use fugitive emission sources in their 2009 modeling
study of Exide prior to deployment of the Laureldale North monitors.
However, fugitive emissions are extremely difficult to quantify, there
is no standard way to do so, and inclusion in the modeling would have
added to uncertainty already inherent in the model. Additionally,
ground-level fugitive emissions do not travel far from the source and
stay inside or very near the property fenceline. Therefore, EPA does
not consider the lack of fugitive emissions from Pennsylvania's
modeling as dispositive to EPA's conclusion that Pennsylvania's lead
monitors are adequate for the 2008 lead NAAQS as required by the 2008
rule and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D and adequate to meet the
requirements of section110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ To the extent the commenter is objecting to the lack of
action on the facility's remanded Title V permit, those issues are
outside the scope of this proceeding and should be pursued by the
commenter within the Title V administrative process for permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter alleges that EPA should not approve the
Pennsylvania infrastructure submittal for the 2008 lead NAAQS because
the lead monitoring network does not ensure that any future lead NAAQS
attainment determinations are accurate and ``will result in inaccurate
NAAQS compliance conclusions.'' The commenter states PADEP's refusal to
consider data from other monitors will allow unacceptable risk and/or
actual harm to residents in the nonattainment area.
    Response: As noted earlier in this rulemaking action, EPA has
concluded that the existing monitors satisfy the requirements of part
58. Furthermore, the existing monitors have identified nonattainment at
this site and as a result, the area is required to develop a plan to
attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
December 31, 2015. Before the area is redesignated to attainment, the
area would generally need both a modeling analysis and monitored data
to demonstrate it was attaining the NAAQS. To the extent the commenter
believes that the attainment demonstration and associated modeling is
inadequate to assure compliance with the NAAQS in the entire
nonattainment area, EPA believes the commenter should raise those
concerns with Pennsylvania, and EPA, at the time for public comment on
those documents.\4\ The NAAQS are established to provide protection for
public health (including the health of sensitive populations such as
children) with an adequate margin of safety. Thus, EPA believes that
attainment of the NAAQS throughout the nonattainment area will prevent
harm to local residents from lead emitted to the ambient air.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted above, however, EPA gives, at most, limited weight
to monitoring data that does not meet the regulatory requirements
for comparison to the NAAQS, such as those set forth in Appendices
A, C, and E of part 58.
    \5\ If EPA revises the lead NAAQS in the future, a separate
infrastructure submittal that addresses the requirements of Section
110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA will be developed by Pennsylvania for EPA's
review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving, as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP,
Pennsylvania's September 24, 2012 submittal which provides the basic
program elements specified in sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)(i),(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J),
(K), (L), and (M) of the CAA, necessary to implement, maintain, and
enforce the 2008 Pb NAAQS. This rulemaking action does not include
approval of Pennsylvania's submittal for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) which
pertains to CAA section 128 and which EPA will address in a separate
action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because

application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA;
and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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 action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to Pennsylvania's section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 21, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry for section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008
Pb NAAQS at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
   Name of non-regulatory SIP       Applicable  geographic    submittal    EPA approval date      Additional
            revision                         area                date                             explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure  Statewide................      5/24/12  4/7/2014 [Insert    This rulemaking
 Requirements for the 2008 Pb                                              Federal Register    action addresses
 NAAQS.                                                                    page number where   the following CAA
                                                                           the document        elements:
                                                                           begins and date].   110(a)(2)(A),
                                                                                (B), (C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(I),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E)(i),
                                                                                (E)(iii), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-07569 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 23 (Friday, February 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8453-8455]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02395]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91027; File No. SR-MEMX-2021-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Add Interpretation
and Policy .03 to Exchange Rule 4.2 Regarding the Provision of Members'
Broker-Dealer Annual Reports

February 1, 2021.
    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 January 21, 2021, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to add proposed Interpretation and Policy .03 to Exchange Rule 4.2 that
would provide a waiver of the requirement that members of the Exchange
(``Members'') for which the Exchange is not the designated examining
authority (``DEA'') provide the Exchange with copies of their broker-
dealer annual reports. The text of the proposed rule change is provided
in Exhibit 5.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    SEC Rule 17a-5(d) \5\ generally requires each broker-dealer
registered under Section 15 of the Act to file with the Commission and
the broker-dealer's DEA certain financial-related reports described in
that rule on an annual basis (such reports, ``Annual Reports''). SEC
Rule 17a-5(d)(6) \6\ further requires each broker-dealer to provide all
self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') of which the broker-dealer is
a member with copies of its Annual Reports. The Exchange proposes to
add proposed

Interpretation and Policy .03 to Exchange Rule 4.2 to relieve Members
for which the Exchange is not the DEA of the requirement of SEC Rule
17a-5(d)(6) that a broker-dealer must provide copies of its Annual
Reports to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2013 the Commission amended certain broker-dealer annual
reporting, audit, and notification requirements.\7\ Among these
amendments was an amendment to paragraph (d)(6) of Rule 17a-5 to allow
an SRO that is not a broker-dealer's DEA to waive by rule the
requirement that such broker-dealer provide its Annual Reports to that
SRO.\8\ This amendment was proposed because in some cases SROs do not
believe it is necessary to receive copies of a broker-dealer's Annual
Reports, particularly when an SRO is not the broker-dealer's DEA.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 70073 (August 21, 2013), 78 FR
51909 (August 21, 2013).
    \8\ See id. at 51923-24.
    \9\ See id. See also Exchange Act Release No. 64676 (June 15,
2011), 76 FR 37572, 37592 (June 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not currently the DEA for any of its Members and
does not expect to be the DEA for any of its Members.\10\ The Exchange
does not believe it is necessary for it to receive copies of Annual
Reports from its Members for which it is not the DEA, as the Exchange
does not anticipate using any information contained therein in order to
carry out its regulatory responsibilities. The Exchange believes that
receiving such information is important for an SRO that is a broker-
dealer's DEA but not for an SRO that is not the broker-dealer's DEA,
particularly as one of the key responsibilities of a broker-dealer's
DEA is to oversee such broker-dealer's compliance with applicable
financial responsibility rules. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that
even with the proposed waiver in effect the Exchange would still be
able to request the Annual Reports or any information contained therein
from any Member pursuant to Exchange Rule 4.2, which requires a Member
to furnish to the Exchange, upon request, current copies of any
financial information filed with the Commission, which includes the
Annual Reports and any information contained therein.\11\ As such, the
Exchange believes that the proposed waiver would benefit Members for
which it is not the DEA by eliminating an unnecessary requirement and
facilitating a more efficient exchange of information between the
Exchange and such Members in that they would only be required to
furnish their Annual Reports or any information contained therein if
and when the Exchange deems it necessary and requests such information.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes the addition of proposed
Interpretation and Policy .03 to Exchange Rule 4.2 in order to
explicitly waive the requirement of SEC Rule 17a-5(d)(6) for such
Members to file copies of their Annual Reports with the Exchange. The
Exchange notes, however, that if and to the extent the Exchange is the
DEA for any of its Members the Exchange's Rules would still require
each such Member to provide it with copies of such Member's Annual
Reports in accordance with the requirements of SEC Rule 17a-5(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 2.3, which sets forth certain Member
eligibility criteria and generally requires that a prospective
Member be and remain a member of a national securities association
registered under Section 15A(a) of the Act or a member of another
national securities exchange registered under Section 6(a) of the
Act in order to be eligible to be, and to remain, a Member. As such,
the Exchange believes that each Member will already have an assigned
DEA prior to joining the Exchange as a Member.
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it will be able to properly regulate
Members for which it is not the DEA even without the information
contained in the Annual Reports currently required to be provided to
the Exchange by such Members under SEC Rule 17a-5(d)(6). Firstly, the
Exchange is not currently the DEA for any of its Members and does not
currently use the information contained in its Members' Annual Reports
for any purpose. Additionally, if the Exchange was to determine that
the information contained in the Annual Reports of a Member for which
it is not the DEA was necessary for any reason, the Exchange can
directly request those records from the Member pursuant to Exchange
Rule 4.2, which requires a Member to furnish to the Exchange current
copies of any financial information filed with the Commission, which
includes the Annual Reports and any information contained therein.\14\
In this way, the Exchange could still obtain the information contained
in the Annual Reports currently required to be provided by such Members
under SEC Rule 17a-5(d)(6) even with the proposed waiver of such
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exchange Rule 4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that Members must furnish the Exchange with Annual Reports or
the information contained therein if and when the Exchange so requests,
the Exchange does not believe that it is necessary for it to separately
receive copies of Annual Reports from its Members for which it is not
the DEA pursuant to SEC Rule 17a-5(d)(6). Finally, the proposed
Interpretation and Policy .03 of Rule 4.2 is consistent with the Act in
that it is adopting a waiver explicitly provided for by the Commission
in SEC Rule 17a-5(d)(6).

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the
proposed Interpretation and Policy .03 is not a competitive proposal as
it is concerned solely with the administration of the Exchange and
simply creates a more efficient exchange of information between the
Exchange and its Members. The Exchange notes that the proposed
Interpretation and Policy .03 would apply equally to all Members for
which the Exchange is not the DEA, which currently includes all of the
Exchange's Members. The Exchange notes that it still believes it is
appropriate to require provision of the Annual Reports by any Member
for which it is the DEA pursuant to SEC Rule 17a-5(d)(6) as the
Exchange believes the information contained in the Annual Reports is
important for an SRO that is a broker-dealer's DEA. Furthermore, the
Exchange notes that the proposed Interpretation and Policy .03 would be
directly implementing a permitted waiver adopted by the Commission in
SEC Rule 17a-5(d)(6), and as such, any SRO can adopt such a waiver to
the extent permitted by that rule. Consequently, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
intermarket or intramarket competition.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative 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 \15\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

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-MEMX-2021-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2021-01. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2021-01, and should be submitted on
or before February 26, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02395 Filed 2-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P