--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM

TO:	Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

FROM:	TJ Finseth, ERG
	Danielle Lewis, ERG

DATE:	January 28, 2013

SUBJECT:	Changes to Industry Profile for Steam Electric Generating Units for the Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Proposed Rule

ERG is providing technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD) for development of effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry. EPA, with the support of ERG, distributed the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines (Steam Electric Survey) to 733 power plants in the summer of 2010 to gather plant-specific data on the steam electric industry. The Steam Electric Survey requested data on plant operations in 2009. EPA used the collected data to inform various analyses including, but not limited to, estimating the compliance costs and pollutant removals associated with the proposed ELGs, developing the profile of the industry, and obtaining characterization data for the wastestreams generated by the industry. EPA recognizes that plant operations and future plans regarding upgrades and modifications may have changed since the plants submitted responses to the Steam Electric Survey. This memorandum discusses changes in the operating status of steam electric generating units since 2009 and how EPA incorporated the changes into the profile developed for the industry and the costs and loadings analyses.
The principal source of information and data used in developing the proposed ELGs is the industry response to the survey distributed by EPA under the authority of section 308 of the Clean Water Act. The Steam Electric Survey obtained information on the following:
General power plant operations;
Flue gas desulfurization system operations;
Ash handling operations;
Pond/impoundment system and other wastewater treatment operations;
Metal cleaning process operations;
Pond/impoundment and landfill management practices;
Pond/impoundment and landfill leachate sampling data; and
Nuclear power operations.
The steam electric industry is a dynamic industry with frequent changes in air pollution controls and/or ash handling systems. The Steam Electric Survey requested information on plants for the 2009 operating year. EPA recognizes that there may have been changes to plant operations between 2009 and the time the survey was distributed in 2010 and additional changes that will occur by 2014, the year the ELGs are expected to be promulgated.
EPA attempted to account for these planned changes in the costs and loadings analysis, where appropriate. EPA gathered information from public sources, including company press releases and information from technology vendors, to account for the following:
Plants retiring units;
Plants converting fuel types to eliminate fossil fuel combustion residuals, especially residuals from coal or petroleum coke;
Plants upgrading a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) or leachate wastewater treatment system; and
Plants converting one or more units to a dry fly or bottom ash handling system.
Planned modifications that would result in compliance with the proposed ELGs by December 31, 2014 were excluded from the costs and loadings analysis, described in the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Generating Point Source Category (DCN SE01964).
EPA identified 68 plants that by August 2012 had announced the retirement or fuel conversion of at least one generating unit that is scheduled to occur by December 31, 2014. Table 1 lists the name and location of plants announcing the retirement or fuel conversion of a generating unit. EPA determined that generating units would not incur incremental costs or loading reductions associated with the proposed ELGs if the unit met the following criteria:
The retirement or fuel modification had to be to complete by December 31, 2014; and
The retirement had to be substantiated by information directly from the operating company, either through an article, report, or press release.
Table 1 indicates whether the units were included or excluded in the costs and loadings analysis:
Excluded  --  Plants retiring units or converting fuels by December 31, 2014, were excluded from the analysis.
Included  --  Plants completing the modification after December 31, 2014, were included in the analysis.
Not Applicable (NA)  --  Plants were not included in the costs and loadings because they were not surveyed or do not discharge any of the wastestreams regulated by the proposed ELGs.
Included/Excluded  --  Plants listed as both included and excluded indicates that some units at the plant will be modified prior to December 31, 2014, while others will be modified after December 31, 2014. Generating units modified after December 31, 2014, were included in the costs and loadings analysis.
EPA modified the costs and loadings analysis for 30 plants based on the planned retirement or fuel conversion of at least one generating unit.
Through conversations with specific plants and vendors, as well as company press releases, EPA identified several plants that are in the process of upgrading their ash handling practices on specific generating units that will result in compliance with the proposed ELGs. EPA evaluated ash handling conversion announcements using criteria similar to those used to evaluate retirement/fuel conversion announcements. EPA determined that generating units would not incur incremental costs or loading reductions associated with certain wastestreams if the unit met the following criteria:
      1. The upgrade/modification had to be to complete by December 31, 2014, and
The upgrade had to be substantiated by information directly from the operating company, either through an article, report, or press release.
Table 2 lists the name and location of those plants excluded from the analysis due to system upgrades/modifications that EPA identified by August 2012. EPA modified the costs and loadings analysis for 11 plants due to upgrades/modifications in ash handling systems. Only the affected generating units were removed from the analysis, in some cases this resulted in the entire plant being excluded from the costs and loadings analysis.
Table 1. Plants with at Least One Generating Unit Retiring or Converting Fuels by December 31, 2014
                                  Plant Name
                                     City
                                     State
                 Included or Excluded from Costs and Loadings
                            Document Control Number
Albright Power Station
                                   Albright
                                      WV
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01261
Alma
                                     Alma
                                      WI
                                   Excluded
                                    SE02051
Altavista Power Station
                                   Altavista
                                      VA
                                      NA
                                    SE00952
Armstrong Power Station
                                    Adrian
                                      PA
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01262
Ashtabula Power Plant
                                   Ashtabula
                                      OH
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01262
Avon Lake Power Plant
                                   Avon Lake
                                      OH
                                   Included
                                    SE01974
B C Cobb Power Plant
                                   Muskegon
                                      MI
                                   Included
                                    SE01970
Bay Shore Plant
                                    Oregon
                                      OH
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01262
Ben French Station
                                  Rapid City
                                      SD
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01969
Big Sandy
                                    Louisa
                                      KY
                                   Included
                                    SE01739
B L England
                                Beesleys Point
                                      NJ
                                   Included
                                    SE01824
Canadys Station
                                  Walterboro
                                      SC
                             Included/Excluded[a]
                                    SE01811
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
                                    Moncure
                                      NC
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01751
Cliffside Steam Station
                                   Cliffside
                                      NC
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01971
Clinch River Plant
                                   Cleveland
                                      VA
                                   Included
                                    SE01739
Conesville
                                  Conesville
                                      OH
                                      NA
                                    SE01739
Contra Costa Power Plant
                                    Antioch
                                      CA
                                      NA
                                    SE01976
Crawford Station
                                    Chicago
                                      IL
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01973
Exelon - Cromby Generating Station
                                 Phoenixville
                                      PA
                                      NA
                                    SE00954
NIPSCO D. H. Mitchell Generating Station
                                     Gary
                                      IN
                                      NA
                                    SE01334
Dunkirk Generating Plant
                                    Dunkirk
                                      NY
                                   Included
                                    SE01975
Eastlake Power Plant
                                   Eastlake
                                      OH
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01262
Eddystone Generating Station
                                   Eddystone
                                      PA
                                   Excluded
                                    SE00951
Elrama Power Plant
                                    Elrama
                                      PA
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01974
Fisk Station
                                    Chicago
                                      IL
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01973
Gallagher Generating Station
                                  New Albany
                                      IN
                                   Excluded
                                    SE00950
Glen Lyn Plant
                                   Glen Lyn
                                      VA
                                   Included
                                    SE01739
H.B. Robinson Fossil Plant
                                  Hartsville
                                      SC
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01751
Lee Plant
                                   Goldsboro
                                      NC
                                      NA
                                    SE01746
Hopewell Power Station
                                   Hopewell
                                      VA
                                      NA
                                    SE00952
Hutsonville Power Station
                                  Hutsonville
                                      IL
                                   Excluded
                                    SE00943
JR Whiting Power Plant
                                   Luna Pier
                                      MI
                                   Included
                                    SE01970
John Sevier
                                  Rogersville
                                      TN
                                      NA
                               SE00757, SE01747
Johnsonville
                               New Johnsonville
                                      TN
                                      NA
                               SE00757, SE01749
JT Deely Steam Electric Station
                                  San Antonio
                                      TX
                                   Included
                                    SE00949
Kammer Plant
                                    Captina
                                      WV
                                   Included
                                    SE01739
Kanawha River Plant
                                    Glasgow
                                      WV
                                   Included
                                    SE01739
JC Weadock Power Plant
                                  Essexville
                                      MI
                                   Included
                                    SE01970
Lake Shore Plant
                                   Cleveland
                                      OH
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01262
L V Sutton Steam Electric Plant
                                  Wilmington
                                      NC
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01746
McMeekin Station
                                   Columbia
                                      SC
                                   Included
                                    SE01811
Meredosia Power Station
                                   Meredosia
                                      IL
                                   Excluded
                                    SE00943
Muskingum River
                                    Beverly
                                      OH
                                   Included
                                    SE01739
Neil Simpson
                                   Gillette
                                      WY
                                      NA
                                    SE01969
New Castle Power Plant
                                West Pittsburg
                                      PA
                                   Included
                                    SE01974
Niles Power Plant
                                     Niles
                                      OH
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01974
Osage Power Plant
                                     Osage
                                      WY
                                   Excluded
                               SE01740, SE01969
Philip Sporn
                                Graham Station
                                      WV
                                   Included
                                    SE01739
Picway
                                  Lockbourne
                                      OH
                                   Included
                                    SE01739
Plant Harllee Branch
                                 Milledgeville
                                      GA
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01334
Plant Mitchell
                                    Albany
                                      GA
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01334
RRI Energy Inc. Portland Generating Station
                                  Mt. Bethel
                                      PA
                                   Included
                                    SE01974
Mirant Potomac River
                                  Alexandria
                                      VA
                                      NA
                                    SE00948
R. Paul Smith Power Station
                                 Williamsport
                                      MD
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01262
Rivesville Power Station
                                  Rivesville
                                      WV
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01261
Salem Harbor Station
                                     Salem
                                      MA
                                      NA
                                    SE01742
Shawville
                                   Shawville
                                      PA
                                   Included
                                    SE01974
Southampton Power Station
                                   Franklin
                                      VA
                                      NA
                                    SE00952
State Line Energy, LLC
                                    Hammond
                                      IN
                                      NA
                                    SE01741
AEP Tanners Creek Plant
                                 Lawrenceburg
                                      IN
                                   Included
                                    SE01739
Titus Generation Station
                                   Birdsboro
                                      PA
                                   Included
                                    SE01974
Urquhart Station
                                 Beech Island
                                      SC
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01811
Waukegan Station
                                   Waukegan
                                      IL
                                   Included
                                    SE01976
Walter C Beckjord Station
                                 New Richmond
                                      OH
                                   Included
                                    SE01743
W H Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant
                                   Lumberton
                                      NC
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01745
Welsh
                                   Pittsburg
                                      TX
                                   Excluded
                               SE01739, SE01972
Widows Creek
                                   Stevenson
                                      AL
                                      NA
                                    SE00757
Willow Island Power Station
                                 Willow Island
                                      WV
                                   Excluded
                                    SE01261
a  -  One of three generating units are planned to be retired by December 31, 2014.

Table 2. Plants with at Least One Generating Unit Upgrading/Modifying Ash Handling Practices by December 31, 2014
                                  Plant Name
                                     City
                                     State
                             Upgrade/Modification
                            Document Control Number
Allen Steam Plant
Memphis
                                      TN
Dry Fly Ash Conversion
SE02043, SE02044
Bull Run
Clinton
                                      TN
Dry Bottom Ash Conversion
SE02043, SE02044
Colbert
Tuscumbia
                                      AL
Dry Bottom Ash Conversion
SE02043, SE02044
Cumberland
Cumberland City
                                      TN
Dry Bottom Ash Conversion
SE02043, SE02044
Gallatin
Gallatin
                                      TN
Dry Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Conversion
SE02043, SE02044
John Sevier
Rogersville
                                      TN
Dry Bottom Ash Conversion
SE02043, SE02044
Johnsonville
New Johnsonville
                                      TN
Dry Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Conversion
SE02043, SE02044
Kingston
Harriman
                                      TN
Dry Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Conversion
SE02043, SE02044
Paradise
Drakesboro
                                      KY
Dry Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Conversion
SE02043, SE02044
Shawnee
West Paducah
                                      KY
Dry Bottom Ash Conversion
SE02043, SE02044
Widows Creek
Stevenson
                                      AL
Dry Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Conversion
SE02043, SE02044


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 39453]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0109]
RIN 1625--AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Temporary Change of
Dates for Recurring Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard District,
Bogue Sound; Morehead City, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its proposed rule concerning a
temporary change of the enforcement period for a special local
regulation of a recurring marine event in the Fifth Coast Guard
District. The proposed rule was initiated to alter the date of the
``Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix,'' conducted on the waters of
Bogue Sound near Morehead City, North Carolina. No new rulemaking will
be initiated on this matter; rather, the event will be held as detailed
in the existing regulation.

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn on July 3, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find
this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2012-0109 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or email BOSN3 Joseph M. Edge, Coast Guard Sector North
Carolina, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing material in
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 15, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled ''Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Temporary
Change of Dates for Recurring Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard
District, Bogue Sound; Morehead City, NC'' in the Federal Register (77
FR 15320). The proposed rulemaking would have altered the period of
enforcement of the Special Local Regulation listed in 33 CFR
100.501(d)(3). The subject event was going to be rescheduled from the
fourth or last Sunday in September to the third Saturday and Sunday in
September. The proposed regulation would have closed a portion of the
waters of Bogue Sound to vessel traffic during the boat race during the
altered period of enforcement. No other changes to the underlying
regulation were proposed.

Withdrawal

    The sponsor of the ``Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix'' has
informed the Coast Guard that he will hold the event on a date within
the limitations published and listed in 33 CFR 100.501(d)(3).

Authority

    We issue this notice of withdrawal under the authority of 5 U.S.C.
552(a), 44 U.S.C. 1505(a)(3), and 33 CFR 1.05-1.

    Dated: June 11, 2012.
A. Popiel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2012-16293 Filed 7-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 241 (Monday, December 17, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64433-64435]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26622]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0803; Product Identifier 2018-NM-098-AD; Amendment
39-19526; AD 2018-25-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of
cracking in the inboard lower flange and adjacent web near the forward
attachment of the outboard flap track at a certain position on a Model
737-300 airplane. The flap tracks of Model 737-300 airplanes are
similar to the flap tracks of Model 727 airplanes. This AD requires
repetitive detailed inspections and surface high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspections of each outboard flap track at certain positions for
any crack and discrepancy, and applicable on-condition actions. We are
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 22, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publication listed in this AD as of January 22,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0803.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0803; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is 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: Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 727 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
September 28, 2018 (83 FR 49017). The NPRM was prompted by a report of
cracking in the inboard lower flange and adjacent web near the forward
attachment of the outboard flap track at a certain position on a Model
737-300 airplane. The flap tracks of Model 737-300 airplanes are
similar to the flap tracks of Model 727 airplanes. The NPRM proposed to
require repetitive detailed inspections and surface HFEC inspections of
each outboard flap track at certain positions for any crack and
discrepancy, and applicable on-condition actions.
    We are issuing this AD to address the inability of a principal
structural element to sustain required flight loads, which could result
in loss of the outboard trailing edge flap and reduced controllability
of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We have considered the comment received. Boeing
indicated its support for the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We
have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0188 RB,
dated May 31, 2018. The service information describes procedures for
repetitive detailed inspections for discrepancies and surface HFEC
inspections for cracks of each outboard flap track at positions 1, 2,
7, and 8, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions
include repairs and installation of a new or serviceable flap track.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 16 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost           Parts cost     Cost per product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections....................  113 work-hours x $85                 $0   $9,605 per          $153,680 per
                                  per hour = $9,605 per                     inspection cycle.   inspection
                                  inspection cycle.                                             cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in 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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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),
    (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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2018-25-15 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19526; Docket No. FAA-
2018-0803; Product Identifier 2018-NM-098-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 22, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 727, 727-100,
727-100C, 727-200, 727-200F, and 727C series airplanes, certificated
in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in the inboard
lower flange and adjacent web near the forward attachment of the
outboard flap track at position 8 on a Model 737-300 airplane. The
flap tracks of Model 737-300 airplanes are similar to the flap
tracks of Model 727 airplanes. We are issuing this AD to address the
inability of a principal structural element to sustain required
flight loads, which could result in loss of the outboard trailing
edge flap and reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0188 RB, dated May 31, 2018, do
all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
727-57A0188 RB, dated May 31, 2018.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Guidance for accomplishing
the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 727-57A0188, dated May 31, 2018, which is referred to in
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0188 RB, dated May 31,
2018.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0188 RB,
dated May 31, 2018, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of
Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0188 RB,'' this AD requires using ``the
effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0188 RB,
dated May 31, 2018, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions, this AD requires repair before further flight using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any airplane, a wing outboard flap track having a part number listed
in paragraph 1.B. of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0188
RB, dated May 31, 2018, unless the inspections and applicable on-
condition actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0188 RB, dated May 31,
2018, are accomplished concurrently with the installation of the
part on the airplane.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your

principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Muoi Vuong,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5205; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0188 RB, dated May
31, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on November 29, 2018.
James Cashdollar,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-26622 Filed 12-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25310-25313]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11340]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85938; File No. SR-ICC-2019-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to ICC's Stress Testing
Framework

May 24, 2019.
    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 May 16, 2019, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily
by ICC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the
ICC Stress Testing Framework. These revisions do not require any
changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (``Rules'').

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap
submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most
significant aspects of these statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICC proposes revising its Stress Testing Framework. ICC believes
such revisions will facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements,
contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible. The proposed
revisions are described in detail as follows.
    ICC proposes changes to the Stress Testing Framework to enhance
ICC's stress testing practices. The proposed changes strengthen the
documentation surrounding ICC's stress testing methodology, including
by introducing certain core concepts earlier in the Stress Testing
Framework, updating terminology to maintain uniformity in the document,
and providing additional clarity on the construction and reporting of
stress scenarios. The proposed changes also remove a section that is no
longer relevant and strengthen governance arrangements related to the
identification and remediation of poor stress testing performance. ICC
further proposes clarification and clean-up changes throughout the
document to enhance readability. ICC proposes to make such changes
effective following Commission approval of the proposed rule change.
    ICC proposes changes to the `Methodology' section of the Stress
Testing Framework. Under the proposed changes, ICC will introduce its
Cover-2 requirement, including related definitions, earlier in the
document, noting that it establishes if financial resources will cover
hypothetical losses associated with the two greatest Clearing
Participant (``CP'') Affiliate Group (``AG'') uncollateralized stress
losses associated with extreme but plausible scenarios. ICC proposes
terminology updates, such as utilizing ``CP AG'' to reference CPs under
a common parent entity, replacing a phrase with an abbreviation that
was previously introduced, and shortening ``Lehman Brothers'' to
``LB''. ICC proposes conforming changes throughout the document. ICC
also proposes a clarification edit to specify the basis for ICC's
stress testing practices.
    In the `Methodology' section, ICC proposes to introduce the forward
looking (hypothetically constructed) scenarios. Under the proposed
revisions, ICC will add language describing the forward looking
(hypothetically constructed) scenarios and move two paragraphs on their
construction from the `Predefined Scenarios' section to the
`Methodology' section. ICC proposes edits for clarity and uniformity to
such paragraphs, including referring to ``reference entity groups'' as
``Risk Factor Groups'' \3\ (``RFGs''), which ICC also proposes to do
throughout the document; defining a CP RFG as a CP AG; specifying the
reference entities in a RFG for stress testing; and adding definite
article ``the'' in the phrase ``as well as the peak''. ICC proposes to
add language further explaining the calculation of Loss-Given-Default
(``LGD'') and Expected LGD (``ELGD'') with respect to the forward
looking (hypothetically constructed) scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ICC deems each single name reference entity a Risk Factor.
ICC deems a set of single name Risk Factors related by a common
parental ownership structure a RFG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes amend the `Predefined Scenarios' section. The
proposed revisions indicate which scenarios are not expected to be
realized as market outcomes and utilize bulleted lists to more clearly
define the scenarios corresponding to the Historically Observed Extreme
but Plausible Market Scenarios and the Historically Observed Extreme
but Plausible Market Scenarios reflecting a baseline credit event. ICC
proposes to cross-reference relevant sections when noting information
found in those sections and make corresponding changes throughout the
document. In describing the Hypothetically Constructed (Forward
Looking) Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios, ICC proposes to
specifically refer to ``references entities'' as ``Single Name Risk
Factors''; incorporate language on the associated adverse credit event
analysis; and utilize a bulleted list to more clearly define the
scenarios corresponding to the Hypothetically Constructed (Forward
Looking) Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios. In discussing the
Extreme Model Response Test Scenarios, ICC proposes to add the word
``Market'' to the phrase ``Historically Observed Extreme but Plausible
Market scenarios'' and to utilize a bulleted list to more clearly
define the scenarios corresponding to the Extreme Model Response Test
Scenarios.
    The proposed amendments move the `General Wrong Way Risk and
Contagion Stress Tests' section ahead of the adequacy and sensitivity
analysis sections. The `General Wrong Way Risk and Contagion Stress
Tests' section is currently located between the adequacy and
sensitivity analysis sections, and ICC proposes that it follow the
`Display of Discordant Behavior among Instrument Groups' section to
avoid disrupting the grouping of adequacy and sensitivity analyses.
    ICC proposes to remove the `Correlation Sensitivity Analysis based
on Monte Carlo Simulations' section. Given the transition from a
stress-based methodology to a Monte Carlo simulations-based methodology
for certain components of the Initial Margin model (the ``model''),\4\
references to the Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis as a stress testing
analysis in the Stress Testing Framework are no longer relevant. ICC
considers a sensitivity analysis of risk parameters to be more fitting
and incorporated such analysis in the ICC Risk Parameter Setting and
Review Policy, which describes the process of setting and reviewing the
model core parameters and the performance of sensitivity analyses
related to certain parameter settings.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-ICC-2018-008 for a description of the transition from
a stress-based approach to a Monte Carlo simulations-based
methodology for the spread response and recovery rate sensitivity
response components of the model.
    \5\ See SR-ICC-2019-002 for a description of the ICC Risk
Parameter Setting and Review Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC proposes a clarification update to indicate which scenarios
generally yield the greatest consumption of the Guaranty Fund in the
`Recovery Rate Sensitivity Analysis' section and the `Interest Rate
Sensitivity Analysis' section.
    ICC proposes amendments to the `Interpretation of Results' section.
ICC proposes to incorporate language that more clearly defines the
scenarios corresponding to the Historically Observed and Hypothetically
Constructed Extreme but Plausible Scenarios. Under the proposed
revisions, the ICC reports that are associated with stress scenarios
are listed in a table, along with the reporting frequency and
classification (e.g., extreme but plausible, extreme and not expected
to be realized, etc.), and a paragraph on hypothetical losses follows
the table given its connection to the stress scenarios in the table.
ICC proposes clarification edits to this paragraph, such as replacing
``total'' with ``sum'', adding a parenthetical, and more generally
referring to powers of assessment. Further, ICC proposes that a
paragraph describing a figure in the document appear before, instead of
after, the figure and that such figure is re-numbered given the
addition of the proposed table. With respect to stress test results,
ICC proposes to specify that it considers hypothetical losses on a
Cover-2 basis and to cross-reference a section on the remediation of
poor stress testing performance. The proposed

changes also note that the Risk Department conducts monthly parameter
reviews and parameter sensitivity analyses.
    ICC proposes amendments to the `Post-Stress Testing Review &
Governance Structure' section. ICC proposes to cross-reference the
table from the `Interpretation of Results' section when noting
information depicted in the table and make corresponding changes
throughout the document. ICC proposes to clarify the frequency at which
stress testing results are reviewed and risk results and issues are
discussed. ICC proposes to note the Risk Committee's role in ad hoc
reviews of stress testing results undertaken by the Chief Risk Officer
(``CRO'') or designee and to more clearly state that ICC conducts
certain ``periodic'' reporting on a weekly basis. Also, the proposed
changes provide clarification and direction with respect to poor stress
testing performance, including by indicating that ICC considers stress
test deficiencies on a Cover-2 basis, specifying the Risk Department's
role in identifying poor stress testing performance, and explaining how
the Risk Department determines poor stress testing performance.
Moreover, the proposed revisions specifically provide the CRO and Risk
Oversight Officer (``ROO'') with authority to determine poor stress
testing performance and describe the actions to take upon identifying
poor stress testing performance, including by the Risk Working Group
(``RWG'') and the Risk Department. In addition, ICC proposes to replace
certain general references to the Risk Department with more specific
references to the CRO, or designee.
    ICC proposes to update the `References' section with two ICC
policies that provide further information on ICC Risk Department
practices, including the calculation of LGD and ELGD and the
performance of monthly parameter reviews and parameter sensitivity
analyses.
(b) Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions; to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which
are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible; and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. ICC believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, to Section
17(A)(b)(3)(F),\7\ because ICC believes that the proposed rule change
will promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and
transactions, and contribute to the safeguarding of securities and
funds associated with security-based swap transactions in ICC's custody
or control, or for which ICC is responsible. The proposed changes to
the Stress Testing Framework strengthen the documentation surrounding
ICC's stress testing methodology, including by introducing certain core
concepts earlier in the document, updating terminology to maintain
uniformity, and providing additional clarity on the construction and
reporting of stress scenarios. The proposed changes remove information
that is no longer relevant and strengthen governance arrangements
related to the identification and remediation of poor stress testing
performance, which serves to enhance ICC's approach to identifying
potential weaknesses in the risk methodology. The clarification and
clean-up changes that enhance readability further ensure that the
documentation of ICC's Stress Testing Framework remains up-to-date,
clear, and transparent. ICC believes that having policies and
procedures that clearly and accurately document ICC's stress testing
practices are an important component to the effectiveness of ICC's risk
management system, which promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, derivatives agreements,
contracts, and transactions and the safeguarding of securities and
funds associated with security-based swap transactions in ICC's custody
or control, or for which ICC is responsible. As such, the proposed rule
change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, derivatives agreements,
contracts, and transactions and to contribute to the safeguarding of
securities and funds associated with security-based swap transactions
in ICC's custody or control, or for which ICC is responsible within the
meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed revisions to the Stress Testing Framework
are consistent with the relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\9\ Rule
17Ad-22(b)(3) \10\ requires ICC to establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain
sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a default by
the two CP families to which it has the largest exposures in extreme
but plausible market conditions. The proposed changes to the Stress
Testing Framework provide further clarity and transparency regarding
ICC's stress testing practices, including by strengthening the
documentation surrounding ICC's stress testing methodology through the
introduction of certain core concepts earlier in the document, updates
to stress testing terminology to maintain uniformity, and additional
clarity on the construction and reporting of stress testing scenarios.
The proposed revisions also support ICC's ability to maintain
sufficient risk requirements and enhance ICC's approach to identifying
potential weaknesses in the risk management system by incorporating
additional procedures related to the identification and remediation of
poor stress testing performance, thereby ensuring that ICC maintains
sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a default by
the two CP families to which it has the largest exposures in extreme
but plausible market conditions, consistent with the requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8) \12\ requires ICC to establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to have governance arrangements that are clear and transparent
to fulfill the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the
Act.\13\ The proposed changes strengthen the governance arrangements
set forth in the Stress Testing Framework by clearly assigning and
documenting responsibility and accountability for the identification
and remediation of poor stress testing performance. As such, these
governance arrangements are clear and transparent, such that
information relating to the assignment of responsibilities and the
requisite involvement of the CRO, ROO, Risk Department, RWG, the Risk
Committee, and the Board is clearly documented, consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).

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

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes to
ICC's Stress Testing Framework will apply uniformly across all market
participants. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule change
imposes any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-ICC-2019-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2019-005. 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 filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE
Clear Credit's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    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-ICC-2019-005 and should be
submitted on or before June 21, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11340 Filed 5-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


M E E T I N G  N O T E S

Subject: Final Rule on Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura

Meeting Date: July 2, 2008

Location: EPA Region IX, 11:00 a.m.

Participants: Rick Tomlinson, Director, Government Affairs, California
Strawberry Commission; John Dunlap, Dunlap Group; Deborah Jordan,
Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX; Kerry Drake, Associate Director,
Air Division, EPA Region IX; Jeff Wehling, Office of Regional Counsel,
EPA Region IX, Karina Lallande, Office of Regional Counsel, EPA Region
IX.

Summary: Anticipating the principal item of interest to R. Tomlinson and
J. Dunlap, EPA volunteered information on the timing of the final rule.
Specifically, EPA informed R. Tomlinson and J. Dunlap that the final
rule was in the final stages of review and that the general expectation
was that the rule would be signed in the very near future with
publication in the Federal Register roughly a week from signature and
with an effective day 30 days from publication.

R. Tomlinson asked whether EPA had considered the geographic
implications of EPA’s interpretation of the pesticide VOC reduction
commitment from the 1994 Ozone SIP, and J. Wehling indicated that
geographic implications, outside of those in Ventura County, had not
been considered.

R. Tomlinson questioned the need for some of the background information
in the proposed rule, specifically, the information related to the court
case on the pesticide VOC commitment and related court order, and asked
whether such information were to be repeated in the final rule. J.
Wehling responded that considerable amount of judgment is exercised in
drafting proposed rules to include sufficient contextual information for
the public to be fully informed as to EPA’s action. Further, J.
Wehling indicated that as a general matter, the final rule summarizes,
but does not repeat, the background information in the proposed rule.

Meeting Notes Prepared by: Jeff Wehling, ORC, July 3, 2008.