[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26474]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10460]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Proposed
Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0889; FRL-9666-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Approval of 2011 Consent Decree to Control Emissions From the
GenOn Chalk Point Generating Station; Removal of 1978 and 1979 Consent
Orders

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE). These revisions approve specific provisions of a 2011 Consent
Decree between MDE and GenOn to reduce particulate matter (PM), sulfur
oxides (SOX), and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from the
GenOn Chalk Point generating station (Chalk Point). These revisions
also remove the 1978 and 1979 Consent Orders for the Chalk Point
generating station from the Maryland SIP as those Consent Orders have
been superseded by the 2011 Consent Decree. In the Final Rules section
of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as
a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to
this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by June 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0889 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0889, Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director
for Policy and Science, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP00, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0889. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy 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 Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia L. Spink, Project Officer,
(215) 814-2104, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register publication.

    Dated: April 16, 2012.
W.C. Early,
 Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-10460 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 9018-9019]
[DOCID:fr26fe10-149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket ID PHMSA-2010-0034]

Pipeline Safety: Random Drug Testing Rate

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Minimum Annual Percentage Rate for Random Drug
Testing.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA has determined that the minimum random drug testing rate
for covered employees will remain at 25 percent during calendar year
2010.

DATES: Effective January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Kastanas, Program Manager,
Substance Abuse Prevention Program, PHMSA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Operators of gas, hazardous liquid, and
carbon dioxide pipelines and operators of liquefied natural gas
facilities must select and test a percentage of covered employees for
random drug testing. Pursuant to 49 CFR 199.105(c)(2), (3), and (4),
the PHMSA Administrator's decision on whether to change the minimum
annual random drug testing rate is based on the reported random drug
test positive rate for the pipeline industry. The data considered by
the Administrator comes from operators' annual submissions of
Management Information System (MIS) reports required by 49 CFR
199.119(a). If the reported random drug test positive rate is less than
one percent, the Administrator may continue the minimum random drug
testing rate at 25 percent. In 2008, the random drug test positive rate
was less than one percent. Therefore, the minimum random drug testing
rate will remain at 25 percent for calendar year 2010.

    On January 19, 2010, PHMSA published an Advisory Bulletin (75 FR
2926) implementing the annual collection of contractor MIS drug and
alcohol testing data. All applicable Sec.  199.119 (drug testing) and
Sec.  199.229 (alcohol testing) MIS reporting operators are responsible
for the submission of all contractor MIS reports to PHMSA, as well as
their own, by March 15, 2010. Contractors with employees in safety-
sensitive positions who performed, as defined in Sec.  199.3 of 49 CFR
Part 199, covered functions, must submit these reports only through the
auspices of each operator for whom these covered employees performed
those covered functions (i.e., maintenance, operations or emergency-
response).

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60117, and
60118; 49 CFR 1.53.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2010.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2010-3966 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30211-30212]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10601]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7153-018]

Consolidated Hydro New York, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered
for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests
and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for
Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 7153-018.
    c. Date Filed: April 29, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Consolidated Hydro New York, LLC (Consolidated
Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Victory Mills Hydroelectric Project (Victory
Mills Project).
    f. Location: The project is located on Fish Creek in the village of
Victory in Saratoga County, New York. The project does not occupy any
federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Mr. Kevin M. Webb, Licensing Manager,
Consolidated Hydro New York, LLC, 670 N Commercial Street, Suite 204,
Manchester, NH 03101; Phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
[email protected]; and Mr. Curtis Mooney, Manager,
Regulatory Compliance, Consolidated Hydro New York, LLC, 670 N
Commercial Street, Suite 204, Manchester, NH 03101; Phone at (603) 774-
0846 or email at [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Laurie Bauer at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: June 28, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper
copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. All filings must clearly identify the
project name and docket number on

the first page: Victory Mills Project (P-7153-018).
    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Victory Mills Project includes: (1) A dam that consists of:
(a) An approximately 150-foot-long concrete spillway varying in height
from 4 to 6 feet with a crest elevation of 187.5 feet National Geodetic
Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29), and (b) a sluice gate section
approximately 19 feet high and 40 feet long with four gated spillway
bays, each with a sill elevation of 181 feet NGVD29 and containing a 7-
foot-high by 8-foot-wide wooden timber gate; (2) a 4.3-acre reservoir
with a gross storage capacity of approximately 18 acre-feet at the
normal surface elevation of 187.5 feet NGVD29; (3) an intake channel
feeding a 51-foot-long, 25-foot-high concrete intake structure; (4) an
8-foot-diameter, 300-foot-long steel penstock; (5) a 27-foot by 46-foot
concrete powerhouse containing a single Kaplan turbine with an
installed capacity of 1,656 kilowatts; (6) an approximately 30-foot-
wide by 530-foot-long tailrace channel; (7) a 480-foot-long, 4.8-
kilovolt transmission line; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
    The Victory Mills Project operates in a run-of-river mode with an
average annual generation of 6,073 megawatt-hours between 2011 and
2021.
    o. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field, to access the document (P-7153). For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected], or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202)
502-8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)--July 2022
Request Additional Information--July 2022
Issue Acceptance Letter and Notice--October 2022
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments--November 2022
Request Additional Information (if necessary)--November 2022
Issue Scoping Document 2--February 2023
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis--February 2023

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: May 11, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10601 Filed 5-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15667-15668]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07382]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

National Park Service

List of Units of the National Park System Exempt From the
Provisions of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation; National Park
Service, Interior.

ACTION: List of exempt parks.

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

SUMMARY: The National Parks Air Tour Management Act (NPATMA) requires
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Park Service
(NPS) to develop an air tour management plan for units of the national
park system where an operator has applied for authority to conduct
commercial air tours. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
amended various provisions of NPATMA. One provision exempted national
park units with 50 or fewer annual flights from the requirement to
prepare an air tour management plan or voluntary agreement and requires
FAA and NPS to jointly publish a list of exempt parks. By Federal
Register notice, FAA and NPS published an initial list of exempt parks
in 2012 and subsequent lists for 2013 through 2015. This notice
provides the annual updated list of parks that are exempt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk--Mailing address: Federal
Aviation Administration, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California
90261. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email address: [email protected].
Vicki Ward--Mailing address: Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division,
National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 100-31, Fort Collins,
CO 80525. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority

    1. NPATMA (Pub. L. 106-181, codified at 49 U.S.C. 40128) requires
the FAA and NPS to develop an air tour management plan for units of the
national park system where an operator has requested authority to
provide commercial air tours. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 (2012 Act) amended various provisions of NPATMA.
    2. This Federal Register Notice addresses the following 2012 Act
amendment provisions (which are codified at 49 U.S.C. 40128(a)(5)):
    a. Exempt national park units that have 50 or fewer commercial air
tour operations each year from the requirement to prepare an air tour
management plan or voluntary agreement.
    b. Authorize NPS to withdraw the exemption if the Director
determines that an air tour management plan or voluntary agreement is
necessary to protect resources and values or visitor use and enjoyment.
    c. Require FAA and NPS to publish a list each year of national
parks covered by the exemption.

II. List of Exempt Parks

    1. This list is based on the number of commercial air tour
operations reported to the FAA and NPS by air tour operators conducting
air tours under interim operating authority at national park units in
calendar year 2016 for which the total operations was 50 or fewer.
Parks on the exempt list are those that have at least one operator who
has been granted operating authority to conduct commercial air tours
over that park. Exempt parks are as follows:

Acadia National Park, ME
Aztec Ruins National Monument, NM
Big Bend National Park, TX
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, CO
Capitol Reef National Park, UT
Capulin Volcano National Monument, NM
Carlsbad Caverns National Park, NM
Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, AZ
Cedar Breaks National Monument, UT
Colorado National Monument, CO
Coronado National Memorial, AZ
Devils Tower National Monument, WY
Dinosaur National Monument, UT/CO
Dry Tortugas National Park, FL
El Malpais National Monument, NM
El Morro National Monument, NM
Everglades National Park, FL
Fort Bowie National Historic Site, AZ
Fort Davis National Historic Site, TX
Fort Union National Monument, NM
Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument, NM
Golden Spike National Historic Site, UT
Grand Teton National Park, WY
Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, CO
Guadalupe Mountains National Park, TX
Hohokam Pima National Monument, AZ
Hovenweep National Monument, CO/UT
Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site, AZ
Kings Canyon National Park, CA
Mesa Verde National Park, CO
Mojave National Preserve, CA
Montezuma Castle National Monument, AZ
Navajo National Monument, AZ
North Cascades National Park, WA
Olympic National Park, WA
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, AZ
Pecos National Historical Park, NM
Petrified Forest National Park, AZ
Petroglyph National Monument, NM
Pipe Spring National Monument, AZ
Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River, TX
Saguaro National Park, AZ
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, NM
Sequoia National Park, CA
Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument, AZ
Timpanogos Cave National Monument, UT
Tumacacori National Historic Park, AZ
Tuzigoot National Monument, AZ
Walnut Canyon National Monument, AZ
Wupatki National Monument, AZ
Yellowstone National Park, ID/MT/WY
Yosemite National Park, CA

Yucca House National Monument, CO
Zion National Park, UT

    2. NPS is authorized to withdraw a park from the exempt list if NPS
determines that an air tour management plan or voluntary agreement is
necessary to protect park resources and values or park visitor use and
enjoyment. Under this statutory authority, the NPS Director informed
the FAA Administrator in writing on September 15, 2015, that NPS
withdrew the exemption for Death Valley National Park and Mount Rainier
National Park and on November 2, 2017 that NPS withdrew Canyon de
Chelly National Monument. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, NC; San Juan
Island National Historical Park, WA; and Voyageurs National Park, MN
were on the 2015 exempt list but are not on the 2016 exempt list
because there is no longer any operator(s) who has applied for
operating authority to conduct commercial air tours over those parks.

III. List of Exempt Parks for Future Years

    The FAA and NPS will publish a list of exempt parks annually. The
list could change from year to year since parks may be added to or
removed from the exempt list based on the previous year's number of
annual operations. In order to continue to be exempt, a park must have
50 or fewer annual commercial air tour operations in any given calendar
year. The list could also change if NPS withdraws an exempted park. NPS
is authorized to withdraw a park from the exempt list if NPS determines
that an air tour management plan or a voluntary agreement is necessary
to protect park resources and values or park visitor use and enjoyment.
Pursuant to the 2012 Act, the NPS shall inform the FAA in writing of
each determination to withdraw an exemption. At parks that lose exempt
status, operators will return to interim operating authority
requirements until an air tour management plan or a voluntary agreement
has been established.

    Issued in Hawthorne, CA on December 4, 2017.
Dennis E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Western-Pacific Region, Federal Aviation
Administration.
    Issued in Washington, DC on December 12, 2017.
Raymond M. Sauvajot,
Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, National
Park Service.

    Editorial note: This document was received for publication by
the Office of the Federal Register on April 5, 2018.

[FR Doc. 2018-07382 Filed 4-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17073-17075]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05587]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0641; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-258-AD;
Amendment 39-17378; AD 2013-05-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A,
CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. This AD was prompted by
reports of jamming/malfunctioning of the left-hand engine thrust
control mechanism. This AD requires modifying the left-hand engine
upper core-cowl. We are issuing this AD to prevent jamming/
malfunctioning of the left-hand engine thrust control mechanism, which
could lead to loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 24, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 24,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2012 (77 FR
37342). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) states:

    There have been several reported incidents of jamming/
malfunctioning of the left hand (L/H) engine thrust control
mechanism on the affected aeroplanes. The investigation has shown
that an improperly stowed or dislodged upper core-cowl-door Hold
Open Rod, can impede a Fuel Control Unit (FCU) function by
obstructing the movement of the FCU actuating lever arm, hence
rendering the L/H engine thrust control inoperable.
    Due to the engine's orientation, the subject FCU fouling is
limited only to the L/H engine installation on the affected twin
engine powered aeroplanes; however the potential hazard of any in-
flight engine shut down caused by jammed engine fuel control lever
is a safety concern that warrants mitigating action.
    In order to help alleviate the possibility of an in-flight
engine shut down due to the subject fouling of the FCU lever by the
core-cowl-door Hold Open Rod, Bombardier has issued three Service
Bulletins to [modify the L/H engine upper core cowl by] install[ing]
a new bracket at the L/H engine upper core-cowl-door location. This
[Canadian] directive is issued to mandate the incorporation of the
Service Bulletins 604-71-005, 601-0609 or 605-71-002, as applicable
on the affected aeroplanes.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comment received.

Request To Revise Unsafe Condition

    Bombardier, Inc. requested that we revise the end of the unsafe
condition sentence in the SUMMARY section and paragraph (e) of the NPRM
(77 FR

37342, June 21, 2012) to say, ``which could lead to loss of thrust
control of left hand engine'' instead of ``which could lead to loss of
control of the airplane.'' Bombardier, Inc. provided no justification
for this request.
    We disagree with the request to revise the unsafe condition in this
final rule because loss of thrust control of the left hand engine can
lead to the loss of control of the airplane. We have not changed the AD
in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD 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 (77 FR 37342, June 21, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 37342, June 21, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 407 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $203 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $186,406, or $458 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 37342, June 21, 2012),
the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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 AD:

2013-05-06 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-17378. Docket No. FAA-
2012-0641; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-258-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 24,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any
category:
    (1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes,
serial numbers (S/Ns) 3001 through 3066 inclusive.
    (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R,
and CL-604 Variants) airplanes, S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive,
5301 through 5665 inclusive, and 5701 through 5884 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71: Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of jamming/malfunctioning of the
left-hand engine thrust control mechanism. We are issuing this AD to
prevent jamming/malfunctioning of the left-hand engine thrust
control mechanism, which could lead to loss of control of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Modification

    Within 36 months or 6,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first
after the effective date of this AD: Modify the left-hand engine
upper core-cowl, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1),
(g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0609, dated August 31, 2011
(for Model CL-600-2A12 airplanes having S/Ns 3001 through 3066
inclusive, and Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes having S/Ns 5001 through
5194 inclusive).
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-71-005, dated July 18, 2011
(for Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes having S/Ns 5301 through 5665
inclusive).
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-71-002, dated July 18, 2011
(for Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes having S/Ns 5701 through 5884
inclusive).

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: James
Delisio, Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New
York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved
AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a
principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards
district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-37, dated
October 19, 2011, and the service bulletins specified in paragraphs
(i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, for related information.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0609, dated August 31, 2011.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-71-005, dated July 18, 2011.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-71-002, dated July 18, 2011.

(j) 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) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0609, dated August 31, 2011.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-71-005, dated July 18,
2011.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-71-002, dated July 18,
2011.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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 Renton, Washington, on February 28, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-05587 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65127-65129]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22711]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90128; File No. SR-IEX-2020-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX
Rule 11.280 To Extend the Pilot Period for the Market-Wide Circuit
Breaker to the Close of Business on October 18, 2021

October 8, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 5, 2020, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\4\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ IEX is filing with the Commission a
proposed rule change to amend IEX Rule 11.280 to extend the pilot
period for the market-wide circuit breaker to the close of business on
October 18, 2021. IEX has designated this rule change as ``non-
controversial'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and provided
the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 statement may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Paragraphs (a) through (d) and (f) of Rule 11.280 describe the
methodology for determining when to halt trading in all stocks due to
extraordinary market volatility (i.e., market-wide circuit breakers).
The market-wide circuit breaker (``MWCB'') mechanism under Rule 11.280
was approved by the Commission to operate on a pilot basis, the term of
which was to coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS
(the ``LULD Plan''),\8\ including any extensions to the pilot period
for the LULD Plan. In April 2019, the Commission approved an amendment
to the LULD Plan for it to operate on a

permanent, rather than pilot, basis.\9\ In light of the proposal to
make the LULD Plan permanent, the Exchange amended Rule 11.280 to untie
the pilot's effectiveness from that of the LULD Plan and to extend the
pilot's effectiveness to the close of business on October 18, 2019.\10\
The Exchange subsequently amended Rule 11.280 to extend the pilot's
effectiveness for an additional year to the close of business on
October 18, 2020.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012). An amendment to the LULD Plan
adding IEX as a Participant was filed with the Commission on August
11, 2016, and became effective upon filing pursuant to Rule
608(b)(3)(iii) of the Act. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
78703 (August 26, 2016), 81 FR 60397 (September 1, 2016) (File No.
4-631).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019) (``LULD Plan Amendment 18
Approval Order'').
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85576 (April 9,
2019), 84 FR 15237 (April 15, 2019) (SR-IEX-2019-04).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87298 (October 15,
2019), 84 FR 56255 (October 21, 2019) (SR-IEX-2019-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 11.280(a)
to extend the pilot period for the MWCB, set forth in paragraphs (a)
through (d) and (f),\12\ to the close of business on October 18, 2021.
This filing does not propose any substantive or additional changes to
Rule 11.280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rule 11.280(f) also relates to the MWCB because it
specifies the time zone for all times referenced in Rule 11.280(a)
and (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MWCBs under Rule 11.280 provide an important, automatic mechanism
that is invoked to promote stability and investor confidence during
periods of significant stress when securities markets experience
extreme broad-based declines. All SROs have rules relating to MWCBs,
which are designed to slow the effects of extreme price movement
through coordinated trading halts across securities markets when severe
price declines reach levels that may exhaust market liquidity.\13\
MWCBs provide for trading halts in all equities and options markets
during a severe market decline as measured by a single-day decline in
the S&P 500 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-
025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-
30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-
2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 11.280(a) through (d) and (f), a market-wide
trading halt will be triggered if the S&P 500 Index declines in price
by specified percentages from the prior day's closing price of that
index. Currently, the triggers are set at three circuit breaker
thresholds: A 7% market decline (Level 1), a 13% market decline (Level
2), and a 20% market decline (Level 3). A market decline that triggers
a Level 1 or Level 2 circuit breaker after 9:30 a.m. ET and before 3:25
p.m. ET would halt market-wide trading for 15 minutes, while a similar
market decline at or after 3:25 p.m. ET would not halt market-wide
trading. A market decline that triggers a Level 3 circuit breaker, at
any time during the trading day, would halt market-wide trading for the
remainder of the trading day.
    Since the MWCB pilot was last extended in October 2019, the MWCB
mechanism has proven itself to be an effective tool for protecting
markets through turbulent times. In the Spring of 2020, at the outset
of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. equities markets experienced
four MWCB Level 1 halts, on March 9, 12, 16, and 18, 2020. In each
instance, the markets halted as intended upon a 7% drop in the S&P 500
Index, and resumed as intended 15 minutes later.
    In response to these events, the previously-convened MWCB Taskforce
(``Taskforce'') reviewed the March 2020 halts and considered whether
any immediate changes to the MWCB mechanism should be made. The
Taskforce, consisting of representatives from equities exchanges,
futures exchanges, FINRA, broker-dealers, and other market
participants, had been assembled in early 2020 to consider more
generally potential changes to the MWCB mechanism. The Taskforce held
ten meetings in the Spring and Summer of 2020 that were attended by
Commission staff to consider, among other things: (1) Whether to retain
the S&P 500 Index as the standard for measuring market declines; (2)
whether halts that occur shortly after the 9:30 a.m. market open cause
more harm than good; and (3) what additional testing of the MWCB
mechanism should be done.
    After considering data and anecdotal reports of market
participants' experiences during the March 2020 MWCB events, the
Taskforce did not recommend immediate changes be made to the use of the
S&P 500 Index as the reference price against which market declines are
measured, or to the current MWCB mechanism which permits halts even
shortly after the 9:30 a.m. market open. The Taskforce recommended
creating a process for a backup reference price in the event that the
S&P 500 Index becomes unavailable, and enhancing functional MWCB
testing. The Taskforce also asked the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc.
to consider modifying its rules to enter into a limit-down state in the
futures pre-market after a 7% decline instead of 5%.
    On September 17, 2020, the Director of the Commission's Division of
Trading and Markets requested that the equities exchanges and FINRA
prepare a more complete study of the design and operation of the MWCB
mechanism and the LULD Plan during the period of volatility in the
Spring of 2020. Based on the results of that study, the Exchange
expects to work with the Commission, FINRA, the other exchanges, and
market participants to determine if any additional changes to the MWCB
mechanism should be made, including consideration of rules and
procedures for the periodic testing of the MWCB mechanism with industry
participants.
    In addition to the work of the Taskforce, the equities exchanges
also moved forward in 2019 and 2020 with a plan to normalize their Day
2 opening procedures after a Level 3 MWCB halt, such that all exchanges
would reopen on Day 2 with a standard opening auction. The Exchange
filed a rule change to that effect in March 2020,\14\ and successfully
tested the implementation of those changes on September 12, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88421 (March 18,
2020), 85 FR 16720 (March 24, 2020) (SR-IEX-2020-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Sections 6(b) \15\ and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in
particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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. The MWCB mechanism under
Rule 11.280 is an important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to
promote stability and investor confidence during periods of significant
stress when securities markets experience extreme broad-based declines.
Extending the MWCB pilot for an additional year would ensure the
continued, uninterrupted operation of a consistent mechanism to halt
trading across the U.S. equity markets while the Exchange, with the
other SROs, studies the design and operation of the MWCB mechanism and
the LULD Plan during the period of volatility in the Spring of 2020.
Based on the results of that study, the Exchange expects to work with
the Commission, FINRA, the other exchanges, and market participants to
determine if any additional changes to the MWCB mechanism should be
made, including consideration of rules and procedures for the periodic
testing of the MWCB mechanism with industry participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change promotes
just and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes transparency
and uniformity across markets concerning when and how to halt trading
in all stocks as a result of extraordinary market volatility. Based on
the foregoing, the Exchange believes the benefits to market
participants from the MWCB under Rule 11.280(a) through (d) and (f)
should continue on a pilot basis because the MWCB will promote fair and
orderly markets, and protect investors and the public interest.

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change implicates any
competitive issues because the proposal would ensure the continued,
uninterrupted operation of a consistent mechanism to halt trading
across the U.S. markets while the Exchange, in conjunction with the
other SROs, studies the design and operation of the MWCB mechanism and
the LULD Plan during the period of volatility in the Spring of 2020.
    Further, IEX understands that the other SROs will file proposals to
extend their rules regarding the MWCB pilot. Thus, the proposed rule
change will help to ensure consistency across market centers without
implicating any competitive issues.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \17\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\
thereunder. Because the 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 and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \19\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Commission has waived this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\21\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative upon filing. Extending the pilot for an additional
year will allow the uninterrupted operation of the existing pilot,
while FINRA, and the other exchanges conduct a study of the MWCB
mechanism in consultation with market participants and determine if any
additional changes to the MWCB mechanism should be made, including
consideration of rules and procedures for the periodic testing of the
MWCB mechanism with industry participants. Therefore, the Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission hereby
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \23\ of the Act 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-IEX-2020-17 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-IEX-2020-17. This
file number should be included in 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 Section, 100 F Street NE, Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection
and copying at the IEX's principal office and on its internet website
at www.iextrading.com. 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-IEX-2020-17 and
should be submitted on or before November 4, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22711 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35619-35621]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0465]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Old Fashion 4th July Fireworks, Presque Isle Bay,
Erie, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA. This safety zone is intended to restrict
vessels from a portion of Presque Isle Bay during the Old Fashion 4th
July Fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to
protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a
fireworks display.

DATES: This rule will be effective between 9:15 p.m. until 10:45 p.m.
on July 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2012-0465 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0465 in the
``Search'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-
843-9343, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until
there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an
NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a
comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit
the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the
hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are
discussed further below.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period run would be
impracticable.

Background and Purpose

    Between 9:45 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2012, a fireworks
display will be held on Presque Isle Bay near Erie, PA. The Captain of
the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a
gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and
property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations,
dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

Discussion of Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Old Fashion 4th
July Fireworks.

This zone will be effective and enforced from 9:15 p.m. until 10:45
p.m. on July 4, 2012. This zone will encompass all waters of Presque
Isle Bay, Erie, PA within an 840 foot radius of position 42[deg]08'12''
N and 80[deg]05'59'' W (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal
impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not
adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will
not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by
this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short
time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on
navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to
allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel
movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under
certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the
safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This temporary final rule may affect the following entities, some
of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Presque Isle Bay, Erie,
PA between 9:15 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2012.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because of the minimal amount of
time in which the safety zone will be enforced. This safety zone will
only be enforced for 90 minutes in a low commercial vessel traffic
area. Vessel traffic can pass safely around the zone. Before the
effective period, maritime advisories will be issued, which include a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small
businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who
enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman
evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's
responsiveness.
    If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Christopher
Mercurio, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34) (g),
of the Instruction because it involves the establishment of a safety
zone. A final environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0465 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0465  Safety Zone; Old Fashion 4th July Fireworks,
Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the
Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA within a 840 foot radius of position
42[deg]08'12'' N and 80[deg]05'59'' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This regulation is effective
and will be enforced on July 4, 2012 from 9:15 p.m. until 10:45 p.m.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or
his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 29, 2012.
S.M. Wischmann,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2012-14541 Filed 6-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21846-21847]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08771]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0588; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASW-12]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Paragould, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Paragould, AR.
Decommissioning of the Paragould non-directional radio beacon (NDB) at
Kirk Field Airport has made reconfiguration necessary for standard
instrument approach procedures and for the safety

and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the
airport. Geographic coordinates are also updated.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, July 24, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 8, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace for the
Paragould, AR, area, modifying controlled airspace at Kirk Field
Airport (79 FR 1344) Docket No. FAA-2013-0588. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E
airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures at Kirk
Field Airport, Paragould, AR. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due
to the decommissioning of the Paragould NDB and the cancellation of the
NDB approach. The segment northeast of the airport is now within 2.5
miles each side of the 062[deg] bearing from the airport. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations
at the airport. Geographic coordinates are also adjusted to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Kirk Field, Paragould, AR.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet
or more above the surface.
* * * * *

ASW AR E5 Paragould, AR [Amended]

Paragould, Kirk Field, AR
    (Lat. 36[deg]03'50'' N., long. 90[deg]30'33'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Kirk Field, and within 2.5 miles each
side of the 218[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the
6.4-mile radius to 9.5 miles southwest of the airport, and within
2.5 miles each side of the 062[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7.5 miles northeast of the
airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 2, 2014.
Kent M. Wheeler,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-08771 Filed 4-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Jodi Howard, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

FROM:	Bradley Nelson, EC/R, Inc.

DATE:	April 25, 2016

SUBJECT:	Estimation of Potential Emission Reductions with the Implementation of a Method 21 Monitoring Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      The purpose of this memorandum is to estimate the potential emission reduction from the implementation of a Method 21 monitoring and repair program. This analysis estimates the potential Method 21 emission reduction potential for leak definitions of 500 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm) and monitoring frequencies of annual, semiannual and quarterly. The analysis will be used to determine the equivalency of Method 21 monitoring and repair program with fugitive emission monitoring and repair using optical gas imaging (OGI).
Emission Reduction Methodology
	The potential emission reductions from a Method 21 monitoring and repair program were estimated using data and procedures from the EPA Equipment Leak Protocol (referred to in this memorandum as the EPA Protocol). This document provides procedures and approaches for estimating potential emissions from synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI), petroleum refineries, marketing terminals and oil and gas production.
      For estimating leak detection and repair (LDAR) control effectiveness, we used the methodology outlined in Chapter 5.3.1 of the EPA Protocol. The control effectiveness is calculated using a stepwise approach that starts from the initial leak frequency and adds monitoring cycles until the leak frequency after monitoring reaches steady state. The difference between the initial leak rate and the final leak rate provides the control effectiveness for the leak monitoring program. The equations for these leak rates at various leak definitions are provided in the EPA Protocol for SOCMI, petroleum refineries, marketing terminals and oil and gas production. The variable for determining the leak rate from these equations is the leak fraction. To determine the leak fraction, the stepwise approach was used to estimate the leak frequency immediately after and immediately preceding a monitoring cycle.
      The equations for determining these values are shown in the equations below.
Yi=Zi-FR-Zi+FR*Zi*R
where:
Yi = Leak fraction immediately after monitoring cycle i;
Zi = Leak fraction immediately after monitoring cycle i (Note that Z1 equals the initial leak frequency);
R = Fraction of repaired components for which a leak immediately recurs; and
FR = Fraction of leaking components successfully repaired.

Zi+1=Oc*1-Yi+YI
where:
Zi*1 = Leak fraction immediately preceding monitoring cycle i+1;
Oc = Fraction of non-leaking components which will leak in the time period between monitoring cycles (e.g., occurrence rate); and
Yi = Leak fraction immediately after monitoring cycle i.
      Other parameters included in the monitoring cycle calculations are the percentage of successfully repair components, the percentage of new leaks and the percentage of leaks that were repaired but have reoccurred. The EPA Protocol only provides data for these other parameters for the SOCMI and refineries. The refinery emissions data are provided in non-methane organic compound (NMOC) units, which would require assumed TOC and methane weight fractions to determine the TOC emission factors, whereas the SOCMI emissions data is already based on TOC. The assumed TOC and methane weight fractions would add another level of uncertainty to the emission reduction percentage calculations if the refinery data were used. Because the objective of this memorandum is to estimate the potential emission reductions from the implementation of a Method 21 monitoring and repair program, we determined that using the SOCMI data would provide the best estimate, and would be comparable to the potential fugitive emission reductions for oil and gas production, if the other parameters were available for this segment.
      The SOCMI data in the EPA Protocol only included occurrence rates for monthly and quarterly monitoring of 1.0 and 2.97 percent, respectively. To calculate annual and semiannual occurrence rates, a logarithmic equation was derived from the data points. Using this logarithmic equation, the occurrence rate for semiannual and annual monitoring were estimated to be 4.21 and 5.46 percent, respectively. A plot of the equation can be found in the appendix of this memorandum.
      The initial leak fraction for the Method 21 monitoring program was calculated using the average leak equations in the EPA Protocol. Valves were selected because they represent the largest portion of fugitive emissions from oil and gas operations, and would provide comparable emission reduction percentages as other components. Initial leak frequencies were calculated using the EPA Protocol average leak rate equations for 500 and 10,000 ppm gas valves (see Table 5-4 of the EPA Protocol) and the average SOCMI emission factor for gas valves of 0.00597 kilograms per hour per source (see Table 2-1 of the EPA Protocol) and solving for leak fraction. The initial leak frequencies can also extrapolated using the lines in Figure 5-1 in the EPA Protocol. The average leak fraction equation and calculated initial leak frequency are provided in Table 1.

    Table 1. Parameters and Assumptions Used to Calculate Monitoring Cycles
                                   Parameter
                           Parameter Value (500 ppm)
                                Parameter Value
                                 (10,000 ppm)
Occurrence Rate
                                5.46% Annual,
                              4.21% Semiannual,
                                2.97% Quarterly
                                5.46% Annual,
                              4.21% Semiannual,
                                2.97% Quarterly
Recurrence Rate
                                      14%
                                      14%
Unsuccessful Repair Rate
                                      10%
                                      10%
Initial Leak Frequency
                                    13.53%
                                     7.49%
Average Leak Rate (ALR) Equation[a]
                           ALR = 0.044*LF + 0.000017
                           ALR = 0.078*LF + 0.00013
a. the variable LF stands for leak fraction or frequency.
      Using the parameters in Table 1, the estimated emission reductions were calculated using the monitoring cycle approach in the EPA Protocol. The average fugitive emission rate was calculated for each cycle using the average leak rate equation and the average of the Yi and Zi leak fractions for that cycle.  The leak frequency after monitoring reached steady state on the sixth monitoring cycle and the percent reduction was calculated by comparing the average leak rate with the initial leak rate (i.e. Cycle 1). The results of the emission reductions are presented in Table 2. The calculations for these emission reductions are provided in the appendix of this memorandum.
      As shown in Table 2, in all cases the percent reduction for the 500 parts per million Method 21 alternative is equal to or greater than the estimated OGI monitoring and repair percent reduction. The percent reduction for the 10,000 parts per million leak threshold was greater than the OGI option only for annual monitoring.
Table 2. Percent Reduction in Emissions for EPA Method 21 Monitoring and Repair
                             Monitoring Frequency
                      Fugitive Emission Percent Reduction

                          Method 21  Repair Threshold
                                    OGI[a]

                                  10,000 ppm
                                    500 ppm

Annual
                                      42
                                      68
                                      40
Semiannual
                                      55
                                      75
                                      60
Quarterly
                                      67
                                      83
                                      80
      a. OGI emission reductions percentage based on information from Colorado cost-benefit analysis.

Appendix A
Method 21 Emissions Reduction Calculations

Graph of leak occurrence and monthly and quarterly monitoring SOCMI data to estimate semiannual and annual leak occurrence.