[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 50 (Thursday, March 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16198-16200]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0210; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-053-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to certain The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F
airplanes. The existing AD currently requires inspecting to determine
if wires touch the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel
tank, and marking the location, as necessary; inspecting all wire
bundles above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank for splices and
damage; inspecting for damage to the fuel vapor barrier seal and upper
surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank; and performing
corrective actions, as necessary. The existing AD also requires
installing nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new
attaching hardware, and a new extruded channel. The existing AD
resulted from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. Since
we issued that AD, we have identified additional center upper auxiliary
fuel tank locations where inspections and corrective actions are
needed. We are proposing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition
sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel
vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: (562)
627-5262; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0210;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-053-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On December 16, 2009, we issued AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155
(74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009), for certain McDonnell Douglas
Corporation Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. That AD requires
inspecting to determine if wires touch the upper surface of the center
upper auxiliary fuel tank, and marking the location, as necessary;
inspecting all wire bundles above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank
for splices and damage; inspecting for damage to the fuel vapor barrier
seal and upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank; and
corrective actions, as necessary. That AD also requires installing
nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new attaching
hardware, and a new extruded channel. That AD resulted from fuel system
reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We issued that AD to reduce the
potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December
31, 2009), Was Issued

    AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009)
refers to Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June
18, 2009, as the appropriate source of service information for the
required actions. Boeing has since revised this service information. We
have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated
November 29, 2011, which added additional work for certain airplanes.
This additional work includes inspecting an additional wire bundle and
installing additional sleeving, clamping, and an extruded channel over
the center upper auxiliary fuel tank.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4,
dated November 29, 2011. For information on the procedures and
compliance times, see this service

information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No.
FAA-2013-0210.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2009-
26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009). This
proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information identified previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the AD and the Service Information.''
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' might be used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that: (1) Are related to the primary actions, and (2) are actions that
further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related
investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
    In addition, the phrase ``corrective actions'' might be used in
this proposed AD. ``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or
address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include,
for example, repairs.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-
126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011, specify to contact Boeing for
additional inspection and repair instructions, but this proposed AD
would require operators to perform those actions using a method
approved by the FAA.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 125 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection/installation          168 to 182 work-hours   $9,405 to $12,201  $23,685 to         $2,865,885 to
 retained [actions from           x $85 per hour =                           $27,671 per        $3,348,191 per
 existing AD 2009-26-16,          $14,280 to $15,470                         inspection cycle.  inspection
 Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR        per inspection cycle.                                         cycle.
 69249, December 31, 2009].
Inspection/installation Groups   Up to 9 work-hours x    $2,863...........  Up to $3,628.....  Up to $438,988.
 1, 2, and 5, all Configuration   $85 per hour = $765.
 2 airplanes [new proposed
 action].
Inspection/installation Group 6  13 work-hours x $85     $7,932...........  $9,037...........  $36,148.
 airplanes [new proposed          per hour = $1,105.
 action].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2013-0210; Directorate Identifier
2012-NM-053-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 29,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR
69249, December 31, 2009).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of
ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with
flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection and Corrective Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009),
with revised service information. For airplanes identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009:
Within 60 months after February 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD
2009-26-16), do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(g)(5) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009; or Boeing
Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011;
except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD. After the effective
date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision
4, dated November 29, 2011, may be used. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight.
    (1) Do a general visual inspection of the wire bundles between
Stations 1238.950 and 1361.000 to determine if wires touch the upper
surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank, and mark the
location, as applicable.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection for splices and damage of all wire
bundles above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank between Stations
1218.950 and 1381.000.
    (3) Do a detailed inspection for damage (burn marks) of the
upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank.
    (4) Do a detailed inspection for damage (burn marks) on the fuel
vapor barrier seal.
    (5) Install a nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps,
new attaching hardware, and a new extruded channel.

(h) New Inspections and Corrective Action for Group 1, Configuration 2;
Group 2, Configuration 2; and Group 5, Configuration 2 Airplanes

    For airplanes in Group 1, Configuration 2; Group 2,
Configuration 2; and Group 5, Configuration 2; as identified in
Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29,
2011: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
detailed inspection of wire bundles for splices and damage (chafing,
arcing, and broken insulation) and damage (burn marks) on the upper
surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank and fuel vapor
barrier seal; install barrier/shield sleeving and clamping; and do
all applicable corrective actions at the locations specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126,
Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011, except as required by paragraph
(k)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before
further flight.
    (1) For Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes: between Stations
1238.950 and 1381.000, and Stations 1238.950 and 1256.000, and
Stations 1238.950 and 1256.800, depending on passenger or freighter
configuration.
    (2) For Group 2, Configuration 2 airplanes: between Stations
1238.950 and 1275.250, and Stations 1238.950 and 1275.250, passenger
configuration only.
    (3) For Group 5, Configuration 2 airplanes: between Stations
1381.000 and 1238.950.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD, using the service bulletins specified in
paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), or (i)(1)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June
18, 2009.
    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 2, dated
November 18, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (iii) Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 3, dated
June 3, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD, using Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-
126, Revision 3, dated June 3, 2011.

(j) Repair

    Where Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated
June 18, 2009; or Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4,
dated November 29, 2011; specifies to contact The Boeing Company for
repair instructions: Before further flight, repair the auxiliary
fuel tank in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, 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 Los Angeles ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
    (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 required by this AD if it is approved by
Structures Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been
authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings.
For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment
45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR
69249, December 31, 2009), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding requirements of this AD.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Lee,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 8, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-05864 Filed 3-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 192 (Friday, October 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62353-62356]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21765]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90024; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-76]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Harmonize Rules 9261 and 9830 with Recent Changes by the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

September 28, 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 September 15, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III 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

    The Exchange proposes to harmonize Rules 9261 and 9830 with recent
changes by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') that temporarily grants the Chief or Deputy Chief Hearing
Officer the authority to order that hearings be conducted by video
conference if warranted by public health risks posed by in-person
hearings during the ongoing novel coronavirus (``COVID-19'') pandemic.
As proposed, these temporary amendments would be in effect through
December 31, 2020. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to harmonize Rules 9261 (Evidence and
Procedure in Hearing) and 9830 (Hearing) with recent changes by FINRA
to its Rules 9261 and 9830 that temporarily grants to the Chief or
Deputy Chief Hearing Officer the authority to order that hearings be
conducted by video conference if warranted by public health risks posed
by in-person hearings during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. As
proposed, these temporary amendments would be in effect through
December 31, 2020.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange may submit a separate rule filing to extend the
expiration date of the proposed temporary amendments if the Exchange
requires temporary relief from the rule requirements identified in
this proposal beyond December 31, 2020. The amended NYSE rules will
revert back to their current state at the conclusion of the
temporary relief period and any extension thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    In 2013, the NYSE adopted disciplinary rules that are, with certain
exceptions, substantially the same as the FINRA Rule 8000 Series and
Rule 9000 Series, and which set forth rules for conducting
investigations and enforcement actions.\5\ The NYSE disciplinary rules
were implemented on July 1, 2013.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68678 (January 16,
2013), 78 FR 5213 (January 24, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02) (``2013
Notice''), 69045 (March 5, 2013), 78 FR 15394 (March 11, 2013) (SR-
NYSE-2013-02) (``2013 Approval Order''), and 69963 (July 10, 2013),
78 FR 42573 (July 16, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-49).
    \6\ See NYSE Information Memorandum 13-8 (May 24, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting disciplinary rules modeled on FINRA's rules, the NYSE
adopted the hearing and evidentiary processes set forth in Rule 9261
and in Rule 9830 for hearings in matters involving temporary and
permanent cease and desist orders under the Rule 9800 Series. As
adopted, the text of Rule 9261 is identical to the counterpart FINRA
rule. Rule 9830 is substantially the same as FINRA's rule, except for
conforming and technical amendments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 2013 Approval Order, 78 FR at 15394, n.7 & 15400; 2013
Notice, 78 FR at 5228 & 5234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the ongoing spread of COVID-19 and its effect on FINRA's
adjudicatory functions nationwide, FINRA recently filed a temporary
rule change to grant FINRA's Office of Hearing Officers (``OHO'') and
the National Adjudicatory Council (``NAC'') the authority to conduct
certain hearings by video conference, if warranted by the current
COVID-19-related public health risks posed by in-person hearings. Among
the rules FINRA amended were Rules 9261 and 9830.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 83289 (September 2,
2020), 85 FR 55712 (September 9, 2020) (SR-FINRA-2020-027) (``FINRA
Filing''). FINRA also proposed to temporarily amend FINRA Rules 1015
and 9524. FINRA Rule 1015 governs the process by which an applicant
for new or continuing membership can appeal a decision rendered by
FINRA's Department of Member Supervision under FINRA Rule 1014 or
1017 and request a hearing which would be conducted by a
subcommittee of the NAC. See id. The Exchange has not adopted FINRA
Rule 1015. FINRA Rule 9524 governs the process by which a
statutorily disqualified member firm or associated person can appeal
the Department's recommendation to deny a firm or sponsoring firm's
application to the NAC. See id. Under the Exchange's version of Rule
9524, if the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer rejects the
application, the member organization or applicant may request a
review by the Exchange Board of Directors. This differs from FINRA's
process, which provides for a hearing before the NAC and further
consideration by the FINRA Board of Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA represented in its filing that its protocol for conducting
hearings by video conference would ensure that such hearings maintain
fair process for the parties by, among other things, FINRA's use of a
high quality, secure and user-friendly video conferencing service and
provide thorough instructions, training and technical support to all
hearing participants.\9\ According to FINRA, the proposed changes were
a reasonable interim solution to allow FINRA's critical adjudicatory
processes to continue to function while protecting the health and
safety of hearing participants as FINRA works towards resuming in-
person hearings in a manner that is compliant with the current guidance
of public health authorities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55713.
    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to a regulatory services agreement (``RSA''), FINRA's OHO
will administer all aspects of adjudications, including assigning
hearing officers to serve as NYSE hearing officers. A hearing officer
from OHO will, among other things, preside over the disciplinary
hearing, select and chair the hearing panel, and prepare and issue
written decisions. The Chief or Deputy Hearing Officer for all Exchange
disciplinary hearings are currently drawn from OHO and are all FINRA
employees. The Exchange believes that OHO will utilize the same video
conference protocol and processes for Exchange matters under the RSA as
it proposes for FINRA matters.
    Given that FINRA and its OHO administers disciplinary hearings on
the Exchange's behalf, and given that the public health concerns
addressed by FINRA's amendments apply equally to the Exchange's
disciplinary hearings, the Exchange proposes to temporarily amend its
disciplinary rules to allow FINRA to conduct virtual hearings on its
behalf.
Proposed Rule Change
    Rule 9261(b) states that if a disciplinary hearing is held, a party
shall be entitled to be heard in-person, by counsel, or by the party's
representative. Absent an agreement by all parties to proceed in
another manner, Exchange disciplinary hearings are in-person. As noted,
the Chief and Deputy Hearing Officers for all Exchange and cross-market
matters are supplied by OHO and are FINRA employees. Accordingly,
absent an agreement by all parties to proceed in another manner, under
Rule 9261(b) the Chief or Deputy Hearing Officer conducts disciplinary
hearings in-person.
    Similarly, Rule 9830 outlines the requirements for hearings for
temporary and permanent cease and desist orders. Rule 9830(a), however,
does not specify that a party shall be entitled to be heard in-person,
by counsel, or by the party's representative.
    Consistent with FINRA's temporary amendment to FINRA Rules 9261 and
9830, the Exchange proposes to temporarily grant the Chief or Deputy
Chief Hearing Officer temporary authority to order, upon consideration
of the current COVID-19-related public health risks presented by an in-
person hearing, that a hearing under those rules be conducted by video
conference. The proposed rule change will permit OHO to make an
assessment, based on critical COVID-19 data and criteria and the
guidance of health and security consultants, whether an in-person
hearing would compromise the health and safety of the hearing
participants such that the hearing should proceed by video conference.
As noted, FINRA has adopted a detailed and thorough

protocol to ensure that hearings conducted by video conference will
maintain fair process for the parties.\11\ The Exchange believes that
this is a reasonable procedure to follow in hearings under Rules 9261
and 9830 chaired by a FINRA employee.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55713.
    \12\ The Exchange notes, as did FINRA, that SEC's Rules of
Practice pertaining to temporary cease-and-desist orders provide
that parties and witnesses may participate by telephone or, in the
Commission's discretion, through the use of alternative technologies
that allow remote access, such as a video link. See SEC Rule of
Practice 511(d)(3); Comment (d); see FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55714,
n. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effectuate these changes, the Exchange proposes to add the
following sentence to Rule 9261(b):

    Upon consideration of the current public health risks presented
by an in-person hearing, the Chief Hearing Officer or Deputy Chief
Hearing Officer may, on a temporary basis, determine that the
hearing shall be conducted, in whole or in part, by video
conference.

    The proposed text is identical to the language adopted by
FINRA.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to add the following text to Rule
9830(a):

    Upon consideration of the current public health risks presented
by an in-person hearing, the Chief Hearing Officer or Deputy Chief
Hearing Officer may, on a temporary basis, determine that the
hearing shall be conducted, in whole or in part, by video
conference.

    Once again, the proposed language is identical to the language
adopted by FINRA.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\16\ in particular, because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change is designed to provide a fair procedure for
the disciplining of members and persons associated with members,
consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and 6(d) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change supports the
objectives of the Act by providing greater harmonization between
Exchange rules and FINRA rules of similar purpose, resulting in less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance. As previously
noted, the text of Rule 9261 is identical to the counterpart FINRA rule
and Rule 9830 is substantially the same as FINRA's rule, except for
conforming and technical amendments. As such, the proposed rule change
will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities and will remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed temporary rule change will
permit the Exchange to effectively conduct hearings during the COVID-19
pandemic in situations where in-person hearings present likely public
health risks. The ability to conduct hearings by video conference will
thereby permit the adjudicatory functions of the Exchange's
disciplinary rules to continue unabated, thereby avoiding protracted
delays. The Exchange believes that this is especially important in
matters where temporary and permanent cease and desist orders are
sought because the proposed rule change would enable those hearings to
proceed without delay, thereby enabling the Exchange to take immediate
action to stop significant, ongoing customer harm, to the benefit of
the investing public.
    Conducting hearings via video conference will give the parties and
adjudicators simultaneous visual and oral communication without the
risks inherent in physical proximity during a pandemic. Temporarily
permitting hearings for disciplinary matters to proceed by video
conference maintains fair process by providing respondents a timely
opportunity to address and potentially resolve any allegations of
misconduct.
    As noted, FINRA will use a high quality, secure video conferencing
technology with features that will allow the parties to reasonably
approximate those tasks that are typically performed at an in-person
hearing, such as sharing documents, marking documents, and utilizing
breakout rooms. FINRA will also provide training for participants on
how to use the video conferencing platform and detailed guidance on the
procedures that will govern such hearings. Moreover, the Chief or
Deputy Chief Hearing Officer may take into consideration, among other
things, a hearing participant's access to connectivity and technology
in scheduling a video conference hearing and can also, at their
discretion, allow a party or witness to participate by telephone, if
necessary, to address such access issues.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See text accompanying notes 9-10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is designed to provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of
members and persons associated with members, consistent with Sections
6(b)(7) and 6(d) of the Act.\19\ The Exchange believes that the
temporary proposed rule change strikes an appropriate balance between
providing fair process and enabling the Exchange to fulfill its
statutory obligations to protect investors and maintain fair and
orderly markets while accounting for the significant health and safety
risks of in-person hearings stemming from the outbreak of COVID-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but is rather intended
solely to provide temporary relief given the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic. In its filing, FINRA provides an abbreviated economic impact
assessment maintaining that the changes are necessary to temporarily
rebalance the attendant benefits and costs of the obligations under
FINRA Rules 1015, 9261, 9524 and 9830 in response to the impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic that is equally applicable to the changes the
Exchange proposes.\20\ The Exchange accordingly incorporates FINRA's
abbreviated economic impact assessment by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \21\ and Rule

19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\22\ 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 prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed
rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSE-2020-76 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-NYSE-2020-76. 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, on business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., located at 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-76 and should be
submitted on or before October 23, 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. 2020-21765 Filed 10-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16365-16367]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6872]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0315, FRL-9285-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington:
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to correct errors in the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the State of Washington regarding the scope of certain
regulations incorporated by reference into the SIP. This correction
would limit the applicability of certain regulations to pollutants for
which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been
established and precursors to those NAAQS pollutants. It would thus
ensure that these regulations are reasonably related to attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS in Washington.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2011-0315, by any of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin

Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are
only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2011-0315. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at telephone number:
(206) 553-6357, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA,
Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as
follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the basis for the action that EPA is proposing?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations establishing national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for those air pollutants for which air quality criteria have been
issued pursuant to Section 108 of the CAA (referred to as criteria or
NAAQS pollutants). EPA has set NAAQS for six pollutants: sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone
and lead at 40 CFR part 50. EPA has identified ammonia, volatile
organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide as precursors to
one or more of these NAAQS pollutants. See CAA 302(g); 40 CFR 51.1000.
Section 110 of the CAA requires States to adopt and submit to EPA for
approval State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to implement, maintain, and
enforce the NAAQS. In general, State and local regulations approved by
EPA into the SIP under Section 110 of the CAA must reasonably relate to
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. See generally CAA 110; see
also Memorandum from Michael A. James, EPA, to Regional Counsels, Re:
Status of State/Local Air Pollution Control Measures Not Related to
NAAQS, dated February 7, 1979 (``measures to control non-criteria
pollutants [pollutants that are not NAAQS pollutants or their
precursors] may not legally be made part of a SIP.'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Of course, SIP approved Prevention of Significant
Deterioration programs must cover any ``regulated NSR pollutant,''
see 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50), which definition includes more than NAAQS
pollutants and NAAQS precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In several instances in the past, EPA has approved into the
Washington SIP general air pollution regulations that cover a broader
range of air pollutants than NAAQS pollutants or their precursors. To
the extent EPA's prior approvals of these general provisions did not
distinguish between those pollutants that reasonably relate to
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS (that is, NAAQS pollutants and
their precursors), such approvals were overly broad, approved in error,
and should be corrected.
    EPA is therefore proposing to correct its previous approval of the
following provisions of the Washington SIP to make clear that EPA's
approval of such regulations is limited to application of these
requirements to air pollutants that are NAAQS pollutants or precursors
to a NAAQS pollutant:
    Department of Ecology (Ecology): WAC 173-400-040 (except WAC 173-
400-040(1)(c), (1)(d), (2), (4) and the second paragraph of (6) \2\)
(state effective 9/20/93; EPA effective 6/2/95);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The excepted provisions have not been approved into the
Washington SIP for any air pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC): WAC 463-39-005(1)
(EFSEC's incorporation by reference of WAC 173-400-040, except for WAC
173-400-040(1)(c), (1)(d), (2), (4) and the second paragraph of (6))
(state effective 9/21/95; EPA effective 7/22/96);
    Northwest Clean Air Authority (NWCAA): NWCAA Sec. 104.1 (NWCAA's
incorporation by reference of WAC 173-400-040 except for WAC 173-400-
040(1)(c), (1)(d), (2), (4) and the second paragraph of (6)) (state
effective 11/13/94; EPA effective 12/26/95);
    Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA): PSCAA Reg. I, Sec. 304
(except for Reg. 1, Sec. 304(e)) (state effective 3/11/99; EPA
effective 9/30/04);
    Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCAA): SWCAA Sec. 400-040 (except
SWCAA Sec. 400-040(1)(c), (1)(d), (2), (4), and (6)(a)) (state
effective 9/21/95; EPA effective 4/28/97);
    Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA): YRCAA Article V,
Section 5.06 (state effective 12/15/95; EPA effective 3/4/98); Section
5.12 (state effective 12/15/95; EPA effective 3/4/98); Section 12.01
(YRCAA's incorporation by reference of WAC 173-400-040 except WAC 173-
400-040(1)(c), (1)(d), (2), (4) and the second paragraph of (6)) (state
effective 12/15/95; EPA effective 3/4/98).
    In a letter dated March 10, 2011, Ecology and SWCAA stated their
support of EPA's approval of this correction and narrowing of the
Washington SIP.

II. What is the basis for the action that EPA is proposing?

    Under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, whenever EPA determines that
its action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan
revision (or part thereof), area designation,

redesignation, classification, or reclassification was in error, EPA
may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation
revise such action as appropriate without requiring any further
submission from the State. Such determination and the basis thereof
shall be provided to the State and public.
    Pursuant to section 110(k)(6), EPA is proposing to find that its
approval of these State and local provisions was in error, and to
clarify and, as necessary, narrow its approval of certain regulations
in the Washington SIP so that EPA's approval of those regulations as
part of the Washington SIP is limited to their application to those
pollutants that are reasonably related to attainment or maintenance of
the NAAQS, that is, NAAQS pollutants and their precursors. EPA has
previously similarly relied on section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to remove
from other States' SIPs provisions that do not relate to attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS or to narrow SIP provisions consistent with
CAA requirements. See, e.g., 75 FR 2440 (January 15, 2010) (removing
from Kentucky SIP rule regulating hazardous air pollutants); 74 FR
27442 (June 10, 2009) (removing from the Indiana SIP provisions
relating to hazardous air pollutants); 73 FR 21546 (April 22, 2008)
(removing the word ``odor'' from the definition of air contaminant in
the New York SIP); 70 FR 58311 (October 6, 2005) (removing from the
Idaho SIP a cross-reference to toxic air pollutants); 66 FR 57391
(November 15, 2001) (removing from the Missoula City-County portion of
the Montana SIP provisions relating to, among other things, fluoride
emission standards); see also Limitation of Approval of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas
Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule, 75 FR
82536, 82543-44 (Dec. 30, 2010) (relying on the authority of CAA
110(k)(6) to narrow the scope of Federal approval of State Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) SIP provisions to ensure that
federally enforceable requirements of the PSD programs of these States
did not apply at lower thresholds for greenhouse gases than those under
Federal PSD requirements in the Tailoring Rule).
    Narrowing EPA's approval of these regulations to NAAQS pollutants
and their precursors will have no affect on Washington's ability to
demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or to meet any
other requirement of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely corrects EPA's prior SIP approvals to be
consistent with Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by the State's law. For that reason,
this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
Washington,\3\ and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The one exception is within the exterior boundaries of the
Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area.
Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25
U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided State and local agencies
in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within
the 1873 Survey Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: March 16, 2011.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2011-6872 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   www.epa.gov/region8

Ref: 8ARD-PM

Mr. Joel Kenyon
Manager Air Quality
Chipeta Processing, LLC
P.O. Box 173779
Denver, Colorado  80202

Re: 	Draft Part 71 Operating Permit, #V-UO-000023-2016.00, Chipeta Processing, LLC, Chipeta Gas Plant

Dear Mr. Kenyon:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 has completed its review of Chipeta Processing, LLC's application for the Chipeta Gas Plant to obtain a renewed Clean Air Act Title V operating permit pursuant to the Title V Operating Permit Program at 40 CFR part 71 (Part 71). The EPA received the complete application on February 10, 2016.

The draft Part 71 operating permit, the corresponding Statement of Basis and all other supporting documents are accessible for your review at: http://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/caa-permit-public-comment-opportunities-region-8. The regulations at 40 CFR 71.11(d) require that an applicant, the public and affected states have the opportunity to submit written comments on any draft Part 71 operating permit. All written comments submitted within 30 calendar days after the public notice is published will be considered by the agency in making its final permit decision. The public comment period will end at 5:00 p.m. MT on Tuesday, January 3, 2023.

The conditions contained in the permit will become effective and enforceable by the Agency if the permit is issued final. If you are unable to accept any term or condition of the draft permit, please submit your written comments electronically, along with the reason(s) for non-acceptance to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or through the docket at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID #EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0356).

If you have any questions concerning the enclosed draft permit or Statement of Basis, please contact Charles Buckler, of my staff, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                                    Sincerely,

						Monica Morales
                              Acting Director
						Air and Radiation Division

cc:	Mike Natchees, Director, Air Quality Program, Ute Indian Tribe


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 58989]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23587]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9720-7]

Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement for the
Buckbee-Mears Co. Superfund Site in Cortland, NY, Cortland County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122 (h) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given of a proposed
administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs
concerning the Buckbee-Mears Co. Superfund Site located in Cortland,
Cortland County, New York, (the ``Site'') with the State Bank of India,
New York Branch (the ``Bank''). Pursuant to the settlement EPA will
receive: (1) All funds in an escrow account with accrued interest
(approximately $116,500); (2) Twenty-five percent of any funds the Bank
collects from the principals of International Electron Devices (USA),
LLC, the current owner and past operator of the Site at the time of
disposal; and (3) A share of the proceeds from the sale of two parcels
of land within the Site (``Properties'') following the Bank's
foreclosure sale and distribution of certain amounts to the City of
Cortland (``City'') and Cortland County (``County'') in settlement of
their respective tax liens. The sales proceeds shall be distributed as
follows: (a) The Bank will pay to the City the greater of $302,881 or
15% after the Bank is paid $150,000 attributable to the costs of
marketing and selling the Properties; (b) The Bank will pay to the
County $2,120; and (c) Any proceeds from the foreclosure sale remaining
after the above payments will be distributed in proportion to the
following lien amounts: (1) For EPA, $8,323.204; (2) for the Bank,
$8,434,911; (3) for the City, $1,199,043 minus the greater of $302,881
or fifteen percent (15%) of the proceeds from the sale of the
Properties. The settlement also includes a covenant not to sue the
settling party pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, for
Existing Contamination, as defined in the settlement, at the Site. For
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the
Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The
Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw
its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate,
improper, or inadequate.

DATES: Comments must be provided within thirty days of the publication
of this notice.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, 290 Broadway, 17th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866 and should refer to the Buckbee-
Mears Co. Superfund Site located in Cortland, New York, Cortland
County, EPA Region II Docket No. CERCLA-02-2012-2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Regional Counsel, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866, Attention: Marla E. Wieder, Assistant Regional Counsel
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of the proposed settlement may be
obtained from Marla Wieder, Assistant Regional Counsel at the address
above, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 20, 2012.
John LaPadula,
Deputy Director, Emergency & Remedial Response Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-23587 Filed 9-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Technical Support Document for the Registry of Recoverable Waste Energy
Sources, Section 372 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act
(EISA)

Prepared by ICF International for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

FebruaryMay 7, 2009

CONTENTS

Waste Energy Survey Tool (WEST) – Survey Questions

1. Waste Energy Survey Tool (WEST) - Survey Questions

Introduction

Section 372 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
calls for EPA to publish a rule to establish a Registry of Recoverable
Waste Energy Sources (Registry).  EPA intends to populate the Registry
through responses to an ongoing waste energy recovery survey (Survey),
also required under EISA.  The Survey is designed to estimate the
potential for waste energy recovery projects at major industrial and
large commercial sources and the sites at which the sources are located
based on readily available information on the site and each potential
waste energy source at the site.

The Survey EPA is proposing is an internet-based Survey, the Waste
Energy Survey Tool (WEST), which is downloaded by owners or operators of
the sites or sources (the respondents).  The respondents will enter data
into WEST to be used to determine the potential waste energy recovery
opportunity of the source.  For each waste energy source entered, WEST
will screen and calculate a quantitative estimate of potential power
generation in MWs and potential CO2 and criteria pollutant (NOx and SOx)
emissions reduction in tons/yr, and determine if the potential project
meets the five year payback, primary purpose and minimum efficiency
criteria.

Survey Questions

Site Information – Information on the site name, address, primary
contact, and NAICS/application; site-wide information on electricity and
thermal use, and electricity and fuel prices.

Site Name #:

Site Address #:

Site Contact #:

Name #:

Title #:

Address (street address, city, state, zip code) #:

Phone Number #:

E-mail #:

Primary NAICS code (6 digit) #:

Site Description (Brief sentence description of primary function of site
- e.g., hospital, petroleum refinery, etc) *:

Annual operating hours:

Annual electricity purchases (kWh):

                      and/or

Average electricity demand during operating hours (kW):

Average purchased electricity price for 2007 (cents/kWh or specify
units) – include total costs – commodity and delivery, and all costs
– demand and energy:

Annual fuel consumption (Specify units – MMBtu, therms, etc)

Average purchased fuel price for 2007 ($/MMBtu or specify units):

Electric distribution utility serving site:

Is there an existing on-site generation system (do not include back-up
or emergency generators)?

If so, what is the capacity (kW) and annual operating hours, or annual
electricity generation (kWh/yr)

# Site information that will be submitted to EPA and published in the
public waste energy registry

* Site information that will be submitted to EPA and will be defined as
Detailed Quantitative Information (DQI)

If initial minimum thresholds are not met (i.e., 1 MW average electric
demand or 5 MMBtu/hr fuel for commercial, and 100 MMBtu/hr fuel use for
industrial), the user would be given the option to end the survey at
this point, or to move on to the individual waste energy categories.

WEST Implementation option - Section A could end with a series of
questions that would direct the user to the applicable follow-on
sections:

Does your site have individual furnace/process and/or flare stacks that
have an exit temperature of greater than 500º F?  (If yes, the survey
would jump to Section B, if no, the survey would go to the next
question)

Does your site have process off streams with combustible energy content?
 (If yes, the survey would jump to Section C, if no, the survey would go
to the next question)

Does your site have a steam boiler or boilers?  (If yes, the survey
would jump to Section D, if no, the survey would jump to Section E (it
is assumed all respondents that pass site thresholds will be asked to
complete Section E – CHP)

“Exhaust heat or flared gas” - Information on heat recovery
opportunities from high temperature stacks.  Examples of such sources
would include high temperature exhaust streams from glass melters,
cement kilns, or pipeline compressor turbine drives.

How many individual furnace/process/equipment stack or flare stacks at
your site are greater than 500 º F:

How many of these have an average gas flow greater than 7,000 scf/min
(or 500,000 scf/hr):

How many of these operate at least 4,500 hours per year:

If 1, 2  and 3 not met, user will be sent to Section C

Complete the following for each exhaust furnace/process/equipment stack
or flare stack with an exhaust temperature greater than 500 º F,
average stack flow of 7,000 scf/min or above, and minimum operating
hours of 4,500 hrs/yr.

Temperature (F):

Average stack gas flow (specify units:  scf/min, scf/hr, cf/min, cf/hr,
lbs/hr):

Temperature will determine specific minimum flow requirements; if not
met, user will be sent to next stack or Section C.

If exhaust temperature is known, but stack flow is not, available heat
could be estimated based on the following (replaces question 2 above):

Source fuel input (MMBtu/hr or MMBtu/yr):

Is source furnace/process/combustion equipment step or flare:

If furnace/process/combustion equipment, what is the thermal efficiency
(%):

Annual operating hours for source:

Source description (e.g., glass furnace, process flare) *:

Is source a continuous or batch process:

Is there emissions control equipment in the stack:

If so, what type:

Is stack temperature specified before or after control equipment?:

Was the source in operation or commence construction prior to December
19, 2007?

For each waste heat source, WEST will screen and calculate a
quantitative estimate of:

Waste heat to power recovery potential (MW) *

CO2 emissions reduction potential (tons/year) *

Criteria pollutant reduction potential (NOx and SOx tons/yr) *

Does the potential project have a five year payback or less (yes/no) *

Does the potential project meet the primary purpose criteria (yes/no) *

If a new source, does the potential project meet the 60% efficiency test
(yes/no) *

For the site, WEST will indicate:

Does the site have a waste heat recovery opportunity that passes all
screening criteria (yes/no)*

# Waste heat recovery information that will be submitted to EPA and
published in the public waste energy registry

* Waste heat recovery information that will be submitted to EPA and will
be defined as Detailed Quantitative Information (DQI)

“Waste gas or industrial tail gas that would otherwise be flared,
incinerated or vented” - Information on energy recovery opportunities
from process off streams with significant combustible energy content.
Examples of such sources would include chemical and/or refinery
off-gases, anaerobic decomposition gases from food processing wastes, or
combustible off-gases from coke ovens.

Are there any process off streams with combustible energy content at the
site:

If 1 not met, user will be sent to Section D

Average gas flow (specify units:  scf/min, scf/hr, cf/min, cf/hr, lbs/hr
or other):

Minimum and maximum stack gas flow (optional):

Gas stream combustible energy content (specify units: Btu/scf, or
other):

Flow and Btu content will determine minimum threshold, if not met, user
will be sent to Section D.

Annual operating hours for source:

If below 4,500 hours, user will be sent to next stack or section C

Source description (e.g., coke oven, digester) *:

Is source a continuous or batch process:

Is there existing pollution control equipment in place:

If so, what type:

Is flow and Btu content specified before or after control equipment?:

Was the source in operation or under construction prior to December 19,
2007?

For each combustible source, WEST will screen and calculate a
quantitative estimate of:

Waste gas to power recovery potential (MW) *

CO2 emissions reduction potential (tons/year) *

Criteria pollutant reduction potential (NOx and SOx tons/yr) *

Does the potential project have a five year payback or less (yes/no) *

Does the potential project meet the primary purpose criteria (yes/no) *

If a new source, does the potential project meet the 60% efficiency test
(yes/no) *

For the site, WEST will indicate:

Does the site have a waste gas or industrial tail gas recovery
opportunity that passes all screening criteria (yes/no) *

# Waste gas recovery information that will be submitted to EPA and
published in the public waste energy registry

* Waste gas recovery information that will be submitted to EPA and will
be defined as Detailed Quantitative Information (DQI)

“Recoverable pressure drop” - Information on energy recovery
opportunities from high pressure process streams that are reduced to
lower pressure without any existing recovery.  A primary example of such
sources would include high pressure steam from a boiler that is reduced
in pressure reduction valves to a lower pressure for process and/or
heating use.

Are there steam boilers at the site:

If 1 not met, user will be sent to Section E

What are the average outlet steam conditions of the boiler(s) (psig and
temperature):

What are the average steam conditions required at the process or for
heating (psig and temperature):

Is there an existing backpressure or extraction steam turbine generator
in place:

Average steam flow (specify units:  lbs/hr, lbs/yr, Btu/hr, Btu/yr):

Annual operating hours for steam system:

Was the unit in operation or under construction prior to December 19,
2007?

For each pressure drop source, WEST will screen and calculate a
quantitative estimate of:

Pressure drop to power recovery potential (MW) *

CO2 emissions reduction potential (tons/year) *

Criteria pollutant reduction potential (tons/yr) *

Does the potential project have a five year payback or less (yes/no) *

Does the potential project meet the primary purpose criteria (yes/no) *

If a new source, does the potential project meet the 60% efficiency test
(yes/no) *

For the site, WEST will indicate:

Does the site have a pressure drop recovery opportunity that passes all
screening criteria (yes/no) *

# Pressure drop recovery information that will be submitted to EPA and
published in the public waste energy registry

* Pressure drop recovery information that will be submitted to EPA and
will be defined as Detailed Quantitative Information (DQI)

“Combined Heat and Power” - Information on opportunities for on-site
generation with heat recovery for site/process heating and/or cooling.

Average process or heating steam demand at site (specify units such as
lb/hr, lbs/yr):

Average process or heating steam conditions (psig, temperature):

Annual hours of steam demand

Commercial applications may not know actual steam or hot water demand.
In those cases, the survey will ask:

3-a.	What is annual space heating load (Btu/yr, or Btu/month), or

what is annual space heating fuel use (MMBtu/yr, therms/yr)

3-b.	What is annual hot water load (Btu/yr, or Btu/month), or

what is annual hot water fuel use (MMBtu/yr, therms/yr)

Average process or heating hot water demand at site (specify unit such
as lbs/hr, gallons/hr, Btu/hr, Btu/yr):

Average process hot water temperature (F):

Annual hours of hot water demand:

Is there a central cooling/refrigeration supply:

Average cooling/refrigeration demand (specify units such as tons/hr):

Annual hours of cooling/refrigeration:

WEST will screen and calculate a quantitative estimate of:

CHP potential based on thermal (heating and/or cooling) load (MW) *

CO2 emissions reduction potential (tons/year) *

Criteria pollutant reduction potential (NOx and SOx tons/yr) *

Does the potential project have a five year payback or less (yes/no) *

Does the potential project meet the primary purpose criteria (yes/no) *

If a new source, does the potential project meet the 60% efficiency test
(yes/no) *

For the site, WEST will indicate:

Does the site have a Combined Heat and Power opportunity that passes all
screening criteria (yes/no) *

# CHP potential information that will be submitted to EPA and published
in the public waste energy registry

* CHP potential information that will be submitted to EPA and will be
defined as Detailed Quantitative Information (DQI)

 Emissions savings of waste energy recovery projects will be estimated
by comparing the emissions from the waste energy recovery system to the
emissions that would normally occur without the system in place,
including the displaced power plant emissions from grid electricity
avoided by the output of the waste energy recovery system.  Avoided grid
emissions will be calculated based on EPA’s EPA’s Emission &
Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). eGRID, developed by
EPA’s Climate Protection Partnership Division’s State and Local
Branch, is considered the preeminent source of contains data on the
environmental attributes of virtually all of the electric power
generated in the United States, linking air emissions to electricity
generated. The most recent version, the sixth edition of eGRID,
eGRID2007, includes operational data from 2005.

ICF International		  PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23992-23993]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at Myrtle Beach International Airport, Myrtle Beach, SC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of land at Myrtle Beach International Airport, Myrtle Beach,
SC.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Aimee McCormick, Federal Aviation
Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave.,
Ste. 220, College Park, GA 30337.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: Kirk Lovell, Director of Air Service and
Business Development, Horry County Department of Airports, 1100 Jetport
Rd., Myrtle Beach, SC 29577.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aimee McCormick, Federal Aviation
Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave.,
Ste. 220, College Park, GA 30337, [email protected]. The request
to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release 17.5 acres of airport property at Myrtle Beach
International Airport (MYR) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.
47107(h)(2).
    On February 2, 2018, the Horry County Department of Airports
requested the FAA release of 17.5 acres of property for sale to the
Veteran's Administration (VA) for development and use of a medical
facility with no overnight patient bed services.) FAA has determined
that the proposed property release at Myrtle Beach International
Airport (MYR), as submitted by Horry County Department of Airports,
meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and

release of the property does not and will not impact future aviation
needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in
part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    Myrtle Beach International Airport (MYR) is proposing the release
of airport property totaling 17.5 acres to be developed and used for a
medical facility with no overnight patient bed services. The release of
land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant
Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be
used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will
result in the land at Myrtle Beach International Airport (MYR) being
changed from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the lands
from the conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement
Grant Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and
(iii), the airport will receive fair market value for the property,
which will be subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport
improvement project for aviation facilities at Myrtle Beach
International Airport.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at Myrtle Beach International
Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, GA, on May 16, 2018.
Aimee McCormick,
Acting Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2018-10954 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P