[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53584-53588]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23247]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0172; FRL 9985-76-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT91

Approval of Louisiana's Request To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) Gasoline Standard for the Baton Rouge Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a request from Louisiana for EPA to relax the federal
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline introduced
into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for the
Louisiana parishes of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Livingston,
Ascension, and Iberville (the Baton Rouge Area). Specifically, EPA is
approving amendments to the regulations to allow the gasoline RVP

standard for the Baton Rouge Area to change from 7.8 pounds per square
inch (psi) to 9.0 psi. EPA has determined that this change to the
federal RVP regulation is consistent with the applicable provisions of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0172. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-
9256; email address: [email protected], or Rudolph Kapichak,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
(734) 214-4574; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in
the following outline:

I. General Information
II. Action Being Taken
III. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement
IV. EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Gasoline Volatility
Standards in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as
Attainment Areas
V. Louisiana's Request To Relax the Federal Gasoline RVP Requirement
for the Baton Rouge Area
VI. Response to Comments
VII. Final Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this rule are fuel producers and
distributors involved in supplying gasoline to the Baton Rouge Area.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NAICS \1\
          Examples of potentially regulated entities             codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refineries.........................................     324110
Gasoline Marketers and Distributors..........................     424710
                                                                  424720
Gasoline Retail Stations.....................................     447110
Gasoline Transporters........................................     484220
                                                                  484230
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which EPA is
aware that potentially could be affected by this rule. Other types of
entities not listed on the table could also be affected. To determine
whether your organization could be affected by this rule, you should
carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ North American Industry Classification System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by
sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended; 42
U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

II. Action Being Taken

    This final rule approves a request from the state of Louisiana to
change the federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) summertime fuel standard
for the parishes of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Livingston,
Ascension, and Iberville (the Baton Rouge Area) from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi
by amending EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). This action
finalizes EPA's June 14, 2018 proposal (83 FR 27740) which was subject
to public notice and comment.
    The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section
III provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility regulation;
Section IV describes the policy regarding relaxation of volatility
standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as
attainment areas; Section V provides information specific to
Louisiana's request for the five parishes addressed by this action;
Section VI provides a response to the comments EPA received; and
Section VII presents the final action in response to Louisiana's
request.

III. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment.
Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOC), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone
and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to
ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma
and other respiratory conditions) and increase susceptibility to
respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people
with heart and lung disease.
    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in
evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under CAA section
211(c), EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868)
that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the
regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state
basis in that final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the
portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These
regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program,
which was designed to reduce the volatility of gasoline during the high
ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more
stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control
program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0
psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's
initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)).
    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new CAA section 211(h) to
address fuel volatility. CAA section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone
season. CAA section 211(h) also prohibits EPA from establishing a
volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area,
except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any
former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA

section 211(h). The modified regulations prohibited the sale of
gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment
for ozone, effective January 13, 1992. For areas designated as
nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards
published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi
ozone season limitation for certain areas. As stated in the preamble to
the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change
to the volatility standards published in 1991, EPA will rely on states
to initiate changes to their respective volatility programs. EPA's
policy for approving such changes is described below in Section IV of
this preamble.
    The state of Louisiana initiated the change being finalized in this
action by requesting that EPA relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard to 9.0 psi
for the parishes of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Livingston,
Ascension, and Iberville. See Section V of this preamble for
information specific to Louisiana's request.

IV. EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Gasoline Volatility Standards
in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as Attainment Areas

    As stated in the preamble for EPA's amended Phase II volatility
standards (56 FR 64706, December 12, 1991), any change in the gasoline
volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently
redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a
separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that area.
Thus, for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas where EPA mandated a
Phase II volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991
rulemaking, the federal 7.8 psi gasoline RVP requirement remains in
effect, even after such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a
separate rulemaking is completed that relaxes the federal gasoline RVP
standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
    As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, EPA believes that
relaxation of an applicable gasoline RVP standard is best accomplished
in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone
nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, CAA
section 107(d)(3) requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to CAA
section 175A, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for
the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's circumstances,
this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable
of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent
volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may
be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA
will not relax the gasoline volatility standard unless the state
requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the
area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the
more stringent volatility standard. Similarly, a maintenance plan may
be revised to relax the gasoline volatility standard if the state
requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the
area will maintain attainment for its duration.

V. Louisiana's Request To Relax the Federal Gasoline RVP Requirement
for the Baton Rouge Area

    On April 10, 2017, the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ) submitted a request to relax the federal gasoline RVP
requirement in 16 parishes throughout the State, including the five
parishes making up the Baton Rouge Area.\2\ Louisiana did not request
relaxation of the federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi when
LDEQ originally submitted the CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the
Baton Rouge Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that was approved on December
27, 2016 (81 FR 95051). Therefore, LDEQ was required to revise the
approved maintenance plan and to submit a CAA section 110(l) non-
interference demonstration for the Baton Rouge Area to support the
request to relax the federal RVP standard. Because of this, action on
the Baton Rouge Area was deferred until LDEQ submitted (and EPA
approved) a maintenance plan revision and CAA section 110(l) non-
interference demonstration showing that the relaxation would not
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS or with any
other applicable CAA requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA approved the State's request to relax the federal RVP
standard for 11 of the parishes on December 26, 2017 (82 FR 60886).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 30, 2018, Louisiana submitted a CAA section 175A
maintenance plan revision and section 110(l) non-interference
demonstration to EPA. EPA finalized its approval of the maintenance
plan revision and demonstration on May 25, 2018 (83 FR 24226). The
final approval was effective on June 25, 2018. As part of the
rulemaking on Louisiana's submission, EPA included a detailed
evaluation of the CAA section 175A maintenance plan revision and the
CAA section 110(l) demonstration.

VI. Response to Comments

    EPA received three comments on its June 14, 2018 proposal to relax
the federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the Baton Rouge
Area. Two of these comments were related to the proposal, and EPA has
responded to them below. EPA also received an anonymous comment that
was not related to any of the issues addressed in the proposal.
    Comment: An organization representing the Louisiana oil and gas
industry provided comments in support of the proposed relaxation of
federal RVP standard in the Baron Rouge Area from 7.8 to 9.0 psi.
    Response: EPA acknowledges that the commenter supported the
proposal.
    Comment: A commenter questioned the Agency's use of the statement
that EPA ``preliminarily determined'' that relaxing RVP in Baton Rouge
is appropriate.
    Response: EPA qualified the word ``determined'' with the word
``preliminarily'' in order to indicate that we were proposing to relax
the federal RVP standard in the Baton Rouge Area based on the findings
associated with May 25, 2018 final rule, which approved Louisiana's
maintenance plan revision and CAA section 110(l) non-interference
demonstration. However, the June 14, 2018 notice of proposed rulemaking
solicited public comments on whether relaxing the federal RVP standard
should be approved. As such, EPA indicated in its proposal that a final
determination that relaxing RVP in Baton Rouge is appropriate would not
be made until EPA had accepted and responded to any relevant comments
in the context of a final decision on the record. EPA is now making
that final determination in this final rule and is relaxing the federal
RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.

VII. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Louisiana's request for the
Agency to relax the federal RVP standard applicable to gasoline
introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for
the parishes of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Livingston,
Ascension, and Iberville. Specifically, this action revises the
applicable federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40
CFR 80.27(a)(2) for the Baton Rouge Area. This approval is based on
Louisiana's April 10, 2017 request and EPA's final determination in its
May 25, 2018 final rule, that the State, as required by CAA

section 110(l), made an adequate demonstration to show that removal of
this federal requirement would not interfere with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS in the Baton Rouge Area and is consistent with other
CAA requirements including attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This rule provides meaningful burden reduction because it
relaxes the federal RVP standard for gasoline, and as a result, fuel
suppliers will no longer be required to provide the lower, 7.8 psi RVP
gasoline in the five parishes during the summer months. Relaxing the
federal volatility requirements is also beneficial because this action
can improve the fungibility of gasoline sold in Louisiana by allowing
the gasoline sold in the Baton Rouge Area to be identical to the fuel
sold in the remainder of the state.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the
requirements of this action are refiners, importers, or blenders of
gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in
Louisiana, and gasoline distributers and retail stations in Louisiana.
This action relaxes the federal RVP standard for gasoline sold in
Louisiana's Baton Rouge Area during the summertime ozone season to
allow the RVP for gasoline sold in these parishes to rise from 7.8 psi
to 9.0 psi. This rule does not impose any requirements or create
impacts on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or
resulting from the CAA section 211(h) RVP program. Therefore, this
action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated
small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action
implements mandates that are specifically and explicitly set forth in
CAA section 211(h) without the exercise of any policy discretion by
EPA.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule
affects only those refiners, importers, or blenders of gasoline that
choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in the Baton
Rouge Area and gasoline distributers and retail stations in the Area.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive Order. EPA has no reason to believe that this action may
disproportionately affect children since Louisiana has provided
evidence that a relaxation of the federal gasoline RVP standard will
not interfere with its attainment of the ozone NAAQS for the Baton
Rouge Area, or any other applicable CAA requirement. By separate
action, EPA has finalized its approval of Louisiana's revised
maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the state's non-
interference demonstration that relaxation of the gasoline RVP standard
in the Baton Rouge Area to 9.0 RVP will not interfere with any other
NAAQS or CAA requirement.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by
this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or
indigenous populations because it does not affect the applicable ozone
NAAQS which establish the level of protection provided to human health
or the environment. Louisiana has demonstrated in its non-interference
demonstration that this action will not interfere with maintenance of
the ozone NAAQS in the Baton Rouge Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or
with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated
result. The results of this evaluation are contained in EPA's
rulemaking for Louisiana's non-interference demonstration (83 FR 24226,
May 25, 2018). A copy of Louisiana's April 10, 2017 letter requesting
that EPA relax the gasoline RVP standard and the State's January 29,
2018 technical analysis demonstrating that the less stringent gasoline
RVP will not interfere with continued maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in the Baton Rouge Area, or with any other applicable CAA

requirement, have been placed in the public docket for this action.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and
motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 15, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part
80 as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).

0
2. Section 80.27, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is amended in the table by
revising the entry for ``Louisiana'' and adding footnote 12 to read as
follows:

Sec.  80.27  Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *

                               Applicable Standards \1\ 1992 and Subsequent Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              State                     May            June            July           August         September
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Louisiana4 11 12................             9.0             9.0             9.0             9.0             9.0

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standards are expressed in pounds per square inch (psi).
 * * * * * * *
\4\ The standard for Grant Parish from June 1 until September 15 in 1992 through 2007 was 7.8 psi.
 * * * * * * *
\11\ The standard for the Louisiana parishes of Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lafourche, Orleans,
  Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. Mary from June 1 until September 15 in 1992
  through 2017 was 7.8 psi.
\12\ The standard for the Louisiana parishes of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Livingston, Ascension, and
  Iberville from June 1 until September 15 in 1992 through 2018 was 7.8 psi.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-23247 Filed 10-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45924-45925]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19697]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR18-36-000]

Ohio River Pipe Line LLC; Notice of Request for Temporary Waiver

    Take notice that on August 31, 2018, pursuant to Rule 204 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.204, Ohio River Pipe Line LLC filed a
petition for temporary waiver of the tariff filing and reporting
requirements of sections 6 and 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act and
parts 341 and 357 of the Commission's regulations for the portion of
its refined petroleum products system that currently operates between
West Virginia and Ohio (The Kenova-Columbus Pipeline), as more fully
explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (8 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protest must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protest and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commissions, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at the http://www.ferc.gov
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscripton''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 21, 2018.

    Dated: September 5, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19697 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 126)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37997-38001]
[DOCID:fr01jy10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0906; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-075-AD;
Amendment 39-16343; AD 2010-13-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Model 747 series airplanes. This AD requires replacing the power
control relays for the main tank fuel boost pumps and jettison pumps,
and the center tank scavenge pump, as applicable, with new relays
having a ground fault interrupt (GFI) feature. This AD also requires
revising the maintenance program to incorporate Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) 28-AWL-23 (for Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B
SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SP, and 747SR series
airplanes), and AWLs 28-AWL-28 and 28-AWL-29 (for Model 747-400, 747-
400D, and 747-400F

series airplanes). This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted
by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to the
fuel pumps caused by electrical arcing that could introduce an ignition
source in the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel
vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of
the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective August 5, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of August 5,
2010.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet  https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; 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 airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Model 747 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on October 13, 2009 (74 FR 52431). That NPRM proposed
to require replacing the power control relays for the main tank fuel
boost pumps and jettison pumps, and the center tank scavenge pump, as
applicable, with new relays having a ground fault interrupt (GFI)
feature. That NPRM also proposed to require revising the maintenance
program to incorporate Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) 28-AWL-23 (for
Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F,
747-300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes), and AWLs 28-AWL-28 and 28-
AWL-29 (for Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes).

Relevant Service Information

    For Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes, we have
reviewed Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL SYSTEMS,'' of
Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Document
D621U400-9, Section 9, Revision December 2009. This document includes
the same repetitive inspection (test) to verify continued functionality
of the GFI relays as did Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--
FUEL SYSTEMS,'' of Boeing 747-400 MPD Document, Document D621U400-9,
Section 9, Revision April 2008 (which we referred to in the NPRM as an
appropriate source of service information for incorporation into the
maintenance program). Revision December 2009 clarifies the effectivity
for AWL 28-AWL-28. We have revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to refer
to Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL SYSTEMS,'' of Boeing
747-400 MPD Document, Document D621U400-9, Section 9, Revision December
2009. We have also added a new paragraph (j) to this final rule to
provide credit for operators who have revised their maintenance program
using Revision April 2008, or Revision March 2009, of Subsection D,
``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL SYSTEMS,'' of Boeing 747-400 MPD
Document, Document D621U400-9, Section 9. We have also reidentified
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered all of the comments received from the
commenters.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa) requests that we extend the
proposed compliance time from 60 months to the intervals specified in
the latest approved maintenance review board report (MRBR). Further,
Lufthansa states that it would like to know how the proposed compliance
time was determined. Lufthansa states that it assumes that the
probability of a failure is part of the determination of the proposed
compliance time of 60 months. However, Lufthansa further asserts that
this compliance time is not in line with its heavy maintenance layover
schedule, which is based on the latest approved MRBR.
    We do not agree to extend the compliance time. In developing an
appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered not only the
safety implications, but the manufacturer's recommendations, the
availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of
accomplishing the actions within an interval of time that corresponds
to typical scheduled maintenance for affected operators. However, under
the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD, we will consider requests
for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data
are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an
acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the final rule in this
regard.

Request To Clarify if Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2261
Terminates Requirements of Previous AD

    Japan Airlines (JAL) requests that we revise the NPRM to clarify
whether accomplishing the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-28A2261, dated February 19, 2009, terminates the
requirements of AD 97-26-07, Amendment 39-10250 (62 FR 65352, December
12, 1997). JAL states that AD 97-26-07 presently requires repetitive
inspections of the Number 1 and Number 4 main fuel tank boost pump
wiring (which runs through the inboard fuel tanks) per Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-28A2204. JAL asserts that the currently required
inspection makes sure the wiring is not damaged. JAL also asserts that,
after operators do the proposed modification, the GFI relays will
monitor the electrical faults and remove the power from the fuel pump
immediately to minimize the risk of ignition when wires become damaged.
JAL states that clarifying the NPRM to identify Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-28A2261 as terminating action for AD 97-26-07 would save
operators additional work.
    The FAA acknowledges that both AD 97-26-07 and this AD relate to
potential electrical system faults in the fuel system. However, the FAA
does not agree that this AD provides terminating action for the actions
specified in AD 97-26-07. The Boeing GFI design addresses section
25.981(a)(3) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.981(a)(3))
single failure requirement only. However the probability of the GFI
having a latent failure condition, which would prevent it from
detecting a fault current and removing power from the

fuel pump, is not shown to be extremely remote. The GFI does not have
the ability to verify that fault protection is operational prior to
application of power to the pump. Potential latent failures in the GFI
function will be detected via a manual BIT test, which will be
performed by operators at minimum 4,000 flight-hour maintenance
intervals. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Description in the Relevant Service Information
Section

    The Boeing Company (Boeing) requests that we revise the Relevant
Service Information section of the NPRM to specify that the replacement
given in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2261, dated February 19,
2009, ``. . . also includes reworking certain wiring and doing an
operational test of the main tank fuel boost pumps, the main tank
jettison pumps (if applicable) and the center tank scavenge pump (if
installed), and new relays.'' Boeing states that the wording in the
NPRM specifies conducting only the main tank boost pumps and relay
operational tests, while Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2261,
dated February 19, 2009, specifies operational checks of the main tank
fuel boost pumps, the main tank jettison pumps, and the center tank
fuel scavenge pump, as well as tests of the GFI relays, following
procedures for replacing the relays, and making relevant wiring
changes.
    We partially agree with Boeing. For the reasons provided by Boeing,
we do agree that the suggested wording changes to the description of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2261, dated February 19, 2009, are
more accurate. However, we do not agree to revise this final rule in
this regard. Normally, the Relevant Service Information section of the
NPRM is not restated in the final rule, unless service information that
was not described in the NPRM is being added in the final rule (e.g.,
new revisions of a document). In this case, the Relevant Service
Information section does appear in this final rule to describe a new
revision of an MPD document being added to this final rule. Although
the Relevant Service Information section does appear in this final
rule, the description of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2261,
dated February 19, 2009, is not restated in that section. We have made
no change to the final rule in this regard.

Request To Remove Proposed Requirement to Incorporate AWLs

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) requests that we revise the NPRM to remove
paragraph (h)(1), which proposed to require incorporating AWLs 28-AWL-
28 and 28-AWL-29 into the maintenance program. ANA asserts that
paragraph (g)(3) of AD 2008-10-06, Amendment 39-15512 (73 FR 25990, May
8, 2008), already requires incorporation of AWLs 28-AWL-24 through 28-
AWL-29. ANA believes that the proposed requirement is duplicating an
existing requirement.
    We do not agree to remove paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. We
acknowledge that paragraph (g)(3) of AD 2008-10-06 does specify
revising the maintenance program to incorporate AWLs 28-AWL-24 through
28-AWL-29--as an option. AD 2008-10-06 does not require incorporation
of AWLs 28-AWL-24 through 28-AWL-29. Therefore, this AD does not
duplicate a requirement and there is no reason to remove the
requirement from this AD. However, we have revised paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD to clarify that revising the maintenance program to include
AWLs 28-AWL-28 and 28-AWL-29 in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of AD
2008-10-06, Amendment 39-15512 (73 FR 25990, May 8, 2008) ; or AD 2008-
10-06 R1, Amendment 39-16160 (75 FR 906, January 7, 2010); is
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements specified
in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

Request To Allow Later Revisions of Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
Document

    United Airlines states that it concurs with the contents of the
NPRM, but requests that we revise paragraph (h)(1) of the NPRM to allow
use of later revisions of Section 9 of the Boeing 747-400 MPD Document,
Document D621U400-9, Revision April 2008. United Airlines did not
provide justification for this request.
    We understand United Airlines' request and operator's desire to
have some flexibility in AD compliance actions. However, we cannot
allow use of later revisions of Section 9 of the Boeing 747-400 MPD
Document, Document D621U400-9. We cannot use the phrase, ``or later
FAA-approved revisions,'' in an AD when referring to the service
document because doing so violates Office of the Federal Register (OFR)
regulations for approval of materials ``incorporated by reference'' in
rules. In general terms, we are required by these OFR regulations to
either publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD
language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as
``referenced'' material, in which case we may only refer to such
material in the text of an AD. The AD may refer to the service document
only if the OFR approved it for ``incorporation by reference.'' To
allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document
(issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise the AD to
reference specific later revisions, or operators must request approval
to use later revisions as an alternative method of compliance with this
AD under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD. However, as
explained previously, we have revised this final rule to refer to
Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL SYSTEMS,'' of Boeing
747-400 MPD Document, Document D621U400-9, Section 9, Revision December
2009.

Explanation of Additional Changes Made to this AD

    We have revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to clarify that
revising the maintenance program to include AWL 28-AWL-23 in accordance
with paragraph (g) of AD 2008-10-07, Amendment 39-15513 (73 FR 25977,
May 8, 2008); or AD 2008-10-07 R1, Amendment 39-16070 (74 FR 56098,
October 30, 2009); is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
requirements specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
    We have revised this AD to identify the legal name of the
manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected airplane models.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the NPRM, we have increased the labor rate used
in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour.
The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in
the specified hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 258 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                                 Table--Estimated costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
              Action                     Work hours         Average labor         Parts           Cost per product     registered         Fleet cost
                                                            rate per hour                                               airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement......................  \1\ 10 to 14..........             $85  \1\ $16,800 to       \1\ $17,650 to                  258  \1\ $4,553,700 to
                                                                            $36,200.             $37,390.                             $9,646,620.
Revision of Airworthiness          1.....................              85  None...............  85.................             258  $21,930.
 Limitations section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Depending on airplane configuration.

Authority for this Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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:

2010-13-12 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16343. Docket No. FAA-
2009-0906; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-075-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 5,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated
in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2261, dated February 19, 2009.

    Note 1: This AD requires a revision to a certain operator
maintenance document to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired
in the areas addressed by these limitations, the operator may not be
able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), the operator
must request approval for an alternative method of compliance
according to paragraph (k) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD
to prevent damage to the fuel pumps caused by electrical arcing that
could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank which, in
combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Replacement

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD:
Replace the power control relays for the main tank fuel boost pumps
and jettison pumps, and the center tank scavenge pump, as
applicable, with new relays having a ground fault interrupt feature,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-28A2261, dated February 19, 2009.

Maintenance Program Revision

    (h) Concurrently with the actions required by paragraph (g) of
this AD: Revise the maintenance program by incorporating the
applicable information in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
The inspection interval for airworthiness limitations (AWLs) 28-AWL-
23, 28-AWL-28, and 28-AWL-29 starts on the date the replacement
required by paragraph (g) of this AD is done.
    (1) For Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes:
Incorporate new airworthiness limitations 28-AWL-28 and 28-AWL-29 of
Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL SYSTEMS,'' of Boeing
747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Document D621U400-
9, Section 9, Revision December 2009. (These AWLs were first
introduced in Revision October 2007 of the MPD document.)
Incorporating AWLs 28-AWL-28 and 28-AWL-29 in accordance with
paragraph (g)(3) of AD 2008-10-06, Amendment 39-15512; or AD 2008-
10-06 R1, Amendment 39-16160; is acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements specified in this paragraph.
    (2) For Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-
200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes:
Incorporate new AWL 28-AWL-23 of Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS--SYSTEMS,'' of Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP Airworthiness
Limitations

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document
D6-13747-CMR, Revision March 2008. (This AWL was first introduced in
Revision September 2007 of the AWLs/CMRs document.) Incorporating
AWL 28-AWL-23 in accordance with paragraph (g) of AD 2008-10-07,
Amendment 39-15513; or AD 2008-10-07 R1, Amendment 39-16070; is
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements
specified in this paragraph.

No Alternative Inspection or Inspection Intervals

    (i) After accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h) of
this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be
used, unless the inspections or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Service Information

    (j) Incorporating new AWLs 28-AWL-28 and 28-AWL-29 of Subsection
D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL SYSTEMS,'' of Boeing 747-400
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Document D621U400-9,
Section 9, Revision April 2008; or Revision March 2009; before the
effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
Attn: Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment
Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-
6482; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be e-mailed to 9-ANM-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use the service information contained in Table 1 of
this AD to do the actions required by this AD, as applicable, unless
the AD specifies otherwise.

                                   Table 1--Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Document                                  Revision                        Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747[dash]28A2261.......  Original....................  February 19, 2009
Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--SYSTEMS,''  March 2008..................  March 2008
 of Boeing 747[dash]100/200/300/SP Airworthiness
 Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
 Requirements (CMRs), Document D6[dash]13747-CMR.
Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL        December 2009...............  December 2009
 SYSTEMS,'' of Section 9 of the Boeing 747[dash]400
 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Document
 D621U400-9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 10, 2010.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2010-15651 Filed 6-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 75701-75702]
[DOCID:fr12de08-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13302-000]

Scott's Mill Hydropower, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

December 8, 2008.
    On October 14, 2008, Scott's Mill Hydropower, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Scott's Mill Hydropower
Project to be located in Amherst and Bedford Counties, Virginia.
    The proposed project consists of: (1) An existing 15-foot-high,
925-foot-long masonry dam, (2) an existing reservoir having a surface
area of 316 acres, a storage capacity of 3,790 acre-feet, and normal
maximum water surface elevation of 511 feet msl, (3) a proposed
powerhouse with 4 generating units having a total capacity of 3.6 MW;
(4) a proposed 250-foot-long transmission line; and (5) appurtenant
facilities. The project would have an annual generation of 14.9 GWh,
and would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Kevin Edwards, P.O. Box 143, Mayodan, NC
27027, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. FERC Contact: Henry Woo,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://

www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project
can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the
docket number (P-13302) in the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29473 Filed 12-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 47 (Monday, March 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13535-13536]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04867]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Extension: Rule 104; SEC File No. 270-411, OMB Control No. 3235-0465]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 104
of Regulation M (17 CFR 242.104), under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 104 permits stabilizing by a distribution participant during a
distribution so long as the distribution participant discloses
information to the market and investors. This rule requires disclosure
in offering materials of the potential stabilizing transactions and
that the distribution participant inform the market when a stabilizing
bid is made. It also requires the distribution participants (i.e., the
syndicate manager) to maintain information regarding syndicate covering
transactions and penalty bids and disclose such information to the
Self-Regulatory Organization.
    There are approximately 848 respondents per year that require an
aggregate total of 170 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent
makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes approximately
0.20 hours (12 minutes) to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden
per year is 170 hours. The total internal labor cost of compliance for
the respondents is approximately $11,050.00 per year, resulting in an
internal cost of compliance of about $13.03 (i.e., $11,050.00/848
responses) per response.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and

Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503
or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela
Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this
notice.

    Dated: March 8, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-04867 Filed 3-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12970-12971]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04847]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0201]

Area Maritime Security Advisory Committee (AMSC) for Prince
William Sound, AK

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Solicitation for membership.

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests individuals interested in serving on the
Prince William Sound Area Maritime Security Advisory Committee (AMSC)
submit their applications for membership to the Captain of the Port
Prince William Sound.

DATES: Requests for membership should reach the U.S. Coast Guard
Captain of the Port Prince William Sound by April 15th, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Applications for membership should be submitted to the
Captain of the Port Prince William Sound at the following address:
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about submitting an
application or about the AMSC in

general, contact Dr. Jason Smilie, Prince William Sound Port Security
Specialist at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

    Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of
2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) added section 70112 to Title 46 of the U.S.
Code, and authorized the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating to establish Area Maritime Security Advisory
Committees (AMSCs) for any port area of the United States. (See 33
U.S.C. 1226; 46 U.S.C. 70112; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.01; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1). The MTSA includes a provision
exempting these AMSCs from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),
Public Law 92-436, 86 Stat. 470 (5 U.S.C. App.2).
    The AMSCs assists the Captain of the Port Prince William Sound
(COTP) in the development, review, update, and exercising of the Area
Maritime Security Plan (AMS Plan) for their area of responsibility.
Such matters may include, but are not limited to:
     Identifying critical port infrastructure and operations;
     Identifying risks (threats, vulnerabilities, and
consequences);
     Determining mitigation strategies and implementation
methods;
     Developing strategies to facilitate the recovery of the
MTS after a Transportation Security Incident;
     Developing and describing the process to continually
evaluate overall port security by considering consequences and
vulnerabilities, how they may change over time, and what additional
mitigation strategies can be applied; and
     Providing advice to, and assisting the Captain of the Port
in developing and maintaining the AMS Plan.

AMSC Composition

    The composition of an AMSC is prescribed under 33 CFR 103.305.
Pursuant to that regulation, members may be selected from the Federal,
Territorial, or Tribal government; the State government and political
subdivisions of the State; local public safety, crisis management, and
emergency response agencies; law enforcement and security
organizations; maritime industry, including labor; other port
stakeholders having a special competence in maritime security; and port
stakeholders affected by security practices and policies. Members of
the AMSC should have at least five years of experience related to
maritime or port security operations.

AMSC Membership

    The Prince William Sound AMSC is seeking to fill 7 positions with
this solicitation.
    Applicants may be required to pass an appropriate security
background check prior to appointment to the committee. Members' terms
of office will be for five years; however, a member is eligible to
serve additional terms of office. Members will not receive any salary
or other compensation for their service on an AMSC. In support of the
USCG policy on gender and ethnic diversity, we encourage qualified
women and members of minority groups to apply.

Request for Applications

    Those seeking membership are requested to submit resumes
highlighting their requisite experiences in the maritime and security
industries to the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this
notice.
    The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in
selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender
identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age,
membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. The
Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse
candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.

    Dated: March 1, 2022.
P.A. Drayer,
Commander, United States Coast Guard, Captain of the Port/Federal
Maritime Security Coordinator Valdez.
[FR Doc. 2022-04847 Filed 3-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27358-27360]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10896]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72115; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Certain Margin Rules for Volatility Index Options

May 7, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 28, 2014, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to amend certain margin rules for volatility index
options. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Over the past decade, the Exchange has received approval from the
Commission to list options on different types of volatility indexes,
including volatility indexes comprised of options on: (1) Broad-based
indexes, (2) individual stocks; and (3) exchange traded funds
(``ETFs''). For each volatility index comprised of broad-based index
options, the Exchange received approval to classify each respective
volatility index as a ``broad-based index'' for margin purposes.\3\ For
stock and ETF-based volatility indexes, the margin requirements were
set at the same levels that apply to equity options.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49563 (April 14,
2004), 69 FR 21589 (April 21, 2004) (order approving SR-CBOE-2003-40
to list options on the CBOE Volatility Index (``VIX''), the CBOE
Nasdaq 100 Index Volatility Index (``VXN'') and the CBOE Dow Jones
Industrial Index (``VXD'')), 55425 (March 8, 2007), 72 FR 12238
(March 15, 2007) (order approving SR-CBOE-2006-73 to list options on
the CBOE Russell 2000 Volatility Index (``RVX'')), and 71764 (March
21, 2014), 79 FR 17212 (March 27, 2014) (order approving SR-CBOE-
2014-003 to list options on the CBOE Short-Term Volatility Index
(``VXST'')).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62139 (May 19,
2010), 75 FR 29597 (May 26, 2010) (order approving SR-CBOE-2010-018
to list options on the CBOE Gold ETF Volatility Index (``GVZ''), and
64551 (May 26, 2011), 76 FR 32000 (June 2, 2011) (order approving
SR-CBOE-2011-026 to list options on the CBOE Equity VIX on Apple
(``VXAPL''), the CBOE Equity VIX on Amazon (``VXAZN''), the CBOE
Equity VIX on Goldman Sachs (``VXGS''), the CBOE Equity VIX on
Google (``VXGOG''), the CBOE Equity VIX on IBM (``VXIBM''), the CBOE
Crude Oil ETF Volatility Index (``OVX''), the CBOE Emerging Markets
ETF Volatility Index (``VXEEM''), the CBOE China ETF Volatility
Index (``VXFXI''), the CBOE Brazil ETF Volatility Index (``VXEWZ''),
the CBOE Gold Miners ETF Volatility Index (``VXGDX'') and the CBOE
Energy Sector ETF Volatility Index (``VXXLE'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend CBOE Rules 12.3 (Margin
Requirements) and 12.4 (Portfolio Margin) to increase the minimum
margin requirements for certain 30-day volatility index options and for
options on the VXST Index, which is designed to reflect investors'
consensus view of 9-day expected stock market volatility. To affect
these changes as new minimum margin requirements going forward, the
Exchange is proposing to add the proposed margin levels to the text of
CBOE Rules 12.3 and 12.4. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to make
the rule text more ``user-friendly'' by enumerating ``Volatility
Indexes'' and identifying specific classes in the appropriate places.
The proposed changes are described below.
Proposed Changes to CBOE Rule 12.3(c)(5)
    CBOE Rule 12.3(c)(5) sets forth the initial and maintenance margin
requirements for short options held in a customer account. As described
earlier, when VIX, VXN, VXD, RVX and VXST options were approved for
trading, the Exchange was permitted to margin these products as
``broad-based index'' options. The first chart in CBOE Rule 12.3(c)(5)
sets forth at paragraph 3 that the initial and/or maintenance margin
required for broad-based index options is the greater of: 100% of the
current market value of the option plus 15% of the current underlying
component value less any out-of-the-money amount or 100% of the current
market value of the option plus 10% of the current underlying component
value.\5\ The ``underlying component value'' for broad-based index
options is the product of the current index group value and the
applicable index multiplier. The Exchange believes that the 15% initial
and/or maintenance margin component should be increased to 20% for 30-
day volatility index options and to 40% for 9-day volatility index
options (VXST), which were approved to be treated as ``broad-based
index'' options for margin purposes. For 9-day volatility index options
(VXST), the Exchange also believes that the 10% minimum margin required
should be increased to 20%.\6\ The Exchange is not proposing to
increase the 10% minimum margin required for 30-day volatility index
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ There is one difference in the case of a put option. For the
10% minimum only, 10% of the put's exercise price is required rather
than 10% the current underlying component value.
    \6\ Prior to the April 10, 2104 launch of trading in VXST
options, the Exchange exercised its authority under CBOE Rules
12.3(h) and 12.10 to impose higher initial and maintenance margin
requirements for short, uncovered VXST options. See CBOE Regulatory
Circular RG14-040 (Margin Requirements for VXST Options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') organizations can, through their
own policies and procedures, impose even higher margin requirements
should they deem it advisable (i.e., house margin requirements). CBOE
Rule 12.10 confirms this ability, in relevant part, as follows: ``[t]he
amount of margin prescribed by these Rules is the minimum which must be
required initially and subsequently maintained with respect to each
account affected thereby; but nothing in these rules shall be construed
to prevent a TPH organization from requiring margin in an amount
greater than that specified.''
    To affect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend existing
paragraph 15 to the first chart set forth in CBOE Rule 12.3(c)(5).
Paragraph 15 currently sets forth the initial and/or maintenance margin
required and minimum margin required for individual stock or ETF-based
volatility indexes (whose margin requirements the Exchange is not
proposing to change). The Exchange is

proposing to amend paragraph 15 to expand its application to all
volatility indexes. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to set forth
``Volatility Indexes'' as the type of option and to set forth below
that heading the specific volatility index option classes that are
currently listed for trading (i.e., VIX, RVX, VXST, GVZ, OVX, VXEEM and
VXEWZ). The Exchange believes that the identification of specific
volatility index option classes would make finding the applicable
minimum margin levels easier for users of CBOE's Rulebook. The Exchange
also believes that identification of specific volatility index option
classes would give the Exchange flexibility to change margin levels by
volatility index class if the need arises in the future. The Exchange
notes that this styling is similar to paragraph 9, ``Foreign Currency
Option and Warrants,'' for which specific currencies are identified.
    The Exchange also proposes to include a category under ``Volatility
Indexes'' labeled, ``Other Volatility Indexes identified in Rules
24.9(a)(3) and 24.9(a)(4).'' \7\ The Exchange is proposing to include
this general category because the Exchange has received approval to
trade options on certain volatility indexes, which are not currently
listed for trading. Having a general category for products that have
already been approved for trading would enable the Exchange to quickly
list these products when launch dates are determined. The Exchange
expects that when this happens, CBOE would follow up with a filing to
identify any volatility indexes on which options trading has begun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CBOE Rules 24.9(a)(3) (European-style index options approved
for trading) and 24.9(a)(4) (A.M.-settled index options approved for
trading) identify, among other indexes, all other volatility indexes
that have approved for options trading but which are not currently
listed for trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the definition for ``index
value'' for volatility indexes in Row IV (Underlying Component Value)
to the first chart in CBOE Rule 12.3(c)(5) in order to be more clear.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add the descriptive phrase,
``current (spot or cash)'' so that the CBOE Rule 12.3(c)(5) is clear on
its face that the current (spot or cash) value for a volatility index
is used to calculate margin requirements. The Exchange believes that
this descriptive phrase is necessary because the prices of the
corresponding futures contract (on the same volatility index) are
sometimes used as the ``current index level'' for volatility index
options.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See e.g., CBOE Rules 24.7(iii) and 24.7.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to delete ``Individual Stock or ETF
Based'' from the Option or Warrant Issue column from the second chart
in CBOE Rule 12.3(c)(5) and replace it with ``Volatility Indexes.'' In
addition, the Exchange is proposing to add the descriptive phrase
``(spot or cash)'' before the references to ``current index value'' in
the Call and Put rows. These changes conform to the changes described
above regarding the new category of ``Volatility Indexes'' and provide
clarity as to what is meant by ``current index value'' for volatility
index options.
Proposed Changes to CBOE Rule 12.4
    As an alternative to the margin requirements set forth in CBOE Rule
12.3, CBOE Rule 12.4 (Portfolio Margin) permits TPH organizations to
compute a margin requirement for option positions carried for customers
using a portfolio (or risk-based) approach. CBOE proposes to amend CBOE
Rule 12.4 to identify ``Volatility Index (30-day implied)'' and
``Volatility Index (9-day implied)'' as portfolio types in the chart
set forth in CBOE Rule 12.4 and to specify ``+/-20%'' and ``+/-40%) as
the respective applicable up/down market move (high & low valuation
points).\9\ The Exchange believes that specifying ``Volatility Index
(30-day implied)'' and ``Volatility Index (9-day implied)'' as
portfolio types would make finding the applicable portfolio margin
levels easier for users of CBOE's Rulebook. The Exchange notes that
this proposed change would increase the applicable up/down market move
(high & low valuation points) for all of its volatility index options.
The Exchange is proposing to delete the four footnote 1 references and
the text of footnote 1 from the chart set forth in CBOE Rule 12.4. The
text of the footnote reads, ``In accordance with sub-paragraph
(b)(1)(i)(B) of Rule 15c3-1a under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.'' The Exchange proposes to delete this sentence because it is no
longer deemed necessary to link the margin requirements of CBOE Rule
12.4 to SEC Rule 15c3-1a. While SEC Rule 15c3-1a originally served as a
model for CBOE Rule 12.4, a difference between the two, such as the
addition of the ``Volatility Index (30-day implied)'' and ``Volatility
Index (9-day implied)'' categories to CBOE Rule 12.4, results in
inconsistency, and the current footnote may imply there must be
consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Prior to the April 10, 2104 launch of trading in VXST
options, the Exchange exercised its authority under CBOE Rule 12.10
to provide that the magnitude of the valuation point range under
CBOE Rule 12.4 for VXST options held in a portfolio margin is +/-40%
and that the price of the VXST futures contract with a corresponding
expiration will be used to calculate theoretical gains and losses
for VXST options. See CBOE Regulatory Circular RG14-056 (Margin
Requirements for VXST Options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend subparagraph (a)(9) to CBOE
Rule 12.4, which sets forth the definition for ``underlying
instrument'' as meaning ``a security or security index upon which any
listed option, unlisted derivative, security futures product or related
instrument is based. The term underlying instrument shall not be deemed
to include, futures contracts, options on futures contracts or
underlying stock baskets.'' The Exchange proposes to amend that
definition by adding the following phrase at the end of the definition,
``except that, for the purpose of calculating theoretical gains and
losses for a listed option, unlisted derivative, or security futures
product overlying a volatility index pursuant to this Rule, the price
of a futures contract referencing the same volatility index may be
utilized in lieu of the current (spot or cash) index value.'' The
Exchange is proposing the make this change because a more accurate
theoretical price for a volatility index option is obtained, and thus a
more accurate portfolio margin requirement is derived, by using the
price of a futures contract that references the same volatility index.
Market participants price volatility index options in view of the price
a futures contract that references the same volatility index, rather
than using the cash or spot index value.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (d)(3)(ii)
to CBOE Rule 12.4 to add volatility index options to the list of
eligible positions for portfolio margin. Finally, the Exchange proposes
to make a technical change earlier in Rule 12.4(a)(5) to delete the
unnecessary word ``and'' from the definition of ``option series.''
Ongoing Analysis Regarding Margin Levels
    The Exchange will continue to analyze and review the appropriate
minimum margin levels for volatility index option. Specifically, the
Exchange will continue to review market data in order to determine
whether the proposed margin levels should remain or be adjusted. Among
other things, CBOE may propose an alternate methodology for determining
margin levels or CBOE may subsequently change margin levels after
having time to study the impact of the proposed rule change. Any such
change would be

accomplished by way of a rule filing with the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\10\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes
are consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirements that the
rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the minimum margin
requirements for certain volatility index options will protect the
integrity of the Exchange's marketplace by setting margin at a level
that is appropriate for the given instrument. Also, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes will benefit investors and other
market participants by making CBOE's rules more user-friendly in that
the applicable margin levels will be easier to locate in CBOE's
Rulebook.

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

    CBOE 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 Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition because it applies to all customers that hold positions in
volatility index options. The Exchange does not believe the proposed
rule changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition as it
will result in margin levels being increased to appropriate levels for
volatility index options.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-039 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-CBOE-2014-039. 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 Web site (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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-039 and should be
submitted on or before June 3, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10896 Filed 5-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EQUIPMENT DATA STANDARD Standard No.: 1 XXX Version 1   FINAL DRAFT July 26, 2005 This standard has been produced through the Environmental Data Standards Council ( EDSC).

The Environmental Data Standards Council ( EDSC) is a partnership among US EPA, States and Tribal partners to promote the efficient sharing of environmental information through the development and adoption of data standards. More information about the EDSC is available at www. envdatastandards. net. Equipment Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1.0   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 2 Foreword The Environmental Data Standards Council identifies, prioritizes and pursues the creation of data standards for those areas where information exchange standards will provide the most value in achieving environmental results. The Council involves Tribes and Tribal Nations, state and federal agencies in the development of the standards and then provides the draft materials for general review. Business groups, non governmental organizations, and other interested parties may then provide input and comment for Council consideration and standard finalization. Draft and final standards are available at http:// www. envdatastandards. net.

1.0 INTRODUCTION This Equipment Data Standard identifies and describes an apparatus or instrument used for sample collection, processing, analysis, etc. associated with environmental monitoring and laboratory analysis. The equipment data standard includes associated calibration information.

1.1 Scope This standard provides and describes data groupings that are used to exchange equipment data and information.

1.2 References to Other Data Standards This standard relies on other standards to make it complete and provide the necessary support. As such users should consider the references to other data standards noted below as integral to the Equipment Data Standard. These include:

  Measure [ Final Draft Version 1.0] Data Standard   Method [ Final Draft Version 1.0] Data Standard   Representation of Date and Time [ 1 19934: 1] Data Standard 1.3 Terms and Definitions For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.

Term Definition Equipment Apparatus or instrument and associated calibration information used for sample collection, processing, analysis, etc.

1.4 Implementation Users are encouraged to use the XML registry housed on the Exchange Network Web site to download schema components for the construction of XML schema flows ( http:// www. exchangenetwork. net).

1.5 Document Structure The structure of this document is briefly described below: a. Section 2.0 Equipment Diagram, illustrates the principal data groupings contained within this standard. b. Section 3.0 Equipment Data Standards Table, provides information on the high level, intermediate and elemental Equipment data groupings. Where applicable, for each level of this data standard, a definition, XML tag, note( s), example list of values and format are provided. The format column may include the number of characters for the associated data element, where " A" specifies alphanumeric and " N" designates numeric. c. Data Standard Numbering. For purposes of clarity and to enhance understanding of data standard hierarchy and relationships, each data group is numerically classified from the primary to the elemental level. Equipment Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1.0   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 3 d. Code and Identifier metadata: Based on the business need, additional metadata may be required to sufficiently describe an identifier or a code. A note regarding this additional metadata is included in the notes column for identifier and code elements. Additional metadata for identifiers may include:

  Code List Identifier, which is a standardized reference to the context or source of the set of codes Additional metadata for codes may include:

  Code List Identifier, which is a standardized reference to the context or source of the set of codes   Code List Version Identifier, which identifies the particular version of the set of codes.

  Code List Version Agency Identifier, which identifies the agency responsible for maintaining the set of codes   Code List Name, which describes the corresponding name for which the code represents e. Appendix A, Equipment Data Standard Structure Diagram, illustrates the hierarchical classification of the Equipment data standard. This diagram enables business and technical users of this standard to quickly understand its general content and complexity. Equipment Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1.0   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 4 2.0 EQUIPMENT DATA STANDARD DIAGRAM This diagram specifies the major data groups that may be used to identify the characteristics and/ or to catalog equipment.

Equipment Data Standard 1.0 Equipment Identification 2.0 Equipment Characteristics 3.0 Equipment Calibration Equipment Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1.0   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 5 3.0 EQUIPMENT DATA STANDARD TABLE 1.0 Equipment Identification Definition: Information needed to uniquely identify the apparatus, instrument used for the activity.

Relationship: None.

Notes: None.

XML Tag: EquipmentIdentification Name Definition Notes Format XML Tag 1.1 Equipment Identifier A designator used to uniquely identify the instrument or equipment used for the activity. Note: Based on the business need, additional metadata may be required to sufficiently describe an identifier. This additional metadata is described in the Introduction section, 1.5. d,

above. Example list of values:

  S/ N# 40291   GC/ MS Lab 1   VanVeen Grab A EquipmentIdentifi er 1.2 Equipment Name Name of instrument or equipment used for the activity. Example List of Values:

  Gas chromatograph/ mass spectrometer   Sediment Grab   Sediment Core   Temperature logger   Compositor   Grinder/ processor A EquipmentNameT ext Equipment Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1.0   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 6 Name Definition Notes Format XML Tag 1.3 Equipment Description Description of instrument or equipment or configuration used for the activity. Example List of Values:

  Box Core developed by the Department of Ecology A Equipmentdescrip tiontext 1.4 Equipment Type Type or category of instrument or equipment used for the activity. Example List of Values:

  Preservation   Analytical   Laboratory   Field A EquipmentTypeT ext 2.0 Equipment Characteristics Definition: Quantifiable characteristics of the instrument or equipment.

Relationship: None.

Note: This data grouping may repeat.

XML Tag: EquipmentCharacteristics Data Element Name Data Element Definition Notes Format XML Tags 2.1 Equipment Characteristic Quantifiable characteristic of the equipment. Example List of Values:

  Area sampled by equipment   Aperture size   Maximum surface area for a petite ponar sediment grab ( Measure Standard insert: 0.02m 2) A EquipmentCharac teristic 2.2 Equipment Characteristic Measure Dimensions or other measurements to further characterize the equipment. Reference the Measure [ DRAFT]

Data Standard.

The following items are needed:

Measure Value,

Measure Unit Code,

Measure Precision,

Result Qualifier Code,

Result Qualifier Code Description. A EquipmentCharac teristicMeasure Equipment Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1.0   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 7 3.0 Equipment Calibration Definition: Elements or attributes that describe a calibration of the instrument or equipment used for the activity.

Relationship: None.

Note: This data grouping may repeat.

XML Tag: EquipmentCalibration Data Element Name Data Element Definition Notes Format XML Tags 3.1 Calibration Contact Identifier A designator to uniquely identify the person to contact concerning information related to the analysis results. Note: Reference the Contact [ 1

88433] Data Standard The following data elements may be needed: Individual Identifier Individual Full Name Affiliation Type Based on the business need,

additional metadata may be required to sufficiently describe an identifier.

This additional metadata is described in the Introduction section, 1.5. d,

above. A CalibrationContac tIdentifier 3.2 Calibration Batch Identifier A designator to uniquely identify the batch of samples analyzed or collected under a single calibration. Based on the business need,

additional metadata may be required to sufficiently describe an identifier.

This additional metadata is described in the Introduction section, 1.5. d,

above. A CalibrationBatchI dentifier Equipment Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1.0   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 8 Data Element Name Data Element Definition Notes Format XML Tags 3.3 Calibration Type Description of the type of calibration performed. Example List of Values:

  Pre deployment   Multi point calibration   Single Point calibration   Linear Regression with equal weighting   Linear Regression with inverse of concentration   Linear Regression with inverse square of concentration   Quadratic   Second order curve fit   Forced through zero   Average response factor A CalibrationType 3.4 Calibration Method Identifying information on the sample analysis method procedure. Reference the Method [ DRAFT] Data Standard.

The following data elements may be needed: Method Identifier,

Method Name,

Method Description Text,

Method Deviation,

Method Reference. A CalibrationMetho d 3.5 Calibration Date The calendar date of calibration. Reported as 4 digit year, 2 digit month, and 2 digit day.

The Representation of Date and Time [ 1 19934] Data Standard will apply anytime a date is reported. YYYY MMDD CalibrationDate 3.6 Calibration Time The local time and time zone of calibration. Reported as a 24 hour day with 2 digit hour, 2 digit minute, and 2 digit second time: 3 alpha time zone.

The Representation of Date and Time [ 1 19934] Data Standard will apply anytime a time is reported. Time:

hh24: m m: ss: zz z CalibrationTime Equipment Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1.0   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 9 Data Element Name Data Element Definition Notes Format XML Tags 3.7 Calibration Limit Exception Indicator A flag indicating an exception to the acceptable calibration limits. Permitted list of values :

Y  YES N  NO A CalibrationLimitE xceptionIndiactor 3.8 Calibration Limit Exception Text Explanation of any calibration anomalies. Example list of values:

  Did not meet calibration criteria exceeded correlation coefficient   Did not meet percent RSD Limit criteria.

  Did not meet minimum relative response factor. A CalibrationLimitE xceptionText 3.9 Equipment Correction Indicator A flag indicating a correction made to equipment as a result of calibration. Permitted list of values:

Y  YES N  NO A EquipmentCorrec ctionIndicator 3.10 Equipment Correction Text Explanation of any corrections made to equipment as a result of calibration or the reason that the equipment was not calibrated. Example list of values:

  Add 0.5 ° C to all temperatures A EquipmentCorrec tionText Equipment Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1.0   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 10 Appendix A Equipment Data Standard Structure Diagram Equipment Data Standard 1.0 Equipment Identification 1.1 Equipment Identifier 1.2 Equipment Name 1.3 Equipment Description 1.4 Equipment Type 2.0 Equipment Characteristics 2.1 Equipment Characteristic 2.2 Equipment Characteristic Measure 3.0 Equipment Calibration 3.1 Calibration Contact Identifier 3.2 Calibration Batch Identifier 3.3 Calibration Type 3.4 Calibration Method 3.5 Calibration Date 3.6 Calibration Time 3.7 Calibration Limit Exception Indicator 3.8 Calibration Limit Exception Text 3.9 Equipment Correction Indicator 3.10 Equipment Correction Text