[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44116-44118]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0356; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-067-AD;
Amendment 39-17128; AD 2012-14-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-
BK B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK C-1 helicopters equipped with a
certain external-hoist system (hoist system). This AD requires
deactivating the entire hoist system or deactivating the hoist system
cable cutter function on the hoist system operator control handle
(operator handle). This AD was prompted by an uncommanded activation of
the hoist cable cutter function on an MBB-BK117 C-1 helicopter. The
actions of this AD are intended to prevent uncommanded cutting of the
hoist cable and subsequent injury to persons being lifted by the hoist.

DATES: This AD is effective August 31, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of August 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub.
    You may review the referenced service information at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Schwab, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On April 4, 2012, at 77 FR 20321, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to ECD Model MBB-BK 117
A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK C-1
helicopters equipped with a certain hoist system. That NPRM proposed to
require deactivating the entire hoist system or deactivating the hoist
system cable cutter function on the operator handle. The proposed
requirements were intended to prevent uncommanded cutting of the hoist
cable and subsequent injury to persons being lifted by the hoist.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
No. 2011-0126, dated July 1, 2011 (EASA AD 2011-0126), to correct an
unsafe condition for the ECD Model MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-
BK B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK C-1 helicopters equipped with a
certain hoist system. EASA AD 2011-0126 requires deactivation of the
affected external hoist system by pulling and securing the related
circuit breakers, or by removing the hoist boom.
    After EASA AD 2011-0126 was issued, it was discovered that pulling
the circuit breaker WARN ANN II degraded the annunciator system's
redundant power supply, so that pilots could not be warned of a second
helicopter system failure. Prompted by these findings, EASA issued
superseding EASA AD No. 2011-0131, dated July 8, 2011 (EASA AD 2011-
0131), to require pulling only three circuit breakers (CABLE CUTTER,
WINCH CONT, and WINCH BOOM), while circuit breaker WARN ANN II remains
inserted.
    EASA advises that since EASA AD 2011-0131 was issued ``a corrective
action has been developed to establish an adequate safety level, while
a terminating action is under

investigation but currently not available.'' EASA subsequently issued
the current EASA AD No. 2011-0148, dated August 5, 2011 (EASA AD 2011-
0148), which retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0131 and requires
modification of the helicopter wiring and operator handle, part number
(P/N) 76803, a revision to the Rotorcraft Flight Manual and Supplement,
and repetitive inspections of the operator handle. EASA AD 2011-0148
also requires implementing a 10-year time frame for overhaul of the
operator handle.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs and that air safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval
holder is currently developing a terminating action to address the
unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this terminating action is
developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional
rulemaking.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    This AD applies to the ECD Model MBB-BK 117 A-4 model. The EASA AD
makes no mention of this model. The EASA AD also applies to the MBB-BK
117 A-1 model. Eurocopter informs us that the MBB-BK 117 A-1 model no
longer exists, so we did not include it in our AD. The EASA AD requires
temporary revisions to the Rotorcraft Flight Manual and its
supplements; this AD does not. The EASA AD requires overhaul of the
operator handle every ten years; this AD does not.

Related Service Information

    ECD has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117-80-166,
Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011 (ASB). The ASB specifies the
deactivation of the cable cutter function on the operator handle. After
the cable cutter function on the operator handle has been deactivated,
the rescue winch may be used.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 12 helicopters of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
     Option 1: Pull and secure three circuit breakers. We
estimate that this task will require about one half-hour to complete.
At $85 per work-hour, the labor cost will total about $43. No parts
will be needed, so we estimate the total cost per helicopter to be $43,
or $516 for the fleet.
     Option 2: Remove the hoist boom from the helicopter. We
estimate that this task will require 1.5 hours to complete at $85 per
work-hour for a total labor cost of about $128. No parts will be
needed, so we estimate the total cost per helicopter to be $128, or
$1,536 for the fleet.
     Option 3: We estimate that modifying the hoist operator
handle will require four work-hours at $85 per work-hour for a total
labor cost of $340 per helicopter. Parts will cost about $92.
Inspecting the hoist-operator handle for damage will take about one
half-hour for a labor cost of about $43. For 12 monthly inspections per
year, the annual cost will total $516. We estimate that replacing the
operator handle with a new operator handle will require 0.25 work hour
at $85 an hour for a labor cost of about $21 per helicopter. Parts will
cost about $18,500 for a total cost of $18,521 per helicopter. Total
costs per helicopter will vary, depending on whether repairs are
needed.

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 helicopters 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);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2012-14-14 Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters: Amendment 39-
17128; Docket No. FAA-2012-0356; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-067-
AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK
B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopters with an external
hoist system (hoist system) Part Number (P/N) 117-80403 or P/N 117-
804061 installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an uncommanded cutting
of the hoist cable.

This condition could result in loss of the helicopter hoist and load
and subsequent injury to persons being lifted by the hoist.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 31, 2012.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Before the next hoist operation or within 30 days, whichever
comes first, comply with either paragraph (1)(i), (1)(ii), or
(1)(iii):
    (i) Deactivate the hoist system by pulling the CABLE CUTTER,
WINCH CONT, and WINCH BOOM circuit breakers and securing each
circuit breaker with a cable tie; or
    (ii) Deactivate the hoist system by removing the hoist boom from
the helicopter; or
    (iii) Deactivate the external hoist operator handle cable-cutter
function by accomplishing the following:
    (A) Modify the helicopter wiring and the operator handle,
P[sol]N 76803, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions,
Paragraph 3.B.1 (b), of Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin
MBB-BK117-80-166, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011 (ASB).
    (B) Inspect the operator handle P/N 76803 and the coiled cable
of the operator handle for damage in accordance with Paragraph
3.B.1.(a)(2) of the ASB. Damage is also defined as any condition
that could prevent the part's ability to perform its intended
function.
    (1) If the operator handle or the coiled cable of the operator
handle has damage, replace the operator handle with an airworthy
operator handle P/N 76803, before the next hoist operation.
    (2) At intervals not to exceed 30 days, repeat the inspection in
Paragraph (1)(iii)(B) of the Required Actions section of this AD.
    (2) Before installing an affected hoist system on any
helicopter, comply with Paragraph (1) of the Required Actions
section of this AD.
    (3) Before installing an operator handle P/N 76803 on any
helicopter, comply with Paragraph (1)(iii)(A) of the Required
Actions section of this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: George Schwab, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2011-0126, dated July 1, 2011; EASA AD
No. 2011-0131, dated July 8, 2011; and EASA AD No. 2011-0148, dated
August 5, 2011.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2597, Equipment/
furnishing system wiring.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117-80-
166, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie,
TX 75052, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (972) 641-
3775, or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub.
    (4) You may review the service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room
663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (5) You may also review a copy 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 Fort Worth, Texas, on July 11, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-17604 Filed 7-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67504-67507]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26840]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73548; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Routing Fees

November 6, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 30, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``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

    The Exchange proposes to modify Section V entitled ``Routing Fees''
of the NASDAQ OMX Phlx LLC Pricing Schedule (``Pricing Schedule'').
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify Section V entitled
``Routing Fees'' of the Phlx Pricing Schedule (``Pricing Schedule'').
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend its Routing Fees, and to
allow aggregation of Customer \3\ volume for calculating discount
thresholds and receiving discounted routing fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer range at
The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for the
account of broker or dealer or for the account of a ``Professional''
(as that term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14)). Section V of Pricing
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on November 3,
2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Routing Fees in Section
V of the Pricing Schedule in order to recoup costs incurred by the
Exchange to route orders to away markets, and to allow members and
member organizations to aggregate their Customer volume for calculating
discount thresholds and receiving discounted routing fees.
    Today, the Exchange assesses a Non-Customer a $0.97 per contract
Routing Fee to any options exchange for routing an order. The Customer
Routing Fee for option orders routed to The NASDAQ Options Market, LLC
(``NOM'') is a $0.12 per contract Fixed Fee (``Fixed Fee'') in addition
to the actual transaction fee assessed. The Customer Routing Fee for
option orders routed to NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX Options'') is $0.12
per contract. The Customer Routing Fee for option orders routed to all
other options exchanges \4\ (excluding NOM and BX Options) is a fixed
fee of $0.22 per contract in addition to the actual transaction fee
assessed. If the away market pays a rebate, the Routing Fee is $0.12
per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This includes BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), BOX Options
Exchange LLC (``BOX''), the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''), C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2''),
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), the Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX''), NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE Amex'') and ISE Gemini, LLC
(``Gemini'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the fixed costs, the Exchange incurs a fee when it
utilizes

NASDAQ Execution Services LLC (``NES''), a member of the Exchange and
the Exchange's affiliated broker-dealer exclusive order router.\5\ Each
time NES routes an order to an away market, NES is charged a clearing
fee \6\ and, in the case of certain exchanges, a transaction fee is
also charged in certain symbols, which fees are passed through to the
Exchange. The Exchange currently recoups clearing and transaction
charges incurred by the Exchange as well as certain other costs
incurred by the Exchange when routing to away markets, such as
administrative and technical costs associated with operating NES,
membership fees at away markets, Options Regulatory Fees (``ORFs''),
staffing and technical costs associated with routing options. The
Exchange assesses the actual away market fee at the time that the order
was entered into the Exchange's trading system. This transaction fee is
calculated on an order-by-order basis since different away markets
charge different amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71416 (January 28,
2014), 79 FR 6244 (February 3, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-05) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness regarding utilization of NES for
outbound order routing from Phlx).
    \6\ The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') assesses $0.01
per contract side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to increase its Non-Customer Routing Fees
from $0.97 to $0.99 per contract to any options exchange. The Exchange
is proposing to increase its Customer Routing Fixed Fees to NOM from
$0.12 to $0.13 per contract, in addition to the actual transaction fee
assessed to recoup an additional portion of the costs incurred by the
Exchange for routing these orders. The Exchange is proposing to
increase its Customer Routing Fixed Fees to BX Options from $0.12 to
$0.13 per contract. The Exchange is proposing to increase its Customer
Routing Fixed Fees to all other options exchanges (excluding NOM and BX
Options) from $0.22 to $0.23 per contract, in addition to actual
transaction fees assessed. The Exchange would also increase the
Customer Routing Fee to all other options exchanges if the away market
pays a rebate from a fee of $0.12 to $0.13 per contract, because the
Exchange would continue to retain the rebate to offset the cost to
route orders to offset the cost to route orders to these away markets.
The Exchange desires to recoup additional costs at this time.
    Today, a member organization that: (1) Qualifies for a Tier 2, 3, 4
or 5 rebate in the Customer Rebate Program in Section B of the Pricing
Schedule; and (2) routes away more than 5,000 Customer contracts per
day in a given month to an away market (together the ``Customer Rebate
requirements'') \7\ is entitled to receive a credit equal to the
applicable Fixed Fee plus $0.05 per contract, unless the away market
transaction fee is $0.00 or the away market pays a rebate, in which
case the member organization is entitled to receive a credit equal to
the applicable Fixed Fee. Customer rebates are paid on Customer Rebate
Tiers in Section B of the Pricing Schedule according to applicable
categories (A or B). The Customer Rebate Tiers are calculated by
totaling Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options (including SPY)
that are electronically-delivered and executed, except volume
associated with electronic Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') Orders,
as defined in Rule 1080(o), in a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ When the Exchange recently added the 5,000 Customer
contracts criterion, it did so to provide a credit to member
organizations that qualify for a Customer rebate and route away a
certain amount of volume. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
71258 (January 8, 2014), 79 FR 2948 (January 14, 2014) (SR-Phlx-
2013-125) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to add language to Section V stating that
members and member organizations under Common Ownership \8\ may
aggregate their Customer volume routed away for purposes of calculating
discount thresholds \9\ and receiving discounted routing fees. The
Customer Rebate requirements regarding Tier and volume remain in place.
However, with the added language if members and member organizations
are under Common Ownership they will be able to aggregate their
Customer volume for the purpose of calculating discount thresholds and
receiving discounted routing fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Common Ownership'' shall mean members or member
organizations under 75% common ownership or control. Section V of
Pricing Schedule.
    \9\ A member or member organization may, for example, route away
more than 5,000 Customer contracts per day in a given month to an
away market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal allows the Exchange to continue attracting liquidity
to Phlx while recouping costs incurred by the Exchange to route orders
to away markets.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act
\11\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which Phlx operates or
controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending the Non-Customer Routing Fee
for orders routed to any options exchange from a fee of $0.97 to $0.99
per contract, is reasonable because the Exchange desires to recoup an
additional portion of the cost it incurs when routing Non-Customer
orders. The Exchange is proposing to increase the Fixed Fee to recoup
additional costs that are incurred by the Exchange in connection with
routing these orders on behalf of its members.
    The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for
orders routed to NOM from a Fixed Fee of $0.12 to $0.13 per contract,
in addition to the actual transaction fee, is reasonable because the
Exchange desires to recoup an additional portion of the cost it incurs
when routing Customer orders to NOM. Today, the Exchange assesses
orders routed to NOM a lower Fixed Fee for routing Customer orders as
compared to the Fixed Fee assessed to other options exchanges. The
Exchange is proposing to increase the Fixed Fee to recoup additional
costs that are incurred by the Exchange in connection with routing
these orders on behalf of its members.
    The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for
orders routed to BX Options from a Fixed Fee of $0.12 to $0.13 per
contract is reasonable because the Exchange desires to recoup an
additional portion of the cost it incurs when routing Customer orders
to BX Options, similar to the amount of Fixed Fee it proposes to assess
for orders routed to NOM. The Exchange is proposing to assess a Fixed
Fee to recoup additional costs that are incurred by the Exchange in
connection with routing these orders on behalf of its members. While
the Exchange would continue to retain any rebate paid by BX
Options,\12\ the Exchange does not assess the actual transaction fee
that is charged by BX Options for Customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ BX Options pays a Customer Rebate to Remove Liquidity as
follows: Customers are paid $0.35 per contract in All Other Penny
Pilot Options (excluding BAC, IWM, QQQ, SPY and VXX) and $0.70 per
contract in Non-Penny Pilot Options. See BX Options Rules at Chapter
XV, Section 2(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that continuing to assess lower Fixed Fees to
route Customer orders to NOM and BX Options, as compared to other
options exchanges, is reasonable as the Exchange is able to leverage
certain infrastructure to offer those markets

lower fees as explained further below. Similarly, the Exchange believes
that amending the Customer Routing Fee to other away markets, other
than NOM and BX Options, in the instance the away market does not pay a
rebate from a Fixed Fee of $0.22 to $0.23 per contract is reasonable
because the Exchange desires to recoup an additional portion of the
cost it incurs when routing orders to these away markets. While the
Exchange would continue to retain any rebate paid by these [sic] away
markets, the Exchange does not assess the actual transaction fee that
is charged by the away market for Customer orders. The Fixed Fee for
Customer orders is an approximation of the costs the Exchange will be
charged for routing orders to away markets. As a general matter, the
Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Customer orders routed to
markets which pay a rebate, such as BX Options and other away markets,
would allow it to recoup and cover a portion of the costs of providing
optional routing services for Customer orders because it better
approximates the costs incurred by the Exchange for routing such
orders. While each destination market's transaction charge varies and
there is a cost incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away
markets, including, OCC clearing costs, administrative and technical
costs associated with operating NES, membership fees at away markets,
ORFs and technical costs associated with routing options, the Exchange
believes that the proposed Routing Fees will enable it to recover the
costs it incurs to route Customer orders to away markets.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing
Fee to other away markets, other than NOM and BX Options, if the away
market pays a rebate, from $0.12 to $0.13 per contract is reasonable
because the Exchange desires to recoup an additional portion of the
cost it incurs when routing Customer orders to away markets, similar to
the amount of Fixed Fee it proposes to assess for orders routed to NOM
and BX Options. The Exchange is proposing to assess a Fixed Fee to
recoup additional costs that are incurred by the Exchange in connection
with routing these orders on behalf of its members. While the Exchange
would continue to retain any rebate paid by away markets, the Exchange
does not assess the actual transaction fee that is charged by away
markets for Customer orders.
    The Exchange believes that amending the Non-Customer Routing Fee
for orders routed to any options exchange from a fee of $0.97 to $0.99
per contract, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange would assess the same $0.99 per contract fee to all market
participants utilizing routing for Non-Customer orders.
    The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for
orders routed to NOM from a Fixed Fee of $0.12 to $0.13 per contract,
in addition to the actual transaction fee, is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would assess the same
Fixed Fee to all orders routed to NOM in addition to the transaction
fee assessed by that market.
    The Exchange believes that increasing the Customer Routing Fee for
orders routed to BX Options from a Fixed Fee from $0.12 to $0.13 per
contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange would uniformly increase the Fixed Fee, similar to NOM, for
all orders routed to BX Options and would continue to uniformly not
assess the actual transaction fee, as is the case today.
    The Exchange would uniformly assess a $0.13 per contract Fixed Fee
to orders routed to NASDAQ OMX exchanges because the Exchange is
passing along the saving realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's
infrastructure and scale to market participants when those orders are
routed to NOM or BX Options and is providing those saving to all market
participants. Furthermore, it is important to note that when orders are
routed to an away market they are routed based on price first.\13\ The
Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
to assess a fixed cost of $0.13 per contract to route orders to NOM and
BX Options because the cost, in terms of actual cash outlays, to the
Exchange to route to those markets is lower. For example, costs related
to routing to NOM and BX Options are lower as compared to other away
markets because NES is utilized by all three exchanges to route
orders.\14\ NES and the three NASDAQ OMX options markets have a common
data center and staff that are responsible for the day-to-day
operations of NES. Because the three exchanges are in a common data
center, Routing Fees are reduced because costly expenses related to,
for example, telecommunication lines to obtain connectivity are avoided
when routing orders in this instance. The costs related to connectivity
to route orders to other NASDAQ OMX exchanges are lower than the costs
to route to a non-NASDAQ OMX exchange. When routing orders to non-
NASDAQ OMX exchanges, the Exchange incurs costly connectivity charges
related to telecommunication lines, membership and access fees, and
other related costs when routing orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 1080(m).
    \14\ See Phlx Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A). See also Chapter VI, Section
11 of BX Options Rules and NOM Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee to
other away markets, other than NOM and BX Options, in the instance the
away market does not pay a rebate from a Fixed Fee of $0.22 to $0.23
per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange would assess the same Fixed Fee to all orders routed to away
markets other than NOM and BX Options in addition to the transaction
fee. The Exchange's proposal to increase the Customer Routing Fee to
all other options exchanges that pay a rebate, other than NOM and BX
Options, from $0.12 to $0.13 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would assess the same Fixed Fee
that is proposed when routing Customer orders to a NASDAQ OMX exchange.
All market participants that route an order to an away market, other
than NOM or BX Options, would be assessed a uniform fee of $0.13 per
contract if the away market (non-NASDAQ OMX exchange) pays a rebate.
These proposals would apply uniformly to all market participants when
routing to an away market that pays a rebate, other than NOM and BX
Options.
    In addition, market participants may submit orders to the Exchange
as ineligible for routing or ``DNR'' to avoid Routing Fees.\15\ Also,
orders are routed to an away market based on price first.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 1080(m)(iv).
    \16\ See Rule 1080(m). See also Chapter VI, Section 11 of the BX
Options Rules and NOM Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the added aggregation language
regarding members and member organizations under Common Ownership is
reasonable because the Exchange desires to attract liquidity. The added
language is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would
apply to all members and member organizations uniformly. The Customer
Rebate requirements regarding Tier and volume remain in place. However,
all members and member organizations that are under Common Ownership
will have the ability to aggregate their Customer volume for the
purpose of calculating discount thresholds and receiving discounted
routing fees. The Exchange will apply the aggregation language to all
members and member organizations in a uniform manner.

    The proposal allows the Exchange to continue attracting liquidity
to Phlx while recouping costs incurred by the Exchange to route orders
to away markets.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposal creates a burden on intra-market competition because
the Exchange is applying the same Routing Fees to all market
participants in the same manner dependent on the routing venue, with
the exception of Customers. The Exchange will continue to assess
separate Customer Routing Fees. Customers will continue to receive the
lowest fees as compared to non-Customers when routing orders, as is the
case today. Other options exchanges also assess lower Routing Fees for
customer orders as compared to non-customer orders.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ BATS assesses lower customer routing fees as compared to
non-customer routing fees per the away market. For example BATS
assesses ISE customer routing fees of $0.52 per contract and an ISE
non-customer routing fee of $ 0.65 per contract. See BATS BZX
Exchange Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would allow the Exchange to continue to
recoup its costs when routing Customer orders to NOM or BX Options as
well as away markets that pay a rebate when such orders are designated
as available for routing by the market participant. The Exchange
continues to pass along savings realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's
infrastructure and scale to market participants when Customer orders
are routed to NOM and BX Options and is providing those savings to all
market participants. Today, other options exchanges also assess fixed
routing fees to recoup costs incurred by the exchange to route orders
to away markets.\18\ Market participants may submit orders to the
Exchange as ineligible for routing or ``DNR'' to avoid Routing Fees. It
is important to note that when orders are routed to an away market they
are routed based on price first. Today, other options exchanges also
assess similar fees to recoup costs incurred when routing orders to
away markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule and ISE's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is seeking to encourage market participants to
transact a greater number of Customer orders on Phlx, which liquidity
benefits all market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts specialists and other market makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. In addition, the credit toward
Customer Routing Fees is in addition to the Customer rebate received
for the qualifying Customer Rebate Tier.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\19\ the Exchange
has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-68 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-68. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-Phlx-2014-68 and should be
submitted on or before December 4, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26840 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                  SYNOPSIS OF
                    PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF THE
                        DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
                       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
                   RELATING TO AIR QUALITY, CHAPTER 391-3-1

Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(zz), "Gasoline Dispensing Facilities  -  Stage II" is being amended.

Purpose:	The purpose of this amendment is to remove the requirement for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities to install Stage II vapor controls, which no longer provides an environmental benefit due to federal vehicle requirements, and provide for a decommissioning schedule and guidance.

Main Features:	Subparagraph (2)(zz)21. is added to require the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery systems between May 1, 2014, and April 30, 2016, and to specify the procedures for decommissioning.  Language is added to subparagraphs 4., 5., 18., and 19. to remove compliance requirements once the Stage II vapor recovery system has been removed.  Subparagraph 8.(iii) has been added to exempt new and reconstructed gasoline dispensing facilities that started up after December 31, 2011 from Stage II requirements.  Subparagraph 3.(xi) is revised to include the replacement of gasoline dispensers in the definition of "replacement".  Other changes are added throughout the rule to incorporate decommissioning requirements consistent with other provisions of the rule.  This rule required gas pumps at gas stations to install vapor recovery systems to control gas vapors.  New vehicles have vapor controls that can interfere with the control at the gas pump, resulting in more emissions of gas vapors.  Federal rule allows states to no longer require Stage II when certain conditions are met.  Georgia will have met those conditions in 2014.

STATEMENT OF RATIONALE
                         Rules for Air Quality Control

Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(zz)  -  Gasoline Dispensing Facilities  -  Stage II
The basis of this subparagraph is to require and define the control equipment requirements for fuel vapor recovery for gasoline pumps at gasoline stations.  The purpose of this revision is to require decommissioning of Stage II systems between May 1, 2014, and April 30, 2016, and to provide procedures for decommissioning.

This revision would no longer require fuel suppliers to install and maintain vapor recovery equipment at gas stations in the Atlanta area. This action would result in cost savings for the Environmental Protection Division and the regulated industry.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27524-27526]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09704]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0686; FRL-9124-02-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Fugitive Emissions Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky (Commonwealth), through the Energy and
Environmental Cabinet (Cabinet) on October 15, 2020. The SIP revision
updates the Commonwealth's regulation for the control of fugitive
emissions. This revision contains minor non-substantive changes,
grammatical edits, renumbering, the removal of one provision, the
addition of one new requirement, and the incorporation of two
definitions to support the new requirement. EPA is finalizing approval
of these changes pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule is effective June 8, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0686. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andres Febres, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-8966. Mr. Febres can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 15, 2020, the Commonwealth submitted changes to the
Kentucky SIP for EPA approval.\1\ The changes include updates to
Regulation 401 KAR 63:010--Fugitive Emissions, which establishes
control requirements for fugitive emissions. The October 15, 2020, SIP
revision contains primarily minor non-substantive changes which concern
minor language edits and renumbering changes throughout regulation 401
KAR 63:010. Additionally, the revision includes the removal of one
provision regarding nuisances, the addition of one new requirement to
use EPA's Reference Method 22, and the incorporation of two new
definitions for ``Emission time'' and ``Observation period,'' to
support this new requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA notes that the Commonwealth's submission was received on
October 16, 2020. However, for clarity, EPA will refer to this
submission by its cover letter date of October 15, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 8, 2022, EPA publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to approve the October 15, 2020, SIP revisions regarding 401 KAR
63:010. EPA's March 8, 2022, NPRM provides additional details regarding
the background for this action and EPA's rationale for approving this
revision. See 87 FR 12904. Comments on the March 8, 2022, NPRM were due
on or before April 7, 2022. EPA received no comments on the March 8,
2022, NPRM.

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Kentucky's
Regulation 401 KAR 63:010--Fugitive Emissions, state effective on June
30, 2020, which

updates the Commonwealth's fugitive emission provisions, except for the
nuisance provision added to Section 3, Paragraph (4).\2\ EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated
by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA notes that throughout the March 8, 2022, NPRM, the
Agency referenced to this provision as paragraph 3(4). EPA's
intention was to reference Section 3, Paragraph (4), which was
shorthanded to paragraph 3(4).
    \3\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the revision to Regulation 401 KAR 63:010--
Fugitive Emissions, which updates the Commonwealth's fugitive emissions
rule. EPA is finalizing the approval of these changes to the SIP
because they are consistent with the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 8, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation byreference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 29, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. In Sec.  52.920(c), table 1 is amended by revising the entry for
``401 KAR 63:010'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   Table 1--EPA-Approved Kentucky Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State effective
         State citation              Title/subject           date        EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
401 KAR 63:010..................  Fugitive emissions.       6/30/2020   5/9/2022 [Insert     Except for the
                                                                         citation of          nuisance provision
                                                                         publication].        found in Section
                                                                                3, Paragraph (4).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-09704 Filed 5-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26478-26479]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11758]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-450-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on May 25, 2017, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC (Transco), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in
Docket No. CP17-450-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations,
requesting authorization to abandon in place its offshore gathering
laterals extending from Brazos Block A-133A to Brazos Block 538. The
gathering facilities proposed to be abandon are located on Transco's
Central Texas Gathering System (CTGS) in federal waters offshore Texas.
    Specifically, Transco proposes to abandon the CTGS West Facilities
that consist of: (i) A 10.72-mile, 20-inch offshore gathering lateral
extending from Brazos Block A-133A platform to the Brazos Block A-76
subsea tie-in, and (ii) a 30-mile, 20-inch offshore gathering lateral
extending from the Brazos Block A-76 subsea tie-in to the Brazos Block
538 platform. Transco states that the abandonment of the CTGS West
Facilities will have no impacts on the upstream shippers as the
approximately 35,000 dekatherms per day that currently flows on these
laterals will be re-routed to an existing parallel line. Transco
estimates the cost of the abandonment of the CTGS West Facilities to be
approximately $2.9 million, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Charlotte Hutson, Director Rates & Regulatory, Transcontinental Gas
Pipe Line Company, LLC, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of

environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the
right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests 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 five copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time June 22, 2017.

    Dated: June 1, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11758 Filed 6-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P