[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49897-49899]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21468]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0600; FRL-9984-56--Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Negative Declarations for Commercial
and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration and Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units for Designated Facilities and Pollutants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the
public that we have received from Indiana requests for withdrawals of
the previously approved state plans and notification of negative
declarations for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
(CISWI) units and Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) units. The Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted its CISWI
withdrawal and negative declaration by letter dated July 31, 2017 and
its SSI withdrawal and negative declaration by letter dated July 31,
2017. IDEM notified EPA in its negative declaration letters that there
are no CISWI or SSI units subject to the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (Act) currently operating in Indiana.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2018-0600, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. For comments

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sieffert, Environmental
Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard (AT-18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
    A. Sections 111 and 129 of the Act
    B. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units
    C. Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
II. Negative Declarations and EPA Analysis
    A. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units
    B. Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
III. Proposed EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Sections 111 and 129 of the Act

    Sections 111 and 129 of the Act set forth EPA's statutory authority
for regulating, among other types of emission sources, new and existing
solid waste incineration units. Section 111(b) directs EPA to publish
and periodically revise a list of categories of stationary sources
which cause or significantly contribute to air pollution, and to
establish new source performance standards (NSPS) within these
categories. Section 111(d) grants EPA statutory authority to require
states to submit implementation plans for establishing performance
standards applicable to existing sources belonging to those categories
established in section 111(b).
    Under Section 111(d), the state submits plans to control certain
pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing facilities (designated
facilities) which have been established under section 111(b). EPA has
promulgated emission guidelines (EGs) for designated facilities, which
are used by states to formulate their state plan. 40 CFR 60.21(a) and
(b). Section 129(b) of the Act is specific to solid waste combustion,
and requires EPA to establish performance standards pursuant to section
111 of the Act for each category of solid waste incineration units,
which includes the categories addressed in today's action.
    The regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, contain general
provisions applicable to the adoption and submittal of state plans for
the control of designated pollutants from designated facilities under
section 111(d) of the Act, including those pollutants and facilities
designated pursuant to section 129 of the Act. Further, 40 CFR part 62,
subpart A, provides the procedural framework in which EPA will approve
or disapprove such plans submitted by a state. If a state fails to
submit a satisfactory plan, the Act provides EPA with the authority to
prescribe a plan for regulating the designated pollutants at the
designated facilities. The EPA prescribed plan, also known as a Federal
plan, is used to regulate designated facilities when there is no EPA
approved state-specific plan. Further, if there are no designated
facilities within a state's jurisdiction, the state may submit to EPA a
letter of certification to that effect (referred to as a ``negative
declaration'') in lieu of a state plan to satisfy the state's
obligation. 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06. The negative declaration exempts
the state from the requirement to submit a state plan for the
designated pollutants and facilities. Therefore, if a state submits a
negative declaration for a category of solid waste incineration units,
the state is not required to submit a state plan for that source
category.

B. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

    On December 1, 2000, EPA promulgated a NSPS for new CISWI units, 40
CFR part 60, subpart CCCC, and EGs for existing CISWI units, 40 CFR
part 60, subpart DDDD. 65 FR 75338. On March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15704),
EPA, after a ``voluntarily remand'' of the 2000 CISWI standards and
EGs, promulgated a final CISWI NSPS and EGs.\1\ Correspondingly, on the
same date, EPA promulgated a final rule under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) to identify which non-hazardous secondary
materials, when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units, are
``solid wastes.'' 76 FR 15456; see 40 CFR part 241, Solid Wastes Used
as Fuels or Ingredients in Combustion Units (also known as the ``Non-
Hazardous Secondary Material Rule''). The identification of solid waste
in the Non-Hazardous Secondary Material Rule is used to determine
whether a combustion unit is required to meet the emissions standards
for solid waste incineration units issued under sections 111 and 129 of
the Act, or meet the emissions standards for commercial, industrial,
and institutional boilers issued under section 112 of the Act. EPA
subsequently promulgated amendments to both rules on February 7, 2013:
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units:
Reconsideration and Final Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials
That Are Solid Waste; Final Rule. 78 FR 9112. Reconsideration of
certain aspects of the final CISWI rule resulted in minor amendments.
81 FR 40956 (June 23, 2016). Pursuant to sections 111(d) and 129 of the
Act and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, states were required to revise their
state plans for existing CISWI units to comply with the amended
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information on the history to this rule, including
the remand, see 67 FR 70640 (November 25, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A CISWI unit is defined in 40 CFR 60.2875 as any distinct operating
unit of any commercial or industrial facility that combusts, or has
combusted in the preceding 6 months, any solid waste, as that term is
defined in the Non-Hazardous Secondary Material Rule. A state plan must
address all existing CISWI units that commenced construction on or
before June 4, 2010, or for which modification or reconstruction was
commenced on or before August 7, 2013, with limited exceptions as
provided in section 40 CFR 60.2555. 40 CFR 60.2550.
    However, as discussed above, if there are no existing designated
facilities in a state, the state may submit a negative declaration in
lieu of a state plan. EPA will provide public notice of receipt of a
state's negative declaration with respect to that solid waste
incineration unit category. 40 CFR 60.2530. If any

unit of a solid waste incineration category is subsequently identified
in a state for which a negative declaration had been submitted, the
Federal plan implementing the EGs for that source category would apply
to that unit. In the case of a CISWI unit, subpart DDDD would
automatically apply to that CISWI unit until a state plan is approved.
40 CFR 60.2530.

C. Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

    EPA promulgated an NSPS and EGs for SSIs on March 21, 2011. 76 FR
15404. The NSPS and EGs are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts LLLL
and MMMM, respectively. Thus, states were required to submit plans for
existing SSIs, pursuant to sections 111(d) and 129 of the Act and 40
CFR part 60, subpart B.
    A SSI unit is defined in 40 CFR 60.5250 as any device that combusts
sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter. The designated facilities to
which the EGs applied to are existing SSI units that commenced
construction on or before October 14, 2010 or for which a modification
was commenced on or before September 21, 2011 primarily to comply with
this rule. 76 FR 15371.

II. Negative Declarations and EPA Analysis

A. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

    IDEM submitted a CISWI state plan on December 20, 2002. EPA
approved the state plan and it became effective on August 11, 2003. 68
FR 35181. On July 31, 2017, IDEM submitted its CISWI negative
declaration, in which it certified that there are no longer any CISWI
units currently operating in Indiana.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Previously, an incinerator located at Covance Laboratories,
Inc. was listed by Indiana as subject to the CISWI. In a letter
dated June 18, 2018, however, EPA determined that Covance's
incinerator was not a ``CISWI unit'' under the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

    IDEM submitted a SSI state plan on February 27, 2013. EPA approved
the state plan and it became effective on August 12, 2013. 78 FR 34918.
On July 31, 2017, IDEM submitted its SSI withdrawal and negative
declaration, in which it certified that there are no longer any
existing SSI units currently operating in Indiana. Previously, IDEM
listed Belmont Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility as having an
existing SSI. After modifications at the Belmont facility, however, the
SSI unit became subject to the NSPS under 40 CFR part 60 subpart LLLL.
Because there are no existing sources subject to the 2013 state plan,
IDEM is requesting to withdraw the 2013 state plan and replace it with
a negative declaration.

III. Proposed EPA Action

    EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62 to reflect IDEM's
withdrawals and negative declarations for both CISWI and SSI
facilities. EPA received the CISWI and SSI negative declarations and
withdrawal requests by letters dated July 31, 2017.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011). For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017)
regulatory action because this action is not significant under E.O.
12866. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and merely notifies the public of EPA's receipt of
negative declarations from an air pollution control agency without any
existing CISWI or SSI units in its state. This action imposes no
requirements beyond those imposed by the state. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
pertains to pre-existing requirements under state law and does not
impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state
law, it 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). This rule 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 and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely provides notice of receipt of negative declarations, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Act. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it just
notifying the public regarding receipt of the negative declarations.
    In reviewing state plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. With regard
to negative declarations for designated facilities received by EPA from
states, EPA's role is to notify the public of the receipt of such
negative declarations and revise 40 CFR part 62 accordingly. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state plan submission or negative declaration for failure
to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA,
when it reviews a state plan or negative declaration submission, to use
VCS in place of a state plan or negative declaration submission that
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Commercial and industrial solid waste
incinerators, Intergovernmental relations, Sewage sludge incineration
units, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 13, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-21468 Filed 10-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Memorandum from Ashley L. Allen ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water), to EPA Docket OW 2004 0002.

Information on Ichthyoplankton Densities in Various Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States.

September 2005 The following documents provide information on ichthyoplankton densities determined for various aquatic ecosystems in the United States:

Documents already located in EPA Docket OW W 00 32:

Suzanne E. Dorsey, Edward D. Houde, and John C. Gamble. 1996. Cohort abundances and daily variability in mortality of eggs and yolk sac larvae of bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, in Chesapeake Bay. Fishery Bulletin 94: 257 267. OW W 00 32 DCN 4 1472 Doreen M. Monteleone. 1992. Seasonality and abundance of ichthyoplankton in Great South Bay, New York. Estuaries 15: 230 238. OW W 00 32 DCN 4 1775 Stephen B. Weisberg and William H. Burton. 1993. Spring distribution and abundance of ichthyoplankton in the tidal Delaware River. Fishery Bulletin 91: 788 797. OW W 00 32 DCN 4 2187 Documents placed in EPA Docket OW 2004 0002:

Christian S. Reiss and John R. McConaugha. 1999. Cross frontal transport and distribution of ichthyoplankton associated with Chesapeake Bay plume dynamics. Continental Shelf Research 19: 151 170.

Eugene R. Gilliland. 1983. Density and distribution of larval fish in an Oklahoma Power Plant Cooling Water Reservoir. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 63: 33 36. http:// digital. library. okstate. edu/ OAS/ oas_ pdf/ v63/ p33_ 36. pdf S. Sponaugle, J. Fortuna, K. Grorud, and T. Lee. 2003. Dynamics of larval fish assemblages over a shallow coral reef in the Florida Keys. Marine Biology 143: 175 189. http:// www. rsmas. miami. edu/ groups/ reef fishecology pdf% 20su/ Sponaugle% 20et% 20al% 20Mar% 20Biol% 202003. PDF R. Christian Jones and Donald P. Kelso. 2005. An ecological study of Gunston Cove, 2003 2004. Final Report to Department of Public Works, County of Fairfax, Virginia. http:// mason. gmu. edu/~ rcjones/ GC0304Final. pdf R. Christian Jones and Donald P. Kelso. 1999. The Ongoing Aquatic Monitoring Program for the Gunston Cove Area: 1998. Final Report to Department of Public Works, County of Fairfax, Virginia. http:// mason. gmu. edu/~ rcjones/ gc989rep. pdf Lenny F. Grimaldo, Robert E. Miller, Christopher M. Peregrin, and Zachary P. Hymanson. 2004. Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Native and Alien Ichthyoplankton in Three Habitat Types of the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. American Fisheries Society Symposium 39: 81 96.

John E. Cooper. 2000. Comparative development and ecology of northern pike Esox lucius and muskellunge E. masquinongy eggs and larvae in the upper St. Lawrence River and the implications of changes in historical spawning habitat. Ph. D dissertation, State University of New York, 208 pp. http:// aslo. org/ phd/ dialog/ 200008 13. html R. H. Chamberlain, P. H. Doering, K. M. Haunert, and D. Crean. 2003. Technical Documentation to Support Development of Minimum Flows and Levels for the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary. Appendix C. Impacts of Freshwater Inflows on the Distribution of Zooplankton and Ichthyoplankton in the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Florida. http:// www. sfwmd. gov/ org/ wsd/ mfl/ calmfl/ pdfs/ doc2003/ appc. pdf David J. Jude. 1976. " Entrainment of Fish Larvae and Eggs on the Great Lakes, with Special Reference to the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plan, Southeastern Lake Michigan." From Third International Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement: 316( b) Research and Compliance. L. D. Jensen ( editor). Ecological Analysts, Inc. Melville, New York. Pp. 177 199.

Ronald G. King. 1977. " Entrainment of Missouri River Fish Larvae through Fort Calhoun Station." From Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. L. D. Jensen ( editor). Ecological Analysts Communications. Melville, New York. DCN 8 5250 Jacqueline Savino, Marc Blouin, Michael Blur, Bruce Davis, Mary Fabrizio, Greg Kennedy, James McKenna, and Thomas Todd. 2003. Critical Habitats for Young Fishes in Coastal Areas of West Central Lake Erie. Final Report to Lake Erie Protection Fund LEPF 00 08. http:// web. epa. state. oh. us/ oleo/ Grant/ freports/ largefinals/ 2000/ lepf00 08. pdf]

David L. Galat, Gregory W. Whitledge, Lori D. Patton, and John Hooker. Larval 2004. Fish Use of Lower Missouri River Scour Basins in Relation to Connectivity. Final Report to Missouri Department of Conservation. http:// infolink. cr. usgs. gov/ Science/ Documents/ LarvalScour. pdf Mark A. Lazzari. 2001. Dynamics of larval fish abundance in Penobscot Bay, Maine. Fish. Bull. 99: 81 93. http:// fishbull. noaa. gov/ 991/ 8. pdf William E. Hettler, Jr. 1998. Abundance and Size of Dominant Winter Immigrating Fish Larvae at Two Inlets into Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. Brimleyana 25: 144 155. http:// shrimp. ccfhrb. noaa. gov/ lab/ hettler/ brim. html


MEMORANDUM TO: 304( m) Record ( EPA Docket Number OW 2003 0074)

FROM: Bob Southworth, ERG Senior Environmental Engineer DATE: October 29, 2003 SUBJECT: Review of the TWPE Loads for Selected Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Facilities Calculated Using 2000 PCS Data This memorandum presents the results of a review of the Toxic Weighted Pound Equivalents ( TWPE) loads for selected nonferrous metals ( NFM) manufacturing facilities calculated using 2000 Permit Compliance System ( PCS) data. It provides background information on the NFM manufacturing facilities that discharged 90 percent of the TWPE load, discusses the pollutants with the highest TWPE loads, and identifies the NFM manufacturing facilities that discharged the pollutants with the highest TWPE loads. The PCSLoads2000 database only contains pollutant loads for direct discharging facilities that are major dischargers. The development of this database is discussed in more detail in the report entitled Development of PCSLoads2000, dated December 12, 2003. The data dictionary for the PCSLoads2000 database is entitled PCSLoads2000 Data Dictionary, dated December 12, 2003. Pollutant loads discharged by indirect dischargers are available in the 2000 Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) database.

Background Twenty of the NFM manufacturing facilities in the 2000 PCS database discharged 90 percent of the total TWPE load for the NFM manufacturing industry. Two of the 20 facilities discharged 35 percent of the total TWPE load. Twelve facilities have a SIC code of 3334, six have a SIC code of 3339, and two have a SIC code of 3341. The total TWPE load discharged by the 20 facilities was 392,884. Attachment A lists the TWPE load by facility and by pollutant. The percentage of the total TWPE load for each pollutant by facility and the cumulative percentage of the total TWPE load for each pollutant by facility also are presented in Attachment A.

Pollutants With High TWPE Loads The TWPE load for 15 pollutants comprises 90 percent of the total TWPE load for NFM manufacturing facilities calculated using 2000 PCS data. The 15 pollutants and the TWPE load for each pollutant are listed in Table 1. MEMORANDUM October 29, 2003 Page 2 TABLE 1 TWPE LOAD FOR TOP 15 POLLUTANTS Pollutant TWPE ( pounds)

Vanadium, Total ( as V) 2 100,592 Benzo( a) pyrene1 89,418 Total Residual Chlorine2 81,879 Polychlorinated Biphenyls1 37,549 Cyanide, Total ( as CN) 1 16,687 Chlorine, Free Available2 14,524 Zinc, Total ( as Zn) 1 9,717 Fluoride, Total ( as F) 2 9,086 Aluminum, Total ( as Al) 2 8,117 Molybdenum, Total ( as Mo) 2 7,203 Cyanide, Free( Amendable to Chlorine) 2 6,108 Lead, Total ( as Pb) 1 5,767 Thiocyanate ( as SCN) 2 2,175 Arsenic, Total Recoverable1 2,073 Mercury, Total ( as Hg) 1 1,988 Total 392,883 1 Priority pollutant 2 Non conventional pollutant Seven of the pollutants with the highest TWPE loads are priority pollutants and eight are non conventional pollutants. Three of the pollutants ( i. e., vanadium, benzo( a) pyrene, and total residual chlorine) account for approximately 69 percent of the TWPE load for the top 15 pollutants. MEMORANDUM October 29, 2003 Page 3 Facilities With the Highest TWPE Loads The following NFM manufacturing facilities discharged the 15 pollutants with the highest TWPE load. The number in parenthesis is the PCS identification number for the facility.

Facility Name Facility Location ( ID) SIC Aluminum Company of America Newburgh, IN ( IN0001155) 3334 U. S. Vanadium Corporation Hot Springs, AR ( AR0000523) 3339 Northwest Aluminum Company The Dalles, OR ( OR0001708) 3334 Aluminum Company of America Lafayette, IN ( IN0001210) 3341 AMAX Metals Recovery, Inc. Braithwaite, LA ( LA0045233) 3339 Goldendale Aluminum Company Goldendale, WA ( WA0000540) 3334 Zinc Corporation of America Monaca, PA ( PA0002208) 3339 Aluminum Company of America Baldin, NC ( NC0004308) 333 Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Co. Freeport, TX ( TX0034738) 3341 Pasminco Zinc Inc. Clarksville, TN ( TN0029157) 3339 Reynolds Metals Company Troutdale, OR ( OR0000060) 3334 Aluminum Company of America Alcoa, TN ( TN0065081) 3334 Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Tacoma, WA ( WA0000931) 3334 Century Aluminum of WV, Inc. Ravenswood, WV ( WV0000779) 3334 ALCOA World Alumina LLC Point Comfort, TX ( TX0004715) 3334 Massena Operations Massena, NY ( NY0001732) 3334 Eastalco Aluminum Company Frederick, MD ( MD0002429) 3334 TDY Industries, Inc. Albany, OR ( OR0001112) 3339 Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp. Hannibal, OH ( OH0011550) 3334 Doe Run Herculaneum Smel Herculaneum, MO ( MO0000282) 3339 MEMORANDUM October 29, 2003 Page 4 Table 2 lists the NFM manufacturing facilities that discharged the highest percentage of the TWPE load for the top 15 pollutants.

TABLE 2 NFM MANUFACTURING FACILITIES THAT DISCHARGED THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF THE TWPE LOAD FOR THE TOP 15 POLLUTANTS Pollutant Facility Percentage of TWPE Discharged by Facility Vanadium, Total ( as V) 2 U. S. Vanadium Corporation 71 Benzo( a) pyrene1 Northwest Aluminum CO ALCOA  Newburgh, IN 36 24 Total Residual Chlorine2 ALCOA  Newburgh, IN 98 Polychlorinated Biphenyls1 ALCOA  Lafayette, IN 77 Cyanide, Total ( as CN) 1 ALCOA  Badin, NC 75 Chlorine, Free Available2 Zinc Corporation of America 100 Zinc, Total ( as Zn) 1 Pasminco Zinc, Inc. 100 Fluoride, Total ( as F) 2 ALCOA World Alumina 65 Aluminum, Total ( as Al) 2 ALCOA  Alcoa, TN 100 Molybdenum, Total ( as Mo) 2 Gulf Chemical & Metal. AMAX Metals Recovery, Inc. 55 45 Cyanide, Free( Amendable to Chlorine) 2 Century Aluminum of WV, Inc. 100 Lead, Total ( as Pb) 1 Pasminco Zinc, Inc. 100 Thiocyanate ( as SCN) 2 TDY Industries, Inc. 100 Arsenic, Total Recoverable1 Doe Run Herculaneum 100 Mercury, Total ( as Hg) 1 ALCOA World Alumina 100 1 Priority pollutant 2 Non conventional pollutant MEMORANDUM October 29, 2003 Page 5 The TWPE load for eight of the top 15 pollutants was discharged by only one facility. Two facilities discharged 100 percent of the TWPE load for molybdenum and two facilities discharged 60 percent of the TWPE load for benzo( a) pyrene. For the other five pollutants, one facility discharged most of the TWPE load for each pollutant.

The effluent limitations guidelines ( ELG) for the NFM manufacturing industry contain limits in one or more subcategories for the following 10 of the top 15 pollutants: benzo( a) pyrene, cyanide ( total), zinc ( total), aluminum ( total), free cyanide, fluoride ( total), lead ( total), molybdenum ( total), arsenic, and mercury. If EPA decides not to establish limits for the other pollutants in an ELG, limits for those pollutants and revised limits for already regulated pollutants could be established on a case by case basis in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit based on Best Professional Judgement. This is a feasible approach because most of the TWPE load for each of the top 15 pollutants is from one or two NFM manufacturing facilities.

Attachment ATTACHMENT A TWPE LOADS CALCULATED USING 2000 PCS DATA BY POLLUTANT AND BY NONFERROUS METALS MANUFACTURING FACILITY


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 136 (Monday, July 18, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42633]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15213]

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

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 136 / Monday, July 18, 2022 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0155; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wiggins, MS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal
Register of May 23, 2022, that modifies Establishment of Class E
airspace at Dean Griffin Memorial Airport, Wiggins, MS. The geographic
coordinates of the airport are amended to be in concert with the FAA's
aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register for Docket
No. FAA-2020-0155 (87 FR 31132, May 23, 2022), establishing Class E
airspace at the Dean Griffin Memorial Airport, Wiggins, MS. Subsequent
to publication, the FAA identified an error that the geographic
coordinates of the airport need to be amended to be in concert with the
FAA's aeronautical database. This correction changes the coordinates
from ``(Lat. 30[deg]54'35'' N)'' to read ``(Lat. 30[deg]50'35'' N)''.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
Federal Register of May 23, 2022 (87 FR 31132) FR Doc. 2022-10940,
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wiggins, MS, is corrected as
follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
On page 31132, column 3, line 57; remove ``(Lat. 30[deg]54'35'' N)''
and add in its place ``(Lat. 30[deg]50'35'' N)''.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 12, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-15213 Filed 7-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 39751-39753]
[DOCID:fr10jy08-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58095; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of
Trade), FINRA Rule 2020 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other
Fraudulent Devices), and FINRA Rule 5150 (Fairness Opinions) in the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

July 3, 2008.
    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 June 13, 2008, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by FINRA.
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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rules 2110 (Standards of
Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade), 2120 (Use of Manipulative,
Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices), and 2290 (Fairness Opinions) as
FINRA rules in the consolidated FINRA rulebook without material change
and to delete Incorporated NYSE Rule 401(a) (Business Conduct),
Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 (Miscellaneous Prohibitions), with the
exception of paragraph (5), and NYSE Rule Interpretations 401/01 and
401/02. The text of the proposed rule change is available at FINRA, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.finra.org.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    As part of the process of developing the new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\3\ FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD
Rules 2110, 2120, and 2290 as FINRA Rules 2010, 2020, and 5150,
respectively, in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. The rules would be
adopted without change, with the exception of renumbering the rules to
reflect the new organizational structure of the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook.\4\ The proposed rule change would also delete Incorporated
NYSE Rule 401(a) (including two accompanying Interpretations to the
rule) and certain provisions of Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 from the
Transitional Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of two sets of rules:
(1) NASD Rules and (2) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together referred to as the ``Transitional
Rulebook''). The Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members
of FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual Members''). Dual
Members also must comply with NASD Rules. For more information about
the rulebook consolidation process, see FINRA Information Notice,
March 12, 2008 (Rulebook Consolidation Process).
    \4\ This proposal does not address the Interpretive Materials
(``IMs'') to NASD Rule 2110, which FINRA advises will be considered
in a later phase of the rulebook consolidation process.
Consequently, the IMs would remain in the Transitional Rulebook.
Telephone conference between Brant Brown, Associate General Counsel,
FINRA, Mia Zur, Senior Special Counsel, and Linda Jeng-Braun,
Attorney, Commission, on June 27, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of
Trade)
    The proposed rule change would transfer NASD Rule 2110 into the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2010. Incorporated NYSE Rule
401 (including two accompanying Interpretations to the rule) would be
deleted from the Transitional Rulebook.
    Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act requires that FINRA design its rules
to ``promote just and equitable principles of trade.''\5\ The Act's
mandate is reflected in NASD Rule 2110, which requires that members, in
the conduct of their business, observe high standards of commercial
honor and just and equitable principles of trade. This general ethical
standard articulated in NASD Rule 2110 is broader and provides more
flexibility than prescriptive regulations and legal requirements. NASD
Rule 2110 protects investors and the securities industry from dishonest
practices that are unfair to investors or hinder the functioning of a
free and open market, even though those practices may not be illegal or
violate a specific rule or regulation. NASD Rule 2110 has proven
effective through nearly 70 years of regulatory experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Incorporated NYSE Rules also include general ethical rules and
associated rule interpretations that correspond to NASD Rule 2110 and
other provisions in the FINRA rulebook. Specifically:
     Good Business Practice: Using somewhat different language
than NASD Rule 2110, Incorporated NYSE Rule 401(a) requires members at
all times to adhere to the principles of good business practice in the
conduct of their business affairs.\6\ This overarching

ethical requirement is subsumed under NASD Rule 2110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In addition to the general good business practice
requirement in Incorporated NYSE Rule 401(a), paragraph (b) of the
rule requires that members maintain written policies and procedures,
administered pursuant to the internal control requirements of
Incorporated NYSE Rule 342.23, with respect to transmittals of funds
or securities, customer changes of address, and customer changes of
investment objectives. These provisions duplicate requirements under
NASD Rule 3012(a)(2)(B), for which FINRA has requested comments on
proposals to relocate them to the supervision rule in the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. See Regulatory Notice 08-24 (May 2008)
(Proposed Consolidated FINRA Rules Governing Supervision and
Supervisory Controls) (``Supervision Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Firm/Personal Trading: Incorporated NYSE Rule
Interpretation 401/01 addresses ethical considerations in connection
with transactions by a member or its personnel shortly before or after
the member issues a purchase or sale recommendation. These
considerations are subsumed under NASD Rules 2110 and 2120.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In addition, Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretation 401/01
includes an unrelated, obsolete template relating to the
identification of counterfeit stock certificates and a cross-
reference provision reminding firms of the personal trading
restrictions for research analysts under Incorporated NYSE Rule
472(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Private Sales: Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretation 401/
02 broadly addresses the obligation of members to monitor the
activities of associated personnel with respect to their marketing of
securities through private sales. These obligations are addressed by
the requirements in NASD Rule 3040 and Incorporated NYSE Rules 407(b)
and 407.11.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FINRA has requested comment on a proposal for the provisions
concerning private securities transactions in NASD Rule 3040 and
Incorporated NYSE Rules 407(b) and 407.11 to be rewritten and
relocated to the supervision rule in the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook. See Supervision Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, FINRA is proposing to transfer
NASD Rule 2110 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2010
with no changes. In addition, FINRA is proposing to delete from the
Transitional Rulebook Incorporated NYSE Rule 401(a) and Incorporated
NYSE Rule Interpretations 401/01 and 401/02.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In addition to Incorporated Rule Interpretations 401/01 and
401/02, discussed above, there are two other interpretations under
Incorporated NYSE Rule 401. Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretations
401/03 and 401/04 address member notification requirements in the
event of certain organizational or operational changes, such as
mergers with or acquisitions of other broker-dealers, or certain
conditions that a member organization reasonably believes could lead
to capital, liquidity or similar problems. FINRA will be considering
the requirements of these remaining two interpretations as part of a
later phase of the rulebook consolidation process. Consequently, the
proposed rule change would not delete these two interpretations from
the Transitional Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. FINRA Rule 2020 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent
Devices)
    The proposed rule change would transfer NASD Rule 2120, which is
FINRA's general antifraud provision, into the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2020 with no changes to the rule text. The
proposed rule change would also delete Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 (with
the exception of paragraph (5)) from the Transitional Rulebook.
    NASD Rule 2120, which has remained unchanged for nearly 70 years,
states in its entirety that ``[n]o member shall effect any transaction
in, or induce the purchase or sale of, any security by means of any
manipulative, deceptive, or other fraudulent device or contrivance.''
FINRA has used this broad antifraud rule to address a wide variety of
manipulative, deceptive, and fraudulent misconduct, including market
manipulation,\10\ excessive trading,\11\ insider trading,\12\ and
fraudulent misrepresentation.\13\ Given the rule's broad reach and
substantial history, FINRA believes the rule should be transferred
unchanged into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Terrance Yoshikawa, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 53731 (April 26, 2006), 87 SEC Docket 2924 (finding that
the Applicant, by engaging in a repeated and intentional pattern of
market manipulation, had violated Section 10(b) of the Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, as well as NASD Rule 2120).
    \11\ See, e.g., Michael T. Studer and Castle Securities Corp.,
84 S.E.C. 911 (2004) (affirming NASD's decision that the Applicants
violated NASD Rules 2510, 2120, and 2110 by churning a customer's
account).
    \12\ See, e.g., Sidney C. Eng, 67 S.E.C. 2175 (1998) (finding
that a preponderance of the record evidence established that, as
found by the NASD, the Applicant purchased stock on the basis of
material, non-public information and, thus, violated Article III,
Sections 1 and 18 (which have been renumbered as NASD Rules 2110 and
2120)).
    \13\ See, e.g., Dane S. Faber, 82 S.E.C. 530 (2004) (affirming
NASD's finding that the Applicant violated Section 10(b) of the Act
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and NASD Rules 2110 and 2120 by making
misrepresentations and omitting material facts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there is no identical NYSE rule equivalent to NASD Rule
2120, Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 includes three provisions that
prohibit specific manipulative and fraudulent misconduct that would
generally also violate NASD Rules 2110 or 2120. In addition, these
provisions of Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 are duplicative of provisions
in NASD Rule 5120.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NASD Rule 5120(a), (c), and (d). FINRA has proposed
transferring NASD Rule 5120 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as
FINRA Rule 6140. See SR-FINRA-2008-021. Paragraph (5) of
Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 concerning the circulation of rumors has
no precise equivalent in NASD Rule 5120; however, NASD Rule 5120(e)
is similar in nature. The proposed rule change does not address
Incorporated NYSE Rule 435(5) or its related Interpretation, which
FINRA advises will be considered during a later phase of the
rulebook consolidation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Incorporated NYSE Rule 435(1) prohibits excessive trading
by a member for accounts in which the member is directly or indirectly
interested if the trading is ``excessive in view of his or its
financial resources or in view of the market for such security.''
     Incorporated NYSE Rule 435(3) \15\ prohibits buying or
selling a security at successively higher or lower prices,
respectively, for the purpose of improperly influencing the market
price of the security or ``making a price which does not reflect the
true state of the market in such security.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NYSE deleted paragraph (2) of NYSE Rule 435 in 1968 and
left the paragraph reserved; thus, there is no rule text for
Incorporated NYSE Rule 435(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Incorporated NYSE Rule 435(4) prohibits: (1) Direct or
indirect participation in a manipulative operation, (2) having any
interest in the profits of a manipulative operation, and (3) managing
or financing a manipulative operation.
    Because these three provisions are duplicative of existing NASD
rules that FINRA is proposing to transfer into the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook, the proposed rule change would delete these three provisions
from the Transitional Rulebook.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 also includes two other
miscellaneous provisions directed at specific issues: (1) A
provision in paragraph (6) preventing the reopening of certain
contracts for improper purposes, and (2) a provision in paragraph
(7) preventing certain types of loans. FINRA believes that these two
provisions are obsolete, and the proposed rule change would also
delete these provisions from the Transitional Rulebook. The
provisions of the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation T, which
governs credit by broker-dealers, would continue to apply to broker-
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, FINRA is proposing to transfer
NASD Rule 2120 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2020
with no changes. In addition, FINRA is proposing to delete Incorporated
NYSE Rule 435 (with the exception of paragraph (5) and its related
Interpretation) from the Transitional Rulebook.
c. FINRA Rule 5150 (Fairness Opinions)
    The proposed rule change would transfer NASD Rule 2290 into the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 5150 with no changes to the
rule text.
    NASD Rule 2290 requires specific disclosures and procedures
addressing the conflicts of interest that arise when a broker-dealer
provides a fairness opinion in a change of control transaction, such as
a merger or sale or purchase of assets. The disclosures required by the
rule are aimed at informing investor shareholders of potential
conflicts, such as whether a member has acted as a financial advisor to
any party to the transaction that is the subject of the fairness
opinion, and if so, whether it will receive compensation contingent on
the successful completion

of the transaction. The rule also requires disclosure by a member of
other significant contingent payments; material relationships with any
parties to the transaction; whether information used by the member has
been independently verified; whether the opinion expresses an opinion
about the fairness of the compensation to officers, directors or
employees, relating to that received by public shareholders; and
whether the opinion was approved or issued by a fairness committee.
    Additionally, NASD Rule 2290 requires that any member issuing a
fairness opinion must have written procedures for approval of a
fairness opinion. The procedures must address the types of transactions
and the circumstances in which the firm will use a fairness committee
to approve or issue a fairness opinion, and in those transactions in
which it uses a fairness committee: (1) The process for selecting
personnel to be on the fairness committee; (2) the necessary
qualifications of persons serving on the fairness committee; and (3)
the process to promote a balanced review by the fairness committee,
which shall include the review and approval by persons who do not serve
on the deal team to the transaction. Members are also required to have
a process to determine whether the valuation analyses used in the
fairness opinion are appropriate.
    NASD Rule 2290 was approved by the Commission in October 2007, and
was the product of extensive notice and comment rulemaking over a
period of several years.\17\ FINRA solicited comment on proposed NASD
Rule 2290 in a Notice to Members issued in 2004.\18\ FINRA modified the
proposed rule based upon the comments received, and the Commission
published the proposal for comment in the Federal Register in 2006.\19\
The final rule reflects additional changes based upon the comments
received by the Commission.\20\ Consequently, the proposed rule filing
would transfer NASD Rule 2290 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as
FINRA Rule 5150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56645 (October 11,
2007), 72 FR 59317 (October 19, 2007) (SR-NASD-2005-080).
    \18\ See NASD Notice to Members 04-83 (November 2004).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53598 (April 4,
2006), 71 FR 18395 (April 11, 2006) (SR-NASD-2005-080).
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56645 (October 11,
2007), 72 FR 59317 (October 19, 2007) (SR-NASD-2005-080).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\21\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change to
transfer the rule requiring adherence to just and equitable principles
of trade and the rule prohibiting fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices is necessary so that FINRA can continue to enforce these
overarching provisions that express FINRA's core regulatory objectives
and allow FINRA to effectively protect investors and the public
interest. FINRA also believes that the provisions of NASD Rule 2290
benefit investors and the public interest by requiring the disclosure
of conflicts of interest in connection with fairness opinions and
procedures designed to mitigate those conflicts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA 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.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2008-028 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-FINRA-2008-028. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2008-028 and should be
submitted on or before July 31, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15696 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 123 (Monday, June 27, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37269-37272]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15973]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0501]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Charleston Sharkfest Swim, Charleston Harbor,
Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of Charleston Harbor, in Charleston, South Carolina during the
Charleston Sharkfest Swim on Sunday,

September 4, 2011. The Charleston Sharkfest Swim is a 1.5-mile swimming
race. The safety zone is necessary for the safety of the swimmers,
participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the
swim. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering, transiting
through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. on September 4,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0501 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0501 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, call or e-mail Chief Warrant Officer Robert B.
Wilson, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive
necessary information about the Charleston Sharkfest Swim with
sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior
to the event. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be
contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to
minimize the potential danger to the swimmers, participant vessels,
spectators, and the general public.

Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191,
195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116
Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the swimmers,
participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the
Charleston Sharkfest Swim.

Discussion of Rule

    On Sunday, September 4, 2011, the Charleston Sharkfest Swim is
scheduled to take place on the waters of Charleston Harbor in
Charleston, South Carolina. The Charleston Sharkfest Swim will consist
of a 1.5 mile swim that starts at Castle Pinckney on Shute's Folly,
crosses Charleston Harbor, and finishes at the dock at Fountain Walk,
next to the South Carolina Aquarium.
    The safety zone encompasses certain waters of Charleston Harbor in
Charleston, South Carolina. The safety zone will be enforced from 9
a.m. until 11 a.m. on September 4, 2011. Persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels
desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the
safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF radio on
channel 16, to request authorization. The Coast Guard will provide
notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice
to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it
under that Order.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for a only two
hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without
authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated
representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the
enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by
the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and
(4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety
zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of
Charleston Harbor encompassed within the safety zone from 9 a.m. until
11 a.m. on September 4, 2011. For the reasons discussed in the
Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 section above, this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a temporary
safety zone on the waters of Charleston Harbor that will be enforced
for a total of two hours. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-0501 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0501  Safety Zone; Charleston Sharkfest Swim, Charleston
Harbor, Charleston, SC.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following regulated area is a safety zone.
All waters of Charleston Harbor encompassed within an imaginary line
connecting the following points: starting at Point 1 in position
32[deg]46'22'' N, 79[deg]55'37'' W; thence northeast to Point 2 in
position 32[deg]47'36'' N, 79[deg]55'33'' W; thence east to Point 3 in
position 32[deg]47'36'' N, 79[deg]55'26'' W; thence southeast to Point
4 in position 32[deg]46'24'' N, 79[deg]55'07'' W; thence west back to
origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the

Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated
area.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated
area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Effective Date. This rule is effective from 9 a.m. until 11
a.m. on September 4, 2011.

    Dated: June 17, 2011.
M.F. White,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2011-15973 Filed 6-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47756-47757]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15634]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0939; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00743-E;
Amendment 39-22513; AD 2023-15-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) Model PW307D engines. This AD is
prompted by a root cause analysis of an event involving an uncontained
failure of a high-pressure turbine (HPT) 1st-stage disk, on an
International Aero Engines AG (IAE) Model V2533-A5 engine, that
resulted in high-energy debris penetrating the engine cowling and an
aborted takeoff. This AD requires removing certain HPT 2nd-stage disks
from service and also prohibits installation of certain HPT 2nd-stage
disks on any affected engine. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 29, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No.FAA-2023-0939; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all P&WC Model PW307D
engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2023 (88
FR 30264). The NPRM was prompted by Transport Canada AD CF-2022-31,
dated June 9, 2022, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation
authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI
states that on March 18, 2020, an Airbus Model A321-231 airplane,
powered by IAE Model V2533-A5 engines, experienced an uncontained HPT
1st-stage disk failure that resulted in an aborted takeoff and high-
energy debris penetrating the engine cowling. In response to the March
2020 uncontained HPT 1st-stage disk failure, the FAA issued a series of
ADs, including Emergency AD 2020-07-51, Amendment 39-21110 (85 FR
20402, April 13, 2020) (AD 2020-07-51). Since the FAA issued AD 2020-
07-51, IAE determined that the failure of the V2533-A5 engine was due
to an undetected subsurface material defect in the HPT 1st-stage disk
that may affect the life of the part. In coordination with IAE, P&WC
performed a records review and analysis of PW307A and PW307D engine
parts made of similar material and identified two additional affected
HPT 2nd-stage disks (S/Ns A004D8X1 and A004E9K3), installed on PW307D
engines. These two additional HPT 2nd-stage disks may have a material
defect which could reduce the life of the part. As such, the affected
HPT 2nd-stage disks must be removed from service.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require removing certain part-
numbered HPT 2nd-stage disks from service and proposed to prohibit the
installation of these HPT 2nd-stage disks onto any engine. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0939.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and
determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is
adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the
economic burden on any operator.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. Registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace HPT 2nd-stage disk..........  10 work-hours x $85 per        $176,000         $176,850         $353,700
                                       hour = $850.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2023-15-01 Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.: Amendment 39-22513; Docket
No. FAA-2023-0939; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00743-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 29, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) Model
PW307D engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a root cause analysis of an event
involving an International Aero Engines AG Model V2533-A5 engine,
which experienced an uncontained failure of a high-pressure turbine
(HPT) 1st-stage disk that resulted in high-energy debris penetrating
the engine cowling. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of
the HPT 2nd-stage disk. The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could result in uncontained HPT disk failure, damage to the engine,
damage to the airplane, and loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    For engines with an HPT 2nd-stage disk, part number (P/N)
30P3182-01, with serial number (S/N) A004D8X1 or A004E9K3 installed,
within 100 engine cycles after the effective date of this AD, remove
the HPT 2nd-stage disk from service.

(h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any HPT 2nd-
stage disk having P/N 30P3182-01 with S/N A004D8X1 or A004E9K3 on
any engine.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2022-31, dated June 9, 2022,
for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found in
the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0939.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Barbara
Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on July 19, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-15634 Filed 7-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

TO:	Dockets for rulemaking, "Metal Can Manufacturing Surface Coating  (Subpart KKKK)" (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684)
DATE:		February 15, 2019
SUBJECT:	Economic Impact and Small Business Screening Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Metal Can Manufacturing Surface Coating (Subpart KKKK)

Introduction

This document summarizes economic impact and small business screening assessments for the proposed amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Metal Can Manufacturing Surface Coating (40 CFR part 63, Subpart KKKK) based on the residual risk and technology review. The costs estimated for the proposed amendments to subpart KKKK are associated with performance testing once every five years for one facility, as well as costs associated with familiarization with the rule requirements and changes to the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) requirements for all five affected facilities. A discussion of the cost estimates is provided in the February 2019 technical memorandum entitled "Costs/Impacts 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts KKKK and SSSS Monitoring Review Revisions," available in the docket.

Costs of the Proposed Amendments

This proposal would require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device, or control device outlet concentration of organic HAP, once every five years for existing and new surface coating affected sources using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. Currently, there are three facilities that use add-on control devices for metal can coating operations. Two of these facilities are already required to perform testing as part of renewing their 40 CFR part 70 operating permit and would not be affected by this proposal.

This proposal will also require that the emission standards be met at all times, including during startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and will require the use of the electronic reporting tool for annual reports, performance testing, and notifications. The burden associated with this rule is related to changes in the recordkeeping requirement for startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and the requirement that facilities use the electronic reporting tool. While the electronic reporting requirement is expected to be no more burdensome than the current reporting requirement, there are costs associated with becoming familiar with the rule requirements and electronic reporting system, as well as re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems.

The costs for each year in the time period of analysis are presented in the table below. A seven-year time period was chosen for this analysis because it is assumed that facilities will become familiar with the regulation in the first year, must test by the third year, and testing is required every five years thereafter. The costs in 2020 are related to familiarization with the rule requirements and changes to the SSM requirements, while the costs reported in 2022 are those related to performing the emissions tests and reporting the results. The 2019 equivalent annualized value (in 2016$) of the costs over the seven-year time period range is $9,900 assuming a three percent discount rate and $11,000 assuming a seven percent discount rate. In the absence of changes to the rule, additional testing costs of $52,000 (unannualized) would be required in 2027 and every five years thereafter.

Table 1. National Cost of Proposed Amendments (2016$)

                              Undiscounted Costs
                            Total Discounted Value
                                     Year
                                     Labor
                                 Testing Costs
                                     Total
                                      3%
                                      7%
                                     2020
                                    $13,000
                                      $0
                                    $13,000
                                    $13,000
                                    $13,000
                                     2021
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                     2022
                                    $5,300
                                    $47,000
                                    $52,000
                                    $49,000
                                    $46,000
                                     2023
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                     2024
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                     2025
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                     2026
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                 Present Value
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                    $62,000
                                    $58,000
                          Equivalent Annualized Value
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                    $9,900
                                    $11,000
Note: Values rounded to two significant digits and may not add exactly due to rounding. Labor costs adjust 2018$ values in ICR package for this rule to their 2016$ equivalent using GDP Implicit Price Deflator.

Economic Impacts

Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a proposed rule.

For the purpose of analyzing the impact on firms, performance testing costs were treated as capital costs because facilities are expected to contract with a testing company to perform the testing. The testing costs were annualized at a 5.25 percent interest rate over the 5-year testing period, under the assumption that facilities would obtain a 5-year loan to finance the testing. Some facilities only face costs associated with familiarization with the rule requirements and changes to the SSM requirements, while other facilities face additional costs associated with conducting emissions tests and reporting the results. To assess the maximum potential impact, the largest cost expected to be experienced in any one year is compared to the total sales for the ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden for each facility. The five affected facilities are owned by four different parent companies, and the costs associated with Subpart KKKK's proposed requirements range from 0.00002 to 0.77 percent of annual sales per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.

EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to determine if any of the identified affected entities are small entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). The affected facilities that perform metal can manufacturing surface coating fall into one of the following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, where the associated SBA small entity size threshold appears in parentheses: 312120, Breweries (1,250 or fewer employees) or 332431, Metal Can Manufacturing (1,500 or fewer employees). One of potentially affected entities is a small entity. However, the annualized cost associated with Subpart KKKK's requirements for this entity is 0.77 percent of annual sales revenues for the affected entity. Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE) from these amendments.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9928-9929]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04194]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Sixty-Fifth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (186) Global
Positioning System (GPS)

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

ACTION: Notice of Sixty-Fifth RTCA Special Committee 186 Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Sixty-Fifth RTCA Special Committee 186 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 8-11, 2016 from 9 a.m.-1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA Inc. Conference Room, 1150
18th NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or Al
Secen, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 330-0647.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 186. The agenda
will include the following:

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

1. WG-4--Application Technical Requirements, Advanced Interval
Management MOPS development NBAA Room & Colson Board Room (All Day)

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

1. WG-4--Application Technical Requirements, Advanced Interval
Management MOPS development NBAA Room & Colson Board Room (All Day)

Thursday, March 10, 2016

1. WG-4--Application Technical Requirements, Advanced Interval
Management MOPS development NBAA Room & Colson Board Room (All Day)

Friday, March 11, 2016

1. Plenary Session (9:00 a.m.)
    a. Chairman's Introductory Remarks
    b. Review of Meeting Agenda
    c. Review/Approval of the Sixty-fourth Meeting Summary
    d. FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) Program--Status
    e. WG-3--Extended Squitter MOPS/

SC-209 Transponder MOPS revisions
    i. Status
    f. WG-4--Application Technical Requirements
    i. A-IM: Status
    g. SC-214/WG-78 Status of final release of CPDLC messages for IM
AACD and PTM
    h. Wake/MET Data: SC-206 Status/Tiger Team Deliverable
    i. ADS-B Implementation
    i. ADS-B Equipage Update
    ii. Avionics Issues Update
    iii. FAA Broadcast Services (TIS-B, FIS-B, ADS-R) Issues Update
    iv. Equip 2020 Status
    v. AC 90-114A Change 1--Update Overview
    j. Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting
    k. New Business
    l. Other Business
    i. Status of 1090MHz Spectrum Study--Jim Baird
    m. Review Action Items/Work Programs
    n. Adjourn Plenary

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-04194 Filed 2-23-16; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P