From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, April 1, 2021 7:13 PM
To:
D'Angelo, Wayne J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Stuart, Eric<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Balserak, Paul<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ranajit Sahu<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Green, Joseph J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Steel Association NSPS Conference Call - EPA follow-up items

Nice to talk to everyone again. Attached are my promised items. If you find errors in anything, let me know. Also, send any questions you get from facilities or if you all have follow-up questions and I will see if I can answer then. Thank the facility staff also for the rule edits. Hopefully, the rule will be better for everyone to follow with these edits.

Here is the docket for EAF NESHAP where the test reports are located. Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083.
This is link https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083
There is a new and improved (hopefully) docket operating system at regulations.gov so hopefully you will have an easier time than any previous searches.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

<< NSPS-EAF-rule summaries-10-08-20.docx >>
<< EPA-EAF-Test Reports.pdf >>


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 513]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33778]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4042-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Virginia; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4042-DR), dated November 4,
2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: December 28, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of November 4, 2011.

    Culpeper, Fluvanna, Goochland, and Orange Counties for
Individual Assistance.
    Spotsylvania County and the City of Fredericksburg for
Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
    Culpeper and Northampton Counties for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-33778 Filed 1-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 31965]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14479]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NP17-23-000]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing
Taking Effect by Operation of Law

    On May 31, 2017, pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA),\1\ the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
filed with the Commission, in Docket No. NP17-23-000, a Spreadsheet
Notice of Penalty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, in the absence of Commission
action on or before June 30, 2017 NERC's filing became effective on
July 3, 2017 by operation of law.

    Dated: July 5, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14479 Filed 7-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 206 (Monday, October 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65128-65130]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26949]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3940; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-065-AD;
Amendment 39-18300; AD 2015-19-51]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are publishing a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76A, S-76B, S-76C, and S-76D
helicopters, which was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and
operators of these helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the main
rotor (M/R) and tail rotor (T/R) pushrod assemblies and the jamnuts,
and applying slippage marks across the pushrod tubes and jamnuts. This
AD is prompted by an accident of a Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model
S-76C helicopter. During preliminary investigation, a failed pushrod
assembly was identified. These actions are intended to prevent loss of
M/R or T/R flight control and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 10, 2015 to all persons
except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by
Emergency AD 2015-19-51, issued on September 14, 2015, which contains
the requirements of this AD.
    We must receive comments on this AD by December 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3940; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should

submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    On September 14, 2015, we issued Emergency AD 2015-19-51 for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76A, S-76B, S-76C, and S-76D
helicopters with M/R servo input control pushrod (pushrod) assembly
part number (P/N) 76400-00034-059 or T/R pushrod assembly P/N 76400-
00014-071 installed. Emergency AD 2015-19-51 requires inspecting the M/
R forward, aft, and lateral pushrod assemblies, the T/R pushrod
assembly, and the jamnuts, and applying slippage marks across the
pushrod tubes and jamnuts. Emergency AD 2015-19-51 was sent previously
to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters and was
prompted by an accident of a Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76C
helicopter in which a failed pushrod assembly was identified during
preliminary investigation. Separation of the pushrod tube and the
control rod end with bearing was found.

FAA's Determination

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

Related Service Information

    Sikorsky issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 76-67-57, Basic Issue,
dated September 10, 2015 (ASB), which specifies a one-time inspection
of the M/R forward, aft, and lateral pushrod assemblies, the T/R
pushrod assembly, and the jamnuts for proper installation, condition,
and security. If a pushrod or jamnut does not meet criteria specified
in the inspection, the ASB specifies replacing the assembly. The ASB
also specifies applying two slippage marks across each M/R and T/R
pushrod tube and jamnut. Further, the ASB references the applicable
maintenance manual for a new recurring inspection of the slippage
marks.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, within five hours time-in-service (TIS),
inspecting each M/R and T/R pushrod assembly by inspecting the position
of the control rod end in the pushrod tube. If the lockwire passes
through the inspection hole, this AD requires replacing the pushrod
assembly. If the lockwire does not pass through the inspection hole,
this AD requires inspecting the jamnut to determine seating position
against the pushrod and whether the jamnut can be turned with finger
pressure. If the jamnut is not seated against the pushrod or is loose,
this AD requires replacing the pushrod assembly. This AD also requires,
both for those pushrod assemblies that are replaced and for those that
pass the inspections, applying two slippage marks across each M/R and
T/R pushrod tube and jamnut.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action as the accident
investigation is ongoing. If additional action is later identified, we
might consider further rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 198 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. It
takes about 1 work-hour to inspect the pushrod assemblies and jamnut
for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $16,830 for the U.S. fleet. It
takes a minimal amount of time to apply the slippage marks for a
negligible cost. Replacing a pushrod assembly takes about 1.5 work-
hours for a labor cost of $128. Parts for an M/R pushrod assembly cost
$2,411 for a total replacement cost of $2,539. Parts for a T/R pushrod
assembly cost $1,905 for a total replacement cost of $2,033.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we found and
continue to find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving
notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the
previously described unsafe condition can adversely affect the
controllability of the helicopter and the initial required action must
be accomplished within five hours TIS.
    Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required,
notice and opportunity for prior public comment before issuing this AD
were impracticable and contrary to public interest and good cause
existed to make the AD effective immediately by Emergency AD 2015-19-
51, issued on September 14, 2015, to all known U.S. owners and
operators of these helicopters. These conditions still exist and the AD
is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section
39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it
effective to all persons.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

    2015-19-51 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-18300;
Docket No. FAA-2015-3940; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-065-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model S-76A, S-76B, S-76C, and S-76D
helicopters with main rotor (M/R) servo input control pushrod
(pushrod) assembly part number (P/N) 76400-00034-059 or tail rotor
(T/R) pushrod assembly P/N 76400-00014-071 installed, certificated
in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a loose jamnut. This
condition could result in failure of a pushrod assembly, loss of M/R
or T/R flight control, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective November 10, 2015 to all persons
except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by
Emergency AD 2015-19-51, issued on September 14, 2015, which
contains the requirements of this AD.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    Within five hours time-in-service:
    (1) Inspect each pushrod end to determine whether a 0.020 inch
diameter lockwire can pass through the inspection hole.
    (i) If the lockwire passes through the inspection hole, replace
the pushrod assembly.
    (ii) If the lockwire does not pass through the inspection hole,
inspect the jamnut to determine whether it is seated against the
pushrod and whether it can be turned with finger pressure. If the
jamnut is not seated against the pushrod or can be turned with
finger pressure, replace the pushrod assembly.
    (2) Apply two slippage marks across each pushrod tube and jamnut
as follows:
    (i) Clean the area where a slippage mark is to be applied.
    (ii) Apply two slippage marks across the pushrod tube and
jamnut, parallel and on opposite sides of each other. Each slippage
mark must extend at least 0.5 inch onto the pushrod tube and must
not cover the inspection hole. Figures 2 and 4 of Sikorsky Alert
Service Bulletin No. 76-67-57, Basic Issue, dated September 10,
2015, illustrate slippage marks across a pushrod tube and jamnut.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Blaine Williams,
Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 76-67-57, Basic Issue, dated
September 10, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference, contains
additional information about the subject of this AD. For service
information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review a copy of the service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2700, Flight
Control System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 9, 2015.
Lance T. Gant,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-26949 Filed 10-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 39748-39749]
[DOCID:fr10jy08-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58076; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-66]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Related to the Appointment Cost of RVX and VXN Options

July 1, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 26, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE rules relating to the
appointment cost for options on the CBOE Russell 2000 Volatility Index
(RVX) and options on the CBOE Nasdaq 100 Volatility Index (VXN). The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend CBOE Rule 8.3
relating to the appointment cost for options on the CBOE Russell 2000
Volatility Index (RVX) and options on the CBOE Nasdaq 100 Volatility
Index (VXN). Presently, RVX and VXN each have an appointment cost of
.25. CBOE proposes to reduce the appointment cost of RVX and VXN such
that they would fall within one of the six tiers according to trading
volume, and be subject to the quarterly rebalancing of the tiers that
CBOE conducts. It is currently anticipated that each would be placed in
Tier F and have an appointment cost of .001. CBOE is proposing to lower
the appointment cost in these two option classes in light of their
trading volume, which CBOE does not believe justifies a weighting of
.25. Also, CBOE believes it would be appropriate for these two classes
to be subject to the quarterly rebalancing of the tiers.
    Members then could utilize the excess membership capacity to hold
an appointment and quote electronically in an appropriate number of
Hybrid 2.0 option classes, which promotes competition and efficiency.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) Act \6\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. Lowering the appointment cost for RVX and VXN options
promotes competition and efficiency by allowing Market-Makers to
utilize their excess membership capacity to trade other option classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition 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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission,\7\ the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\9\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-CBOE-2008-66 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-66. 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, 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
CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2008-66 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15635 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 40738]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16348]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9831-3; 10-2009-0193]

Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Double H
Pesticide Burial Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(CERCLA), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative
settlement for recovery of response costs incurred for the Double H
Pesticide Burial Site in Grandview, Yakima County, Washington. Under
this proposed settlement, the settling parties are Double H, L.P.;
James T. Hansen; Linda L. Hansen; George W. Higgins; and Edith M.
Higgins. The proposed settlement requires the settling parties to pay
$370,256.98 to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund. Upon payment of
this sum to EPA, the settling parties will be released from all other
obligations for payments to EPA as well as requirements for maintaining
insurance and financial assurance established under an Administrative
Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (``ASAOC''), CERCLA Docket
No. 10-2009-0193, signed between the settling parties and the EPA in
2009.
    For 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, the
EPA will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement.
The EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw
its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate,
improper, or inadequate. The EPA's response to any comments received
will be available for public inspection at the U.S. EPA Region 10
Office, located at 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at the U.S. EPA Region 10 Office, located at 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101. A copy of the proposed settlement may be
obtained from Candace Smith, Regional Hearing Clerk, U.S. EPA Region
10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop ORC-158, Seattle,
Washington 98101. Comments should reference the Double H Pesticide
Burial Site, CERCLA Docket No. 10-2009-0193, and should be addressed to
Clifford J. Villa, Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region 10, Mail
Stop ORC-158, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clifford J. Villa, Assistant Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA Region 10, Mail Stop ORC-158, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Double H Pesticide Burial Site is
located near Grandview, Yakima County, Washington. The site was the
location of unpermitted disposal of pesticide containers and other
hazardous substances. Consistent with the terms of the ASAOC, the
settling parties conducted an action in 2009 to remove contaminated
materials from this site for proper disposal. Work under the ASAOC was
conducted subject to EPA oversight. By notice dated January 10, 2011,
EPA confirmed the completion of the required work at the Site. As
provided by the ASAOC, EPA subsequently submitted a bill to settling
parties for reimbursement of EPA's costs for oversight and related
expenses at the Site. The total amount of this bill, dated January 15,
2013, was $545,315.59. Of this amount, settling parties paid
$73,459.42, and invoked dispute resolution over the remaining costs
totaling $472,153.75. After the reviewing the activities comprising
these disputed costs, and considering other factors, EPA and the
settling parties propose to settle this dispute through a final payment
of $370,256.98. Upon payment of this sum to EPA, the settling parties
will be released from all other obligations for payments to EPA as well
as requirements under the ASAOC for maintaining insurance and financial
assurance. Other provisions of the ASAOC, including Section XIX
(Covenant Not To Sue By EPA), Section XX (Reservations of Rights By
EPA), and Section XXI (Covenant Not To Sue By Respondents) will remain
subject to their original terms.

    Dated: June 27, 2013.
Chris D. Field,
Manager, Emergency Management Program, U.S. EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-16348 Filed 7-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P