[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68844-68846]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21932]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98583; File No. SR-IEX-2023-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Correct
Six Typographical Cross-Reference Errors in IEX Rule 11.190(b)

September 28, 2023.
    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 September 22, 2023, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\4\ the Exchange is filing with the
Commission a proposed rule change to correct six typographical cross-
reference errors in IEX Rule 11.190(b). The Exchange has designated
this rule change as ``non-controversial'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \5\ and provided the Commission with the notice required by
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange makes this filing to correct six inadvertent and
identical typographical cross-reference errors in IEX Rule 11.190(b).
Specifically, the definitions of the Primary Peg,\7\ Midpoint Peg,\8\
Discretionary Peg,\9\ Offset Peg,\10\ Corporate Discretionary Peg,\11\
and Fixed Midpoint Peg \12\ order types all contain cross-references to
IEX Rule 11.190(a)(3)(D) to describe how the System \13\ handles a
pegged order marked with a Time-in-Force \14\ (``TIF'') of ``DAY'' that
is submitted before, during, or after the Regular Market Session.\15\
However, the order type definitions should instead cross-reference IEX
Rule 11.190(a)(3)(E)(iii), which contains the relevant text.
Notwithstanding the cross-reference errors, the rules describing the
six pegged order types in question each accurately set forth how an
order with a TIF of DAY is handled by the System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(8)(F).
    \8\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(9)(F).
    \9\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(10)(F).
    \10\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(13)(F).
    \11\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(16)(F).
    \12\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(19)(F).
    \13\ See IEX Rule 1.160(nn).
    \14\ See IEX Rule 11.190(c).
    \15\ See IEX Rule 1.160(gg).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, each rule states the following with respect to a
pegged order marked with a TIF of DAY: the order is eligible to trade
only during the Regular Market Session, if submitted to the System
before the opening of the Regular Market Session will be queued by the
System until the start of the Regular Market Session, and if submitted
into the System after the closing of the Regular Market Session will be
rejected.\16\ This language is functionally identical to the
description in IEX Rule 11.190(a)(3)(E)(iii) of how a pegged order with
a TIF of DAY functions before, during, and after the Regular Market
Session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See IEX Rules 11.190(b)(8)(F); 11.190(b)(9)(F);
11.190(b)(10)(F); 11.190(b)(13)(F); 11.190(b)(16)(F); and
11.190(b)(19)(F).

    Pegged orders marked DAY submitted before the open of the
Regular Market Session are queued by the System until the Regular
Market Session Opening Process, pursuant to IEX Rule 11.231. Pegged
orders marked DAY submitted during the Regular Market Session are
accepted and begin trading immediately. Pegged orders entered into
the System marked DAY, if not fully executed or canceled by the
User, expire at the end of the Regular Market Session. Pegged orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
marked DAY are rejected during the Post-Market Session.

    IEX therefore proposes to amend subparagraph (F) of IEX Rules
11.190(b)(8), 11.190(b)(9), 11.190(b)(10), 11.190(b)(13),
11.190(b)(16), and 11.190(b)(19) from starting ``As provided in IEX
Rule 11.190(a)(3)(D) . . .'' to instead begin with ``As provided in IEX
Rule 11.190(a)(3)(E)(iii). . . .'' IEX notes that correcting this
cross-reference in the six affected order type definitions will not
substantively change the meaning of each rule, because everything but
the rule cross-references in these subparagraphs IEX accurately
describes the manner in which the System handles a pegged order with a
TIF of DAY that is submitted before, during, and after the Regular
Market Session. And the incorrect cross-reference to IEX Rule
11.190(a)(3)(D) contains an unrelated provision that states that a
pegged order may be submitted with or without a limit price and
therefore does not change the meaning of the IEX Rules 11.190(b)(8),
11.190(b)(9), 11.190(b)(10), 11.190(b)(13), 11.190(b)(16), and
11.190(b)(19).
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \17\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(1) of the Act \18\ in particular, in that it
is designed to enforce compliance by the Exchange's Members \19\ and
persons associated with its Members, with the provisions of the rules
of the Exchange. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change will provide greater clarity to Members and the public
regarding the Exchange's rules by correcting six inadvertent and
identical typographical cross-referencing errors without changing their
substance and providing consistency within the Exchange's Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \19\ See IEX Rule 1.160(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in the Purpose section, the rules describing the six
pegged order types accurately describe how the System handles a pegged
order with a TIF of DAY that is submitted before, during, and after the
Regular Market Session. This rule filing does not propose any
substantive changes to the functionality of the pegged order types; it
merely proposes to correct cross-references within such rules. The
proposed changes will also make it easier for Members to interpret the
Exchange's Rulebook.

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As described in the Purpose and
Statutory Basis sections, this rule filing merely proposes to correct
cross-references in six IEX rules that describe pegged order type
functionality, and would not make any substantive changes to the
functionality of the pegged order types. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any competitive issues but rather to correct
six inadvertent and identical typographical errors, thereby eliminating
any potential confusion regarding such rule provisions without changing
their substance.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \20\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \21\
thereunder. Because the proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of 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.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \22\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\23\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the

protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay because this rule
filing merely corrects typographical errors for which the rest of the
rule is otherwise clear. Therefore, IEX believes there is no need to
delay implementation of this rule change, so that the Exchange may
promptly correct these typographical errors and avoid any potential
confusion on the part of market participants. For these reasons, and
because the proposed rule change does not raise any novel legal or
regulatory issues, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \24\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \25\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-IEX-2023-09 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-IEX-2023-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-IEX-2023-09 and should be
submitted on or before October 25, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21932 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29327-29329]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08760]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0666; FRL-10008-62-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Nebraska; Lincoln-Lancaster County Health
Department (LLCHD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of Nebraska that addresses the authority of the
Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department (LLCHD). This action will
amend the Nebraska SIP by removing a portion of the SIP that addresses
the authority of LLCHD regarding the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Program; specifically: Article 2. Section 19.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) Lincoln-
Lancaster County Health Department (LLCHD). This SIP revision will have
no impact to air quality and eliminate confusion regarding the
authority to issue PSD permits in Lancaster County.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0666. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will Stone, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. The EPA's Response to Comments

IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is approving a revision to Nebraska's SIP received from the
State of Nebraska on July 23, 2019. Specifically, the EPA is amending
the Nebraska SIP by removing a portion of the SIP as follows: Article
2. Section 19. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
(PSD) Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department (LLCHD).

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided a public comment period for this SIP revision from May
20, 2019 to June 21, 2019, and at the same time, offered an opportunity
for a public hearing. No comments or request for public hearing were
received.

III. The EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened January
3, 2020, the date of its publication in the Federal Register and closed
on February 3, 2020. (85 FR 274, January 3, 2020.) During this period,
EPA received two comments. The comments are not adverse and can be
found in the docket. The comments are addressed below.

Comment 1

    I believe that it would be in the public's best interest to
eliminate the confusion regarding the permits in Lancaster County, and
have the local authorities be responsible for issuing the permits.

Response 1

    This action eliminates confusion regarding the authority to issue
PSD permits in Lancaster County. As noted in the proposal, all PSD
permits issued in the State of Nebraska, including those issued in
Lancaster County, are issued pursuant to the authority of the State of
Nebraska under title 129, chapter 19 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION OF AIR QUALITY (PSD). However, under the delegation
agreement between the State of Nebraska and LLCHD, LLCHD issues PSD
permits in Lancaster County under the state's authority. Nothing in
this action changes this delegation agreement, which is included in the
docket for this action. The SIP revision removes a redundant regulation
from the SIP and will have no effect on air permitting or air quality
in Lancaster County, Nebraska.

Comment 2

    This comment noted that the State submission was not provided in
the docket to allow the reviewer the ability to fully evaluate EPA's
proposed action.

Response 2

    As a result of this comment, we provided the State's submission in
the docket and reopened the public comment period from March 5, 2020 to
April 6, 2020 to afford stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the
proposed SIP revision (85 FR 12876, March 5, 2020). No additional
comments were received during this period.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to amend the Nebraska SIP by
removing LLCHD Article 2. Section 19. Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD). The removal of this portion of the
SIP will not impact air quality because the regulation duplicates the
State's regulation, which applies in the same jurisdiction.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is amending regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. As described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below, the EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-
Approved Nebraska Regulations from the Nebraska State Implementation
Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act CAA, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 14, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated: April 21, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart--CC Nebraska

Sec.  52.1420   [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.1420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing
the entry ``Section 19'' under the headings ``Lincoln-Lancaster County
Air Pollution Control Program'', ``Article 2--Regulations and
Standards''.

[FR Doc. 2020-08760 Filed 5-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 76629]
[DOCID:fr17de08-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-13-000]

Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency; Notice of Filing

December 10, 2008.
    Take notice that on December 1, 2008, pursuant to Rule 307 of the
Commission's Revised General Rules (18 CFR 375.307), Rules 303 and 402
of the Commission's Regulations, and Rule 212 of the Commission's Rule
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.212), Missouri Basin Municipal
Power Agency on behalf of itself and five of its members, Riverdale,
North Dakota; Pickstown, South Dakota; and Breckenridge, Marshall and
Melrose, Minnesota filed a Petition for waiver of certain obligations
imposed under sections 292.303(a) and 292.303(b) of the Commission's
Regulations (18 CFR part 292 subpart C) which implement section 210 of
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 824a-3),
and as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (18 CFR 385.212).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 31, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29864 Filed 12-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 70 (Friday, April 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20272-20273]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71893; File No. SR-OCC-2014-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Provide Certain Enhancements and Clarifications With Respect to OCC's
Indemnification of Its Directors, Officers and Other Personnel

April 7, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 1, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the clearing agency. OCC filed the proposal pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
of the Act, OCC has given the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such sorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    This proposed rule change by OCC would amend OCC's By-Laws to
provide certain enhancements and clarifications with respect to OCC's
indemnification of its directors, officers and other personnel.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    OCC is proposing to modify its By-Laws to provide certain
enhancements and clarifications with respect to OCC's indemnification
of its directors, officers and other personnel and generally bring the
indemnification provisions in OCC's By-Laws in line with current best
practices for Delaware corporations in an effort to be able to continue
to attract qualified individuals to be directors and officers of OCC.
The proposed changes would include mandatory advancement of expenses to
an indemnified party and certain other provisions that are now
frequently included in the by-laws of a Delaware business corporation.
The proposed changes also include certain permissive provisions
regarding indemnification and related matters that are implied within
OCC's power and authority under the Delaware General Corporation Law
(``DGCL'') and OCC's charter and By-Laws, but not currently stated in
the By-Laws. OCC proposes to specifically incorporate these provisions
into the By-Laws for the purpose of including a comprehensive statement
of OCC's policies for indemnification and related matters in a single
location.
    The proposed changes would provide a number of enhancements to the
existing indemnification provisions in OCC's By-Laws. First, OCC
proposes to revise Section 1 of Article X of the By-Laws to (i) add
mandatory advancement of expenses to directors and officers who have
indemnification rights; (ii) require an undertaking to repay advanced
expenses if the indemnified person is ultimately not entitled to
indemnity; (iii) clearly state that the rights of a director or officer
inure to the benefit of his or her heirs and representatives; and (iv)
exclude from indemnification actions initiated by the director or
officer, unless authorized by OCC's board of directors. Further,
proposed revisions to Section 2 would remove a clause relating to
amendment or repeal of the indemnification provisions in the By-Laws,
because proposed Section 2, together with proposed Section 8 described
below, would protect potentially indemnified parties from having their
rights retroactively adversely altered.
    OCC is also proposing to add a number of new sections regarding
indemnification and related matters to Article X of its By-Laws.
Specifically, new proposed Section 3 would, among other things, make
clear that OCC can purchase insurance coverage against any liability
asserted against current and former directors and officers whether or
not OCC would have the power to indemnify the person against such
liability. New proposed Section 4 would replace existing Section 3
relating to indemnification of persons other than directors and
officers of OCC. While existing Section 3 is limited to employees and
agents of OCC, proposed Section 4 would permit OCC to indemnify any
person other than directors and officers as approved by OCC's board of
directors. New proposed Section 5 would give an indemnified party the
express right to recover unpaid indemnification or expense claims and
would require that OCC pay the indemnified party's costs of prosecuting
such right if the indemnified party is successful. New proposed Section
6 would provide an ``offset'' to OCC if an OCC indemnified person is
serving in some capacity at another entity at OCC's request and that
indemnified person collects from the other entity. The purpose of the
proposed offset is to prevent the indemnified person from being
compensated twice for the same situation.
    OCC is proposing to add two new sections to Article X of its By-
Laws relating to the structure of the indemnification provisions
therein. First, proposed new Section 7 would expressly state that the
indemnification rights set forth in Article X of OCC's By-Laws are non-
exclusive, but would not otherwise expand or contract the substance of
those provisions. Second, proposed new Section 8 would prohibit any
amendments or changes to Article X that would adversely affect the
rights of current or former directors or officers by requiring that any
such amendment operate only prospectively.
    OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\5\ and the rules and regulations thereunder,
including Rule 17Ad-22.\6\ By enhancing the indemnification provisions
in OCC's By-Laws such that OCC can continue to attract and retain
qualified directors, officers and other personnel, and these
individuals can effectively perform their duties, the proposed rule
change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in the clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and
generally would provide for the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and the protection of securities
investors and the public interest.\7\ Additionally, bringing the
indemnification provisions in OCC's By-

Laws in line with current best practices for Delaware corporations as
well as clarifying certain of those provisions furthers OCC's goal of
maintaining written policies and procedures that provide for a well-
founded, transparent and enforceable legal framework for its activities
and therefore is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1).\8\ The proposed
rule change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC,
including any other rules proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition. Changes to the rules of a clearing agency may
have an impact on the participants in a clearing agency, their
customers and the markets that the clearing agency serves. This
proposed rule change affects current and future OCC directors and
officers, and OCC believes that the proposed modifications would not
disadvantage or favor any particular user in relationship to another
user because the proposed modifications relate to internal corporate
matters at OCC and would not impose any burdens on users and
prospective users.
    For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule
change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the
requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not
impose a burden on competition.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative 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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Notwithstanding the foregoing, OCC
stated in its filing that implementation of this rule change will be
delayed until this rule change is deemed certified under CFTC
Regulation Sec.  40.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \11\ to determine whether the proposed
rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2014-08 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-OCC-2014-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's
Web site (http://www.theocc.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp). 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-OCC-2014-08 and should be
submitted on or before May 2, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08128 Filed 4-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 60314-60315]
[DOCID:fr17oc05-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-443-002]

Enbridge Pipelines (KPC); Notice of Compliance Filing

 October 6, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 29, 2005, Enbridge Pipelines (KPC),
(KPC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised
Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, to become effective
November 1, 2005:

Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 121D.
Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 180.

    KPC states that the filing is being made in compliance with the
Commission's September 19, 2005 Order in this proceeding.
    KPC states that complete copies of its filing are being mailed to
all of the parties on the service list for this proceeding, all of its
jurisdictional customers, and applicable state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the

Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5668 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 40276]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17440]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0099; FRL--9982-13-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production Area
Sources (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production
Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYYYY) (EPA ICR No. 2303.05, OMB
Control No. 2060-0625), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through August 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register on June 29, 2017 during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A
fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated
burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 13,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0099, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to [email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Ferroalloys Production Area Sources (40 CFR
part 63, subpart YYYYYY) apply to existing and new ferroalloy
production facilities that are an area source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions. In general, all NESHAP standards require
initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the
owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to
NESHAP.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of area source
ferroalloys production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart YYYYYY).
    Estimated number of respondents: 10 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, annually, and periodically.
    Total estimated burden: 391 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $41,100 (per year), which includes $0 for
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The increase in burden from the most
recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment. Hours were added to
approximate the time spent by each source to familiarize with the rule
requirements.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-17440 Filed 8-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		April 13, 2007

SUBJECT:	National Impacts for Final Rule

FROM: 	Chris Sarsony

		engineering-environmental Management (e2M), Inc.

THROUGH:	John Crenshaw

		Eastern Research Group, Inc.

TO:		Lynn Dail

		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1.0	INTRODUCTION

On December 2, 1994, EPA promulgated technology-based emission standards to control HAP emissions of halogenated solvents from halogenated solvent cleaning.  Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(f), EPA evaluated the remaining risk to public health and the environment following implementation of the technology-based rule and determined that more stringent standards are necessary in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.

On August 17, 2006 EPA published proposed standards that provided further reductions of methylene chloride (MC), perchloroethylene (PCE), and trichloroethylene (TCE) beyond the 1994 national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), through application of a facility-wide total MC, PCE, and TCE emission standard.  The EPA received comments on the proposed rule from industry, states, solvent manufacturers, industry associations and district air associations.  Industry’s comments were primarily submitted by four specific sectors: narrow tubing manufacturing facilities, facilities that manufacture specialized products requiring continuous web cleaning, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities, and military depot maintenance facilities.  Comments and data submitted by the four industry sectors focused on the unique nature and size of the halogenated solvent cleaning machines used in the cleaning operations.

A Notice of Data Availability (NODA) was issued on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75184) to collect additional information from these four industry sectors.  As a result of the NODA, EPA received significant comments from responders associated with the above-noted industries, industry associations, and commenters that were not associated with the above-noted industries.  They provided additional data and information on control costs and the technical feasibility of additional controls that were directly relevant to the promulgation of the proposed facility-wide emission limits.

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the nationwide cost and emission impacts associated with the control options evaluated during the development of the final rule.  In Section 2.0 the changes to the impacts analyses that resulted from the public comments received are summarized.  Section 3.0 contains a description of the 2002 degreasing database.  Section 4.0 contains a discussion of the levels and format of the control options.  Section 5.0 summarizes the development of costs and percent emission reduction for individual control techniques.  Section 6.0 explains how the affected facilities were identified and describes the methodology for applying the individual control costs to the solvent cleaning facility database for each of the control options.   Section 7.0 summarizes the results of the cost analysis for all of the control options.

CHANGES TO IMPACTS METHODOLOGY RESULTING FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS

Thirty-eight comment letters were received in response to the August 17, 2006 proposal and an additional twelve comment letters were received in response to the December 14, 2006 NODA.  Included in these comment letters were data and information on control costs and the technical feasibility of additional controls (See Comment & Response Document and the NODA Comment & Response Document for a full summary of the comments received and EPA’s responses to them.).  The EPA evaluated the information provided in the comment letters and contacted some commenters for additional discussions and clarifications of their comments where necessary.  Based on the analysis of the comments provided by industry EPA determined that the changes summarized in Table 1 would be incorporated into the impacts analysis for the final rule.

In the proposal analysis if a unit were switching from PCE to TCE, TCE to MC, or TCE to MC the costing spreadsheet did not take into account the difference in the cost of the initial solvent versus the new solvent.  Since PCE is the most expensive solvent, TCE is the second most expensive, and MC is the least expensive, the approach used previously underestimated the solvent savings.  This was corrected by restructuring the cost spreadsheet to show columns for the initial solvent and the new solvent.  The solvent savings are then calculated as the difference between the amount of initial solvent used x the cost per gallon for that solvent minus the amount of the new solvent used x the cost per gallon for the new solvent.  The change more accurately reflects the changes in costs when switching from one solvent to another.

The other aspect of the solvent switching calculation that was adjusted was the method that was used to calculate the emission reductions.  For example, at proposal, it was assumed for PCE to TCE that emissions would be reduced by 77%.  Therefore, the spreadsheet showed a reduction of 77% in PCE emissions.  However, a switch from PCE to TCE would result in no PCE being used for that unit because it would be replaced with TCE.  The magnitude of TCE emissions would be 31% less than the PCE emissions for that unit [See memorandum in the docket titled “Evaluation of the Feasibility, Costs, and Impacts of Switching from a Halogenated Solvent with a High Cancer Unit Risk Value to a Halogenated Solvent with a Lower Cancer Unit Risk Value”]   The additional reduction in risk is not the result of less emissions, but is a result of the lower MIR risk of TCE relative to PCE.  Table 2 below summarizes emissions reductions and risk reduction values for each of the solvent switching options.

Table 1 - Changes to Cost and Emissions Impacts Methodology Since Proposal for Main Population of Degreasers

Change	Effect	Notes

The percent emission reduction associated with vacuum to vacuum (VTV) cleaning machines was reduced from 97% to 95%.	This decreased the amount of reduction achieved.	This change was made as a result of public comments.

The VTV cleaning machine O&M costs were increased from $0 to $18,832.   This increased costs.	The O&M costs for VTV cleaning machines were estimated to be half of annualized capital costs.  Prior to proposal a manufacturer of VTV cleaning machines indicated that there typically would be no increase in electricity and labor costs.  However, costs obtained by tube and aerospace manufacturers from the same VTV manufacturer indicated that there would be an increase in O&M costs.

Carbon adsorption (CAD) was added at 30% control.	Increased costs because this control is 10 times more expensive than other controls options at 30%.	This control was added because information received from tube manufacturers, aerospace manufacturers, and users of web cleaning machines indicated that CAD was one of the few a viable control option for their cleaning machines.

Cost per gallon of PCE and TCE were updated.  PCE was changed from $11.10/gallon to $14.23/gallon.  TCE was changed from $12.83/gallon to $12.74/gallon.	Overall effect was a decrease in costs because the solvent savings credit increased.	Updated costs used were based on commenter submitted costs.

The percent of total affected units that were assumed to choose solvent switching to comply with the rule was reduced from 30% of the affected units to 15% of the affected units.	Reducing the number of units choosing solvent switching increased the population costs because the solvent switching options are lower in cost than other options.	Change made in response to comments.

The methodology that was used to calculate the emission reduction impacts and solvent savings for solvent switching was corrected.	This reduced the emission reductions and had a mixed effect on the solvent savings.	The new methodology more accurately reflects the true effects of solvent switching.

Facility unit and emissions data were updated from 1999 NEI to 2002 NEI Decreased emission reductions.	Since emissions have gone down there are less emissions above a given level.

Tube manufacturers, Aerospace manufacturers, facilities using Web cleaning machines and the Anniston Army Depot were separated from the rest of the cleaning machine population.	This decreased the emission reductions. 	This change was made in response to public comments.

Table 2 – Change in Solvent Volume, MIR Cancer Risk, and Overall Risk for the Solvent Switching Options

Solvent Switching Option	Change in Solvent Volume	Change in MIR Cancer Risk	Overall Change in Risk

PCE to TCE	31% decrease	66% decrease	77% decrease

TCE to MC	29% increase 	76.5% decrease	70% decrease

PCE to MC	11% decrease	92% decrease	93% decrease

3.0   DEGREASING DATABASE

As indicated in Table 1 several significant changes were made since proposal to the database upon which costs and emission reduction estimates are based.  At proposal, the impacts estimate was conducted on a database developed largely from EPA’s 1999 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database.  After the proposal was developed a final version of the 2002 NEI database was released.  In response to public comment and to ensure that the latest available information was utilized, a new 2002 degreasing database was developed from the final version of the 2002 NEI database (Final Version 2, Dated 10-23-06).  This 2002 degreasing database was used as the basis for the impacts analyses for the final rule.  A complete discussion of the development of the 2002 degreasing database is discussed in the memorandum titled “Development of the 2002 degreasing database from the 2002 NEI Database” which can be found in the rule-making docket.

	Facility and unit specific data from the 2002 degreasing database served as the basis for estimating cost impacts.  Specifically, unit specific data on PCE, TCE, and MC emissions and cleaning machine design were used to determine which facilities were above the potential control options and which specific controls could be applied to achieve each control option limit.  A detailed description of how costs were applied to each facility is contained in Section 6.0 of this memorandum.

The 2002 NEI database contains data for 1,080 facilities.  The 1,080 facilities represent approximately 57 percent of the 1,900 total facilities estimated to be in the source category.  Therefore, data from the 2002 degreasing database have been scaled-up proportionally to reflect results for the 1,900 facilities in the source category by multiplying the number of units, facilities, and emissions by a factor of 1.7 (1,900 facilities/1,080 facilities = 1.7).  Tables 3 and 4 show population and emissions data for the 2002 degreasing database and the scaled-up 2002 national population.

Table 3 – 2002 Degreasing Database and the National Population

Category	2002 Degreasing Database	National Population Based on 2002 Degreasing Database

Number of Records	1,946	-

Number of Units	1,725	3,035

Number of Facilities	1,080	1,900

Table 4 – Halogenated Solvent Emissions from the 2002 Degreasing Database and the National Population

Halogenated HAP Emissions	2002 Degreasing Database (tons/yr)	National Population Based on 2002 Degreasing Database (tons/yr)

PCE (CAS# 127184)	889	1,564

Carbon Tetrachloride. (CAS# 56235)	0	0

Chloroform (CAS# 67663)	5	9

TCA (CAS# 71556)	2,300	4,046

MC (CAS# 75092)	567	997

TCE (CAS# 79016)	2,760	4,855

TOTAL	6,521	11,471

In addition, the results of the impacts analysis have been scaled-up similarly to reflect results for the 1,900 facilities in the source category by multiplying the costs and emission reductions by a factor of 1.7.

The second significant change regarding how the degreasing database was utilized for the impacts analysis was that tube manufacturers, aerospace manufacturers, facilities using web cleaning machines, and the Anniston Army Depot were separated from the rest of the cleaning machine population.   The cost and emission impacts were evaluated separately for these facilities.

Aerospace facilities were identified primarily on the basis of the following SIC codes (3720, 3721, 3724, 3728, 3760, 3761, 3764, 3769, 4512, and 4581) and NAICS codes (336411, 336412, 336413, 336414, 336419, 481111, and 481112), which are listed in the Aerospace NESHAP.  Facilities with web cleaning machines were identified from comments provided on the proposal of the original NESHAP, comments on the proposed residual risk standards, and other sources.  Facilities manufacturing narrow tubing were identified from comments on the proposed residual risk standards, comments on the NODA, and by searching the facility name field of the 2002 degreasing database on the keyword “tube”.  Anniston Army Depot was identified based on comments submitted on the proposed residual risk standards.

CONTROL OPTIONS

Table 5 shows the control options that were evaluated for the final rule.  All of the options evaluated are beyond the 1994 MACT levels.  The control options for the main population, aerospace facilities, and Anniston Army Depot are in the form of facility-wide solvent cleaning emission limits that apply to all PCE, TCE, and MC emissions from solvent cleaning operations at a facility.  Some facilities use only use one of these solvents, but others may use two or all three.  The control option evaluated for facilities with web cleaning machines is an increase from 70% overall control efficiency to 80% overall control efficiency for solvent cleaning operations.  The control option evaluated for tube manufacturers was a 10% reduction in emissions from solvent cleaning operations.

Table 5 - Emissions Control Options Evaluated for Final Rule

Solvents Emitted	Control Options – kg (lbs)

	Main Population	Aerospace	Anniston	Web	Tube

PCE only	1,992 (4,392)	3,187 (7,027)	4,781 (10,540)	7,968 (17,567)	7,968 (17,567)	19,920 (43,916)	7,968 (17,567)	Increase from 70% Overall Control Efficiency to 80% Overall Control Efficiency	10% Emission Reduction

TCE only	5,869 (12,938)	9,390 (20,700)	14,085 (31,051)	23,474 (51,751) 23,474 (51,751)	58,685 (129,378)	23,474 (51,751)

MC only	25,000 (55,115)	40,000 (88,183)	60,000 (132,276)	100,000 (220,460)	100,000 (220,460)	250,000 (551,150)	100,000 (220,460)

Multiple Solvents - MC Equivalent 	25,000 (55,115)	40,000

(88,183)	60,000 (132,276)	100,000 (220,460)	100,000 (220,460)	250,000 (551,150)	100,000 (220,460)

To allow the simultaneous assessment of risk from PCE, TCE, and MC emissions, which have different cancer unit risk estimates (UREs) as shown in Column two of Table 6, the control options were developed based on the relative cancer potency of the HAPs emitted.  Since MC has the lowest cancer unit risk it was used as the base risk and the risk values for PCE and TCE were scaled relative to the MC unit risk estimate.  Therefore, as shown in column three of table 1, the MC unit risk factor is assigned a scaling factor of 1, the TCE unit risk factor is assigned a factor of 4.26, and the PCE unit risk is assigned a factor of 12.55.  This is simply showing that the cancer unit risk for TCE emissions is 4.26 times higher than the cancer unit risk for MC emissions, and that the cancer unit risk for PCE emissions is 12.55 times higher than the cancer unit risk for MC emissions.

Table 6 - Cancer Unit Risk Estimates and MC Equivalent Factors

for TCE, PCE and MC

Halogenated HAP Solvent	Cancer Unit Risk Estimate (ug/m3)-1	MC Equivalent Factor (Cancer Unit Risk Estimate of Pollutant/Cancer Unit Risk Estimate of MC)

TCE	2.0E-06	4.26

PCE	5.9E-06	12.55

MC	4.7E-07	1

	The limits in the PCE only, TCE only, and MC only rows of Table 5 apply just to those facilities that emit only one of the solvents.  Facilities that emit multiple solvents must determine the weighed MC equivalent emissions using equation 1 and meet the limits in the shaded row.  For simplicity, the control options were expressed only in MC equivalents in the cost summary tables.

Equation 1:

MC Equivalent = (PCE emissions x 12.55) + (TCE emissions x 4.26) + (MC emissions)

Emissions

	For example, for one control option, each facility must limit the total combined emissions of PCE, TCE, and MC in kg to 60,000 kg MC equivalent.  So for a facility that emits 4,000 kg of PCE, 2,000 kg of TCE, and 10,000 kg of MC the MC equivalent emission would be determined as follows:

MC equivalent emissions in kg

= (4,000 kg emissions of PCE x 12.55) + (2,000 kg of TCE x 4.26) + (10,000 kg of MC)

= 50,200 kg + 8,520 kg + 10,000 kg

= 68,720 kg

Therefore, this facility is 8,720 kg MC equivalent over the limit.  To comply with the limit the facility could change practices or apply controls to do the following:

Reduce PCE emissions by 695 kg,

Reduce TCE emissions by 2,047 kg,

Reduce MC emissions by 8,720 kg,

Or any combination of reducing PCE, TCE, and MC emissions where:

(PCE emissions reduction in kg x 12.55) + (TCE emissions reduction in kg x 4.26) + (MC emissions reduction in kg) = 8,720 kg or more

Establishing the control options on a facility-wide basis allows each facility the flexibility to comply in the most cost effective manner.  This is because each facility can choose which units to control, which controls to apply, and which solvents to control so long as the limit is met.

5.0  DETERMINATION OF COSTS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTROLS

	At proposal, a suite of controls was developed that achieve emission reductions beyond the level of the MACT and that reduce the level of cancer risk associated with the emissions.  As a result of public comments received on the proposal and on the NODA some costs were modified and some additional controls were added.  Table 7 shows the suite of controls and associated costs that were used for evaluating the cost impacts of the final rule on the main population of cleaning machines.  Table 8 shows the controls that were applied to the web, tube, aerospace, and military depot cleaning machine populations.

Table 7 - Controls Beyond MACT Applied to Main Population

Control Type	Description	% Emission Reduction (a) 	Total Capital Costs Annualized Capital Costs	O&M Costs	Total Annual Emission Control Costs (b)

Control Equipment Retrofits	1.5 Freeboard Ratio (1.0FBR), Working Mode Cover (WC), Freeboard Refrigeration Device (FRD)	50	$25,645	$2,821 $2,015	$4,836

	1.5 Freeboard Ratio (1.5FBR)	30	$20,380	$2,242	$0	$2,242

	Carbon Adsorption System (CAD)	30	$162,687	$17,896	$8,948	$26,844

Solvent Switching	PCE to MC	11	$15,677	$1,725	$928	$2,653

	PCE to TCE	31	$0	$0	($2,022)c	($2,022)

	TCE to MC	(29)	$15,677	$1,725	$2,950	$4,675

Machine Replacement	Vacuum to Vacuum Cleaning Machine	95	$399,000 $37,663	$18,832	$56,495

a -  For the solvent switching options the percent emission reduction reflects the amount of new solvent emitted relative to the amount of old solvent emitted.  For the TCE to MC option it is estimated that emissions of MC would be 29% more than the original TCE emissions.  The primary benefit for the solvent switching options results from the lower MIR cancer risk for the new solvents.  If the MIR values are taken into account along with the change in emission reduction, the resulting decrease in cancer risk are as follows:

	PCE to MC – 93%

	PCE to TCE – 77%

	TCE to MC – 70%

b – Does not include cost savings due to reduced solvent purchases.  The solvent savings were calculated for each specific unit based on the volume of solvent emissions reduced and the cost of the specific solvent in $/gal.

c – Values in ( ) indicate a cost savings.

Table 8 - Controls Beyond MACT Applied to the Web, Tube, Aerospace, and Military Depot Cleaning Machine Populations

Industry Segment	Description	% Emission Reduction	Total Capital Costs Annualized Capital Costs	O&M Costs	Total Annual Emission Control Costs (a)

Aerospace	Vacuum Machine - Small - Baskets	95	$150,000	$14,159	$7,080c $21,239

	Vacuum Machine - Small - Hanging	95	$242,000	$22,867	$11,434c	$34,301

	Vacuum Machine - Large - Baskets	95	$584,000	$55,125	$27,563c	$82,688

	Vacuum Machine - Large - Hanging	95	$788,800	$74,457	$37,229c	$111,686

	Enclosure, parts transporter, CAD, and distillation	50	$237,500	$26,076 $13,038c	$39,114

	Dual-Split Working-Mode Cover and Dual-Bank Freeboard Chillers	25 $44,000	$4,831	$2,416c	$7,247

	Enclosure	15	$108,000	$11,858	$5,929c	$17,787

Anniston Army Depot	RETRO - 1.5FBR, WC, FRD (b) 	50	$102,581	$11,284 $8,059	$19,343

Tube	Side Chamber	20	$200,000	$22,000	$11,000c	$5,120

Web	Automated Gates AND Lengthening the cleaning process area, providing an additional enclosure around all distillation units, and modifying the capacity and process structure of the CADs	40	$850,000	$93,500	$46,750c $123,003

a – Does not include cost savings due to reduced solvent purchases.  The solvent savings were calculated for each specific unit based on the volume of solvent emissions reduced and the cost of the specific solvent in $/gal.

b – To account for the large size of the cleaning machine the costs are 4 times those used for the main population).

c – O&M costs were assumed to be equal to half the annualized capital costs.

	The costs for the retrofit controls in Table 7 were based on vendor estimates obtained in 2005 (Table A-1 and Table A-2).  The capital costs were based on equipment for a solvent cleaning machine with a solvent-air interface area of 2.5 m2, which is the average size of the solvent cleaning machines in the database for which size data are available.  The annualized capital costs were based on a 15 year equipment lifetime and a 7% interest rate.   A 50% emission reduction is expected to result from the addition of the 1.0FBR, WC, and FRD control combination.  A 30% emission reduction is expected to result from the addition of a 1.5FBR.  These percent emission reductions were calculated using percent reduction values and procedures that were developed for the NESHAP.

	The development of the costs for the solvent switching options shown in Table 7 included considerations of changes in the cost of the solvent, changes in solvent consumption rates, changes in energy requirements, costs for equipment modifications, and changes in productivity.  Capital costs were annualized assuming a 15-year equipment lifetime and a 7% interest rate.  The solvent switching scenarios, their costs, and impacts are fully discussed in a separate memorandum titled “Evaluation of the Feasibility, Costs, and Impacts of Switching from a Halogenated Solvent with a High Cancer Unit Risk Value to a Halogenated Solvent with a Lower Cancer Unit Risk Value.”

	Costs for the vacuum-to-vacuum cleaning machine in Table 7 are based on vendor estimates obtained in 2005.  The vacuum-to-vacuum cleaning machine capital costs were based on the replacement of a solvent cleaning machine with a solvent-air interface area of 2.5 m2, which is the average size of the solvent cleaning machines in the database for which size data are available.  Since vacuum-to-vacuum cleaning machines do not have a solvent-air interface, it was necessary to correlate the solvent-air interface area of the old machine to the cleaning capacity of the new vacuum-to-vacuum cleaning machine.  This was done using the following relationship, which was originally developed for the NESHAP and is presented in Docket A-92-39, item IV-B-2:

Solvent-Air Interface in m2  = 2.2 (Cleaning Volume in m3)0.6

Capital costs were annualized based on a 20 year equipment lifetime and a 7% interest rate.  The 20-year equipment lifetime was determined based on information from equipment manufacturers.  At proposal a 97% reduction in emissions was assumed to result from switching from an existing solvent cleaning machine to a vacuum-to-vacuum cleaning machine.  However, based on comments received after proposal the assumed emission reduction was changed to 95%.

	The costs in Table 8 were derived from comments provided by affected facilities in these industry sectors.  Additional details regarding the cost information received from industry can be found in the worksheets titled “Cost info from comments” and “Options info from comments” that are located in docket in the cost spreadsheet for the final rule titled “4-02-07 Costs”.

6.0 DETERMINATION OF AFFECTED FACILITIES AND COSTS

	For the main population, aerospace, and the Anniston Army Depot, the affected facilities (i.e., the facilities that must reduce emissions) were identified from the 2002 degreasing database based on whether the facility total MC equivalent emissions in kg exceeded the control option limit being evaluated.  The MC equivalent emissions were calculated for each facility using equation 1 (shown in Section 3.0).

	Once the population of affected sources was identified the required controls and the resulting emissions reductions were calculated as follows:

To determine the percent control required the following equation was used:

(Facility MC EQ – Limit in MC EQ)/ (Facility MC EQ) = % Control

Required

A control was applied on a per unit basis to achieve the percent reduction needed to meet the limit.  See below for some guidelines that were used in applying controls.

The emissions after control were calculated for each unit using the following equation:

(‘02 Unit Emissions in tons) x (1 - % Control) = Actual Unit Emissions After Control in Tons

The facility total emissions after control was calculated by summing the emissions after control for all units at the facility.

The facility total emission reduction was calculated using the following equation:

(’02 Facility Total Emissions in Tons) – (Facility Total Emissions in Tons After Control) = Facility Emission Reduction in Tons

For facilities with multiple units, several different combinations of controls across the units often had to be tried before a level of control that met the limits was achieved.  The control options that are available vary depending on the cleaning machine type, the solvent, and the percent control that is required.  Therefore, to aid in the assigning of controls to specific units for the main population we developed a table of the control options applicable to each cleaning machine type, solvent, and the percent control that is required (Table 9).

TABLE 9 - CONTROL OPTIONS FOR MAIN POPULATION

Cleaning Machine Type	Solvent	Percent Control Required to Meet Limit Control Option

OTVC	PCE	78%-99%	PCE to MC

Vacuum

51%-77%	PCE to TCE

PCE to MC

Vacuum

31%-50%	Retrofit – 1.5FBR, WC, FRD

≤ 30%	Retrofit – 1.5FBR

Retrofit – CAD

	TCE	71%-99%	Vacuum

51% - 70%	TCE to MC

Vacuum

31%-50%	Retrofit – 1.5FBR, WC, FRD

≤ 30%	Retrofit – 1.5FBR

Retrofit – CAD

	MC	51%-99%	Vacuum

31%-50%	Retrofit – 1.5FBR, WC, FRD

≤ 30%	Retrofit – 1.5FBR

Retrofit – CAD

In-line/Cold	PCE	78%-99%	PCE to MC

Vacuum

31%-77%	PCE to TCE

PCE to MC

Vacuum

≤ 30%	Retrofit – 1.5FBR

Retrofit – CAD

	TCE	71%-99%	Vacuum

31%-70%	TCE to MC

Vacuum

≤ 30%	Retrofit – 1.5FBR

Retrofit – CAD

	MC	78%-99%	Vacuum

31% to 77%	TCE to MC

Vacuum

≤ 30%	Retrofit – 1.5FBR

Retrofit – CAD

	MC	0% to 99%	Vacuum

In cases where more than one control option is available, we made a starting assumption regarding the distribution of controls for the main population.  For example, we received comments on the proposed rule that indicated that no more that 15% of the affected units should be assumed to choose the solvent switching option.  Therefore, the solvent switching option was not chosen for more than 15% of the affected units.  In addition, it was assumed that approximately a third of the affected units would choose to replace their machines with vacuum cleaning machines.  Beyond these assumptions the assigned controls were the product of the available controls and the emission reduction required to achieve the limit being evaluated.   Table 10 shows the controls applied for each of the limits evaluated for the main population and Table 11 shows the controls applied for the aerospace facilities.  The control options used for web cleaning machines and tube manufacturers were provided by industry.  For web cleaning machines, the only control option applied was an automated gate, lengthening the cleaning process area, providing an additional enclosure around all distillation units, and modifying the capacity and process structure of the CADs.  For tube manufacturers, the only control option applied was a side chamber.   For Anniston Army Depot, a 1.5 freeboard ratio, working mode cover, and freeboard refrigeration device were applied for the purpose of estimating costs.

Table 10 - Controls Applied for Main 2002 Population Excluding Tube, Web,

Aerospace, and Anniston Army Depot

Applied Control Option	% of Units Assigned Control to Meet 25,000 kg MC EQ Limit	% of Units Assigned Control to Meet 40,000 kg MC EQ Limit	% of Units Assigned Control to Meet 60,000 kg MC EQ Limit	% of Units Assigned Control to Meet 100,000 kg MC EQ Limit

Vacuum to Vacuum	38%	31%	36%	33%

CAD 	11%	15%	0%	0%

PCE to MC	4%	3%	4%	3%

PCE to TCE	5%	3%	4%	3%

TCE to MC	5%	11%	9%	9%

RETRO - 1.5FBR, WC, FRD	23%	23%	24%	36%

RETRO - 1.5FBR	15%	14%	24%	15%

Table 11- Controls Applied for Aerospace Facilities

Applied Control Option	% of Units Assigned Control to Meet 100,000 kg MC EQ Limit	% of Units Assigned Control to Meet 250,000 kg MC EQ Limit

Vacuum Machine - Small - Baskets	8%	0%

Vacuum Machine - Small - Hanging	8%	0%

Vacuum Machine - Large - Baskets	23%	8%

Vacuum Machine - Large - Hanging	23%	0%

Enclosure, parts transporter, CAD, and distillation	15%	31%

Dual-Split Working-Mode Cover and Dual-Bank Freeboard Chillers	15%	31%

Enclosure	8%	8%

Below is an example of how controls were applied for an example facility:

The facility has three units (Table 12), one using MC and two using PCE.  The actual emissions were weighted to obtain the MC Equivalent emissions for the facility.  Based on the MC equivalent emissions, the facility must achieve an 88% reduction to meet a 60,000 kg MC equivalent limit.

Not adding any additional control to units one and three and replacing unit two with a vacuum cleaning machine yields a reduction of 93% [(40,700 kg –  2,700 kg)/40,700 kg = 93%].

Table 12 - Example Facility Emissions and Controls

Unit	Solvent	Cleaner

Type	Emissions (kg)	MC Equivalent

Emissions (kg)	Controls Applied	Control Achieved	MC EQ  Emissions After Control (kg)	Actual Emissions After Control (kg)

1	MC	Batch Cold	200	200	None	0%	200	200

2	PCE	Open Top	40,000	502,000	Vacuum to Vacuum	95%	25,100	2,000

3	PCE	Open Top	500	6,275	None	0%	6,275	500

Total	_-	-	40,700	508,475	-	96%	31,575	2,700

Below is an example of how the control costs were applied for the same facility:

The individual control costs from Table 3 were applied to each control device.  The costs associated with the replacement of the existing equipment for unit 2 with a vacuum to vacuum cleaning machine are shown in Table 13.  Solvent savings represents the cost savings that result from reduced solvent purchases.  The solvent savings were calculated using the unweighted emission reduction for the unit and the cost of solvent per gallon as shown below:

(40,000 kg – 2,000 kg) x $2.32/kg = $88,160

Due to the solvent savings, the facility is projected to have a net cost savings of $31,665/year.

Table 13 - Example Facility Costs

Unit	Solvent	Control Achieved	Total Capital Costs Per Unit	Annualized Capital Costs Per Unit	O&M Costs Per Unit	Solvent Savings Per Unit	Total Annualized Costs Per Unit	Controls Applied

1	MC	0%	0	0	0	0	0	None

2	PCE	95%	$399,000	$37,663	$18,832	($88,160)	($31,665)	Vacuum to Vacuum

3	PCE	0%	0	0	0	0	0	None

Total	-	93%	$399,000	$37,663	$18,832	($88,160)	($31,665)	-

	Because only a finite number of control options are available, in some cases, the emission reduction required for a facility to meet the control option limits was exceeded.  In other words, if a 50% emission reduction was required, the controls applied achieved a reduction greater than 50%.  In some cases, the emission reduction achieved was a little less than that required for a facility to meet the control option limits.  For example, a facility that required a 99% emission reduction to meet the control option limits, could at best achieve a 95% emission reduction with the installation of a vacuum to vacuum cleaning machine.

7.0 Summary of Cost and Emission Reduction Results

	The costs and emission reductions for all units at all facilities with emissions above the control option limits were totaled to yield the total national costs and emission reductions.  Table 14 summarizes the national capital costs, national annualized capital costs, national O&M Costs, national solvent savings, and the total national annual emission control costs for each control option.

	Table 14 shows that control costs increase and solvent savings increase as the emission limit is set lower.  The lower the limit is established, the greater the number of units that must be controlled to achieve the limit.  Emission reductions are greater the lower the limit is established, therefore, the solvent savings are greater.

	For the main population total annual emission control costs range from a savings of $1.3 million/year for the 100,000 kg and the 60,000 kg MC equivalent control options to a cost of $1.2 million/year for the 25,000 kg MC control option.  Capital costs for the 4 control options range from approximately $8.5 million for the 100,000 kg MC equivalent option to $41.5 million for the 25,000 kg MC equivalent option.  Annualized capital costs range from $800,000/year for the 100,000 kg MC equivalent option to $4 million/year for the 25,000 kg MC equivalent option.  Operating and maintenance costs range from $417,000 for the 100,000 kg MC equivalent option to $2.2 million for the 25,000 kg MC equivalent option.  Solvent savings have a significant impact on total annual costs, ranging from a savings of over $2.5 million/year for the 100,000 kg MC option to a savings of over $5 million/year for the 25,000 kg MC equivalent option.  As indicated previously, solvent savings represent the cost savings that result from reduced solvent purchases.   The cost effectiveness values for the 100,000 kg MC option and the 60,000 kg MC option indicate cost savings at -$1,146/ton and -$832/ton, respectively.  The cost effectiveness values for the 40,000 kg MC option and the 25,000 kg MC option indicate costs at $74/ton and $520/ton, respectively.

	For the aerospace population total annual emission control costs range from $115,000/year for the 250,000 kg to a cost of $627,000/year for the 100,000 kg MC control option.  Capital costs range from approximately $3.2 million for the 250,000 kg MC equivalent option to $9 million for the 100,000 kg MC equivalent option.  Annualized capital costs range from $332,000/year for the 250,000 kg MC equivalent option to $870,000/year for the 100,000 kg MC equivalent option.  Operating and maintenance costs range from $166,000 for the 250,000 kg MC equivalent option to $435,000 for the 100,000 kg MC equivalent option.  Solvent savings have a significant impact on total annual costs, ranging from a savings of over $383,000/year for the 250,000 kg MC option to a savings of $627,000/year for the 100,000 kg MC equivalent option.  The cost effectiveness values for the aerospace options are $627/ton and $1,933/ton for the 250,000 kg MC option and the 100,000 kg MC option, respectively.

	Costs for Anniston Army Depot at the 100,000 kg MC option result in a net annualized cost savings of $56,000/year.  This is due to the solvent cost savings of $157,000/year that are expected to result.  These solvent cost savings more than offset the annualized capital costs ($59,000/year) and O&M costs ($42,000).  The cost effectiveness of control at the 100,000 kg MC level is -$625/year for the Anniston Army Depot.

	Costs for facilities performing web cleaning to achieve an 80% overall control efficiency and for tube manufacturers to achieve an additional 10% additional emission reduction high relative to the costs for the main population, Aerospace facilities, and Anniston Army Depot.  Capital costs are $5.7 million and $6.6 million for web and tube, respectively.  Solvent savings are $345,000/year for web and $400,000 for tube.  The cost effectiveness of control for the web and tube industry sectors is $3,421/year and $3,624/year, respectively.

 	For additional details regarding the development of the costs and emission reduction impact for the final rule refer to the cost spreadsheet.  These spreadsheets also contain additional summary tables not reproduced here.

Table 14 – Summary of National Costs and Emission Reductions for Options Evaluated for Final Rule

Description	Options in kg Methylene Chloride Equivalents for the Population without Tube, Web, Aerospace, and Anniston Army Depot	Options in kg Methylene Chloride Equivalents for  Aerospace 	Options in kg Methylene Chloride Equivalents for Anniston Army Depot	Web Cleaning	Tube Manufacturing

	100,000	60,000	40,000	25,000	100,000	250,000	100,000	80% Overall Efficiency	10% Emission Reduction

1.  National Total Capital Costs	$8,473,912	$15,144,335	$26,107,974 $41,560,768	$9,031,798	$3,168,991	$536,431	$5,739,211	$6,623,853

2.  National Annualized Total Capital Costs	$812,736	$1,448,795 $2,557,105	$4,028,968	$870,590	$332,258	$59,007	$631,313	$728,624

3.  National Total Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs	$416,744 $724,063	$1,530,058	$2,248,569	$435,295	$166,129	$42,143	$315,657 $364,312

4.  National Emission Reduction (true tons)	1,104	1,594	1,759	2,351	324 183	89	176	192

5.  National Solvent Credit	-$2,493,972	-$3,498,691	-$3,957,103 -$5,054,032	-$679,102	-$383,369	-$156,912	-$345,068	-$396,125

6.  National Net Annualized Cost of Control ($/yr)

[Annualized Total Capital Costs + O&M Costs + Solvent Credit] -$1,264,492	-$1,325,832	$130,060	$1,223,505	$626,784	$115,018	-$55,761 $601,902	$696,810

7.  National Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

[Net Annualized Cost of Control/Emission Reduction]	-$1,146	-$832	$74 $520	$1,933	$627	-$625	$3,421	$3,624

Appendix

Table A-1.  Basis of Costs for 1.50 Freeboard Ratio, Freeboard Refrigeration Device, Working Mode Cover, and Internal Hoist

*Average Size*

1.  Capital Costs	1 m2	4m2	2.5 m2

	2005 Installed Capital Costs [1]	$18,000	$30,000	$24,000.00

	Cost of Additional Floor Space[2]	$290	$3,000	$1,645.15

	Total Capital Costs	$18,290	$33,000	$25,645.15

	Annualized Total Capital Costs (15yr @ 7%)	$2,012	$3,630	$2,820.97

2. Annual Operation Costs

A.  Labor

   -1.50 Freeboard Ratio	$0	$0	$0.00

	   -Working Cover	$0	$0	$0.00

	   -Freeboard Refrigeration Device [3]	$146	$146	$146.00

	   TOTAL LABOR	$146	$146	$146.00

	B.  Energy [4, 5]

   -1.50 Freeboard Ratio	$0	$0	$0.00

	   -Working Cover	$252	$252	$252.00

	   -Freeboard Refrigeration Device	$211	$971	$590.95

	   TOTAL ENERGY	$463	$1,222	$842.95

	C.  Misc. Operating Costs [6]	$732	$1,320	$1,025.81

	Total Annual Operation Costs	$1,340	$2,688	$2,014.75

3.  Total Annualized Cost (Annualized Total Capital Cost plus Total Annual Operating Costs)	$3,352	$6,318	$4,835.72

	[1] - Telecommunication J. Goldsmith, e2M with Carl Wolf, Ultronix.  September 14, 2005.

	[2] - Scaled from 1990 using the PPI.

	[3] - Assumed operating 8,760 hrs per year.  1,095 shifts/year * $13.29/hr * 0.01 hrs/shift = labor cost.  Labor rate was obtained from BLS - Private Industry Blue Collar Machine Operators, July 2003.

	[4] - For 1m2 size WC uses 0.56 kWh and FRD uses 0.47 kWh.  For 4m2 size, WC uses 0.56 kWh and FRD uses 2.16 kWh.  Source: IV-B-04  Assumed devices are operating 8,760 hours per year.

	[5] Source: Table 7.4 - Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Section,  1993 through 2003.  5.13 cents per kwh represents the 2003 Industrial value.

	[6] - Calculated as 4% of capital costs (Source 1).

Table A-2.  Basis of Costs for 1.5 Freeboard Ratio

*Average Size*

1.  Capital Costs	1 m2	4 m2	2.5 m2

	2005 Installed Capital Costs [1, 2]	$8,152	$32,608	$20,380.00

	Total Capital Costs	$8,152	$32,608	$20,380.00

	Annualized Total Capital Costs (15yr @ 7%)	$897	$3,587	$2,241.80

2. Annual Operation Costs

	A.  Labor 	$0	$0	$0.00

	B.  Energy	$0	$0	$0.00

	C.  Misc. Operating Costs	$0	$0	$0.00

	Total Annual Operation Costs	$0	$0	$0.00

3.  Total Annualized Cost (Annualized Total Capital Cost plus Total Annual Operating Costs)	$897	$3,587	$2,241.80

	[1] - Telecommunication.  J. Goldsmith of e2M with Rod Murphy of Degreasing Devices.  September 15, 2005.

	[2] - Based on an Open Top Vapor Cleaner Size of 4.6 m2.

	[3] - Conservatively used the cost for PCE, which is cheaper than TCE.

Table A-3.  Capital Costs for Vacuum-to-Vacuum Cleaning Machines

&

2

3

J

˜

Ç

hh

hh

8

ˆ

8

8

ˆ

8

8

ˆ

8

8

ˆ

8

8

ˆ

8

8

ˆ

8

8

ˆ

8

8

ˆ

8

hh

hh

 hh

hh

  hh

hh

gdh

8

ˆ

8

葠ː摧㉖s

heI

 heI

heI

 heI

heI

heI

heI

혈F鐃᳿ꐋⰖ"蠆

蠆

蠆

摧䥥

摧䥥

摧䥥

혈F鐃᳿ꐋⰖ"蠆

蠆

蠆

葞и摧䶦t

摧䥥

hp

gdŸ_

葞ː葠ː摧抠ò

葞֠摧嵙ô

P	¤

P	¤

P	¤

P	¤

P	¤

P	¤

P	¤

P	¤

P	¤

P	¤

P	¤

P	¤

P	¤

P	¤

摧徟

摧徟

葞Ũ摧੧

h]

Ff

kd

gdp

ŔȀ沖܀ດࠁ峖Ѐ”ÿ

ƒ

¡

ƒ

c - Based on Costs from Tiyoda-Serec Corporation and Baron Blakeslee.

	d - This was calculated using the relationship established between the solvent-air interface of an open-top and its cleaning capacity that was established during the development of the NESHAP (A-92-39, IV-B-2).  The following equation was developed from the NESHAP analysis:

Solvent-Air Interface in square meters = 2.2 (cleaning volume in cubic meters)0.6

 PAGE

 PAGE   25


"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 06/18/2007 06:41 PM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

secondary standard comment

Hi Lydia,

Here is some suggested text for the secondary standard section:

>>> pg. 12 of the updated RIA, to go as a last paragraph before section iii. (crop yield loss):

"Another source of uncertainty has to do with positive fertilization impacts on northern hemisphere forests of airborne nitrogen oxides from anthropogenic sources.  It appears that little substantial work has yet been done to analyze the offsetting benefits of such fertilization, benefits which will be reduced as ozone precursors such as anthropogenic nitrogen oxide emissions decline.  EPA views such research as an important priority.  The Administrator seeks comment on how best to balance the different effects of nitrogen oxides, directly and indirectly (through ozone formation) on vegetation."

________________________________________________

Robert Johansson, Ph.D.

OMB/OIRA/NREA

725 17th St. NW, Room 10202

Washington, DC 20503

(P)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(F)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>