[Federal Register: August 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 156)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41104-41106]
[DOCID:fr14au09-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0474; FRL-8945-8]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate matter (PM)
emissions from boilers of various capacities. We are approving local
rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0474, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know

your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3248<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency               Rule No.                Rule title                  Adopted    Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVAPCD..............................       4306  Boilers, Steam Generators and Process     10/16/08    03/17/09
                                                   Heaters--Phase 3.
SJVAPCD..............................       4307  Boilers, Steam Generators and Process     10/16/08    03/17/09
                                                   Heaters--2.0 MMbtu/hr to 5.0 MMbtu/hr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 20, 2009, these rule submittals were found to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved a version of Rule 4306 into the SIP on May 18, 2004 and
of Rule 4307 on May 30, 2007. There are no outstanding submittals of
these Rules.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted revisions?

    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and
particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that
control NOX emissions. PM contributes to effects that are
harmful to human health and the environment, including premature
mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease,
decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to
vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to
submit regulations that control PM emissions. Rule 4306 limits
NOX and Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions from boilers, steam
generators and process heaters fired on gaseous or liquid fuel with a
total rated heat input larger than 5 MMBtu/hour. This Rule was amended
to address an EPA concern. Rule 4307 limits NOX,
SO2, PM10 and CO emissions from boilers, steam
generators and process heaters fired on gaseous or liquid fuel with a
total rated heat input between 2 and 5 MMBtu/hour. Rule 4307 was
amended to include requirements to regulate SO2 and
PM10 emissions as well as to strengthen the emission limits
for NOX. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more
information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
sections 182(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SJVAPCD regulates an
ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules 4306 and 4307
must fulfill RACT. In addition, SIP rules must implement Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM), including Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT), in nonattainment areas (see CAA sections
172(c)(1)). The SJVAPCD regulates a PM-2.5 nonattainment area (see 40
CFR part 81), so Rules 4306 and 4307 must implement a RACM level of
control.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate
enforceability, RACT and RACM requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620,
November 25, 1992.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498, April 16, 1992; 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992.
    5. ``Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' 72 FR 20586,
April 25, 2007.
    6. ``Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and
Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial,
Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters'', CARB, July 18, 1991.
    7. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers'', US
EPA 453/R-94-022, March 1994.
    8. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Utility Boilers'', US EPA 452/R-93-008, March 1994.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, RACM and SIP relaxations. The
TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that do not affect
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local
agency modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: August 3, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-19514 Filed 8-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 21351-21352]
[DOCID:fr07my09-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP09-161-000; PF08-23-000]

Bison Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application

April 30, 2009.
    Take notice that on April 20, 2009, Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison),
13710 FNB Parkway, Omaha, Nebraska 68154 filed in the above referenced
docket an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA and part 157
of the Commission's regulations, for a certificate of public
convenience and authorizing the construction, ownership and operation
of a new pipeline, a new compressor station and other appurtenant
facilities designed to transport approximately 477 million cubic feet
per day (MMcf/day) from the Dead Horse region near Gillette, Wyoming to
an interconnection with Northern Border Pipeline Company near
Compressor Station No. 6 located in Morton County, North Dakota, all as
more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, Bison proposes approximately 302 miles of 30-inch
diameter pipeline, one 4,700 horsepower compressor station, two meter
stations and other appurtenant facilities designed to move 477 MMcf/d
of natural gas. As a new pipeline company, Bison also requests blanket
certificates pursuant to sections 284.211 and 157.204 of the
Commission's regulations as well as approval of its attached Pro Forma
Tariff. Bison states that the project will cost an estimated $609.6
million and the proposed in-service date of the facilities is November
15, 2010.
    Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to Bambi
Heckerman, Agent and Attorney-in-Fact, TransCanada Northern Border
Inc., 13710 FNB Parkway, Omaha, NE 68154-5200, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On June 4, 2008, the Commission staff granted Bison's request to
utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF08-23-000 to
staff activities involving the Bison Pipeline Project. Now as of the
filing the April 20, 2008 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this
project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be
conducted in Docket No. CP09-161-000, as noted in the caption of this
Notice.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and

must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 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: May 21, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10517 Filed 5-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35882]
[DOCID:fr22jn06-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. PH06-11-000; PH06-12-000; PH06-13-000; PH06-14-000; PH06-
15-000; PH06-16-000; PH06-17-000; PH06-18-000; PH06-19-000; PH06-20-
000; PH06-21-000; PH06-22-000; PH06-23-000; PH06-24-000; PH06-25-000;
PH06-26-000; PH06-27-000; PH06-28-000; PH06-29-000; PH06-30-000; PH06-
31-000; PH06-32-000; PH06-33-000; PH06-34-000; PH06-35-000; PH06-36-
000; PH06-37-000; PH06-38-000; PH06-39-000]

MGE Energy, Inc.; DTE Energy Company; Energy, Inc.; Alpena Power
Resources, LTD; Alaska Energy and Resources Company; National Grid
Holdings One Plc; RGC Resources, Inc.; RGC Resources, Inc.; Deutsche
Bank AG, et. al.; DTE Energy Company; Consolidated Energy Holdings LLC;
Macquarie Bank Limited; IPALCO Enterprises; Utility Pipeline Limited;
Alliant Energy Generation, Inc.; Nstar; Maine & Maritimes Corporation;
Wisconsin Energy Corporation; Wisconsin Electric Power Company; BayCorp
Holdings, Ltd.; UniSource Energy Corporation, et. al.; Alexander &
Baldwin, Inc., et. al.; LMB Capital, Inc.; Hawkeye Funding, Inc.;
Juniper Capital GP, LLC; JMG Capital, Inc.; Wygen Capital, Inc.; LIC
Capital, Inc.; Alexander's of Brooklyn II, LLC; Notice of Effectiveness
of Holding Company and Transaction Exemptions and Waivers

June 15, 2006.
    Take notice that in May 2006 the holding company and transaction
exemptions and waivers requested in the above-captioned proceedings are
deemed to have been granted by operation of law pursuant to 18 CFR
366.4.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-9808 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50508-50509]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23255]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2891; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-1]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Deblois, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface in Deblois, ME, to accommodate new area
navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedures (SIAPs) serving Deblois Flight Strip. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 1, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace at Deblois Flight Strip, Deblois,
ME, to ensure the efficient use of airspace within the National
Airspace System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM in the
Federal Register (82 FR 39065, August 16, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2015-
2891 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Deblois Flight Strip,
Deblois, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the
new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR
operations at the airport. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists

Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
or more above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Deblois Flight
Strip, Deblois, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to
support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for
IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 3, 2017, effective September 15, 2017, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE ME E5 Deblois Flight Strip, Deblois, ME [New]

Deblois Flight Strip, ME
    (Lat. 44[deg]43'35'' N., long. 67[deg]59'27'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Deblois Flight Strip, and within 1-mile
either side of a 135[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from
the 7-mile radius to 10.5 miles southeast of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 18, 2017.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2017-23255 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From:
"STARKWEATHER, DIANA M."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Fri, 09 Dec 2022 14:42:29
To:
"Jones; DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"BATTEN; KATIE M"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Re: Enclosure 1 Response Jewell and Haverhill ICR Questions 20 through 24 responses - due Nov 24, 2022
Donna Lee,

We have updated the spreadsheets submitted on November 24 to include information in response to Enclosure 1, Part A IX. Startup and Shutdown.  The SSM plans for Haverhill and Jewell are also attached.  Thank you for allowing us additional time to compile this information.

Regards,

Diana Starkweather
Corporate Environmental, Health & Safety Compliance Manager
SunCoke Energy
Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<<SunCoke ICR Jewell Enclosure 1 Parts A-I and A-III and A-IX Responses Non-Confidential.xlsx>>
<<Jewell Startup Shutdown Malfunction Plan.pdf>>
<<SunCoke ICR Haverhill Enclosure 1 Parts A-I thru A-III and A-IX Responses Non-Confidential.xlsx>>
<<HHO-PMO_Plan Rev 2017-05-26 Final.pdf>>

_______________________________
From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 10:32 AM
To: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; STARKWEATHER, DIANA M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Cc: French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Subject: RE: Enclosure 1 Response Jewell and Haverhill ICR Questions 20 through 24 responses - due Nov 24, 2022

Thank you!

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

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

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 10:20 AM
To: Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; STARKWEATHER, DIANA M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Subject: RE: Enclosure 1 Response Jewell and Haverhill ICR Questions 20 through 24 responses - due Nov 24, 2022

Apologies for the oversight.  We will get this submitted as quickly as possible.

Thanks,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 12:27 PM
To: STARKWEATHER, DIANA M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Cc: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Subject: Enclosure 1 Response Jewell and Haverhill ICR Questions 20 through 24 responses - due Nov 24, 2022

Hello,

Thank you for the Jewell and Haverhill ICR Part A III. Regulatory Information responses.

According to the schedule that SunCoke proposed8/31/2021 [attached] and EPA accepted via email [attached], the Part A IX. Startup and Shutdown responses were also due on 11/24/22.

Were you still working on submitting those?

Did you submit the responses to the EPA CBI office?

Please let us know the plan for submitting the Part A IX. Startup and Shutdown responses.

Thank you

Mon 9/12/2022 4:04 PM
We accept SunCoke's proposed schedule for Enclosure 1 information from the SunCoke August 31, 2022, letter for submitting the information from Jewel (Vansant) and Haverhill (Franklin Furnace).
Suncoke-issues-with the 2022 Coke 114 08-31-22.docx

 EPA's Current 114 Schedule for Enclosure 1 and SunCoke's Proposed New Schedule
                             Enclosure 1 Section*
                            Enclosure 1 Sub-section
                           EPA Due Date for 2022 ICR
                           SunCoke Proposed Due Date
Part A. Background Information
(verify 2016 and update, or provide new)
I. Owner Information
                                   9/30/2022
                                   9/30/2022

II. General Facility Information
                                   9/30/2022
                                   9/30/2022

III. Regulatory Information
                                   9/30/2022
                                    11/24/22

IV. Process Flow Diagram, Plot Plans, and Inventory Data
                                   9/30/2022
                                    12/24/22

V. Emission Points
                                   9/30/2022
                                    12/24/22

VI. Process and Emission Unit Operations
                                   9/30/2022
                                    01/23/23

VII. Air Pollution Control and Monitoring Equipment
                                   9/30/2022
                                    01/23/23

VIII. Economics/Costs
                                   9/30/2022
                                    4/16/23

IX. Startup and Shutdown
                                   9/30/2022
                                    11/24/22
Part E. Misc. Community Issues[10]

                                   9/30/2022
                                    4/16/23
*Note: Parts B, C, and D do not apply to HNR facilities. Red font is EPA's schedule or SunCoke's proposed schedule that is the same or within 2 months of EPA's.

From: STARKWEATHER, DIANA M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 5:02 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Cc: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Subject: Enclosure 1 Response Jewell ICR Questions 20 through 24 responses - due Nov 24, 2022

Donna Lee -

Please find attached responses and requested documents for Questions 20 - 24 Sections A.I and A.II of Enclosure I for SunCoke's Jewell facility.  Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Diana Starkweather
Corporate Environmental, Health & Safety Compliance Manager
SunCoke Energy

2446 Gallia Pike
Franklin Furnace, OH 45629
Office:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 85438-85440]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26754]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 239 and 258

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2016-0629; FRL 9928-27-Region 10]

Determination of Full Program Adequacy of Washington's Municipal
Solid Waste Landfill Permitting Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, States must develop and
implement permit programs for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs)
and seek an adequacy determination by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). This rule documents EPA's determination that Washington's
MSWLF permit program is adequate to ensure compliance with Federal
MSWLF requirements.

DATES: This direct final rule will become effective February 27, 2017
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments on or
before January 27, 2017. If written adverse comments are received, the
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal
Register.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
RCRA-2016-0629 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, to the attention of Domenic Calabro.
     Mail: Send written comments to Domenic Calabro, U.S. EPA,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mailstop: AW-150, Seattle, WA
98101.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to:
Domenic Calabro, Office of Air and Waste, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mailstop: AW-150, Seattle, WA 98101. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Office's normal hours of
operation.
    Instructions: Identify your comments as relating to Docket ID No.
EPA-R10-RCRA-2016-0629. The EPA's policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or claimed to be other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/.
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2016-0629. All documents in the docket are listed
on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although it may be listed in the
index, some information might not be publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Region 10
Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington by appointment only;
please telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Mailcode: AW-150, Seattle, Washington, 98101 Attn: Mr.
Domenic Calabro. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 9, 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated the ``Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria: Final Rule''
(56 FR 50978). That rule established part 258 of Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR). The criteria set out in 40 CFR part 258
include location restrictions and standards for design, operation,
groundwater monitoring, corrective action, financial assurance, and
closure and post-closure care for MSWLFs. The 40 CFR part 258 criteria
establish minimum Federal standards that take into account the
practical capability of owners and operators of MSWLFs while ensuring
that these facilities are designed and managed in a manner that is
protective of human health and the environment. Section 4005(c)(1)(B)
of subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as
amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, requires
States to develop and implement permit programs to ensure that MSWLFs
comply with the 40 CFR part 258 criteria. RCRA section 4005(c)(1)(C)
requires EPA to determine whether the permit programs that States
develop and implement for these facilities are adequate.
    To fulfill this requirement to determine whether State permit
programs that implement the 40 CFR part 258 criteria are adequate, EPA
promulgated the State Implementation Rule (SIR) (63 FR 57025, Oct. 23,
1998). The SIR, which established part 239 of Title 40 of the CFR, has
the following four purposes: (1) Lay out the requirements that State
programs must satisfy to be determined adequate; (2) confirm the
process for EPA approval or partial approval of State MSWLF permit
programs; (3) provide the procedures for withdrawal of such approvals;
and (4) establish a flexible framework for modifications of approved
programs.
    Only those owners and operators located in States with approved
permit programs for MSWLFs can use the site-specific flexibility
provided by 40 CFR part 258, to the extent the State permit program
allows such flexibility. Every standard in the 40 CFR part 258 criteria
is designed to be implemented by the owner or operator with or without
oversight or participation by EPA or the State regulatory agency.
States with approved programs may choose to require facilities to
comply with the 40 CFR part 258 criteria exactly, or they may choose to
allow owners and operators to use site-specific alternative approaches
to meet the Federal criteria. The flexibility that an owner or operator
may be allowed under an approved State program can provide a
significant reduction in the burden associated with complying with the
40 CFR part 258

criteria. Regardless of the approval status of a State and the permit
status of any facility, the 40 CFR part 258 criteria shall apply to all
permitted and unpermitted MSWLFs. As EPA explained in the preamble to
the revised Federal MSWLF criteria, EPA expects that any owner or
operator complying with provisions in a State program approved by EPA
should be considered to be in compliance with the revised Federal MSWLF
criteria.
    To receive a determination of adequacy for a MSWLF permit program
under the SIR, a State must have enforceable standards for new and
existing MSWLFs. These State standards must be technically comparable
to the 40 CFR part 258 criteria. In addition, the State must have the
authority to issue a permit or other notice of prior approval and
conditions to all new and existing MSWLFs in its jurisdiction. The
State also must provide for public participation in permit issuance and
enforcement, as required in RCRA section 7004(b). Finally, the State
must demonstrate that it has sufficient compliance monitoring and
enforcement authorities to take specific action against any owner or
operator that fails to comply with an approved permit program. EPA
expects States to meet all of these requirements for all elements of a
permit program before it gives full approval to a State's program.
    On April 9, 1993, Washington submitted an application to obtain a
partial program adequacy determination for the State's MSWLF permit
program under Section 4005 of RCRA. EPA reviewed Washington's
application and published a determination of partial program adequacy
on March 31, 1994 (FR Vol. 59, No. 62) for those portions of the MSWLF
permit program that were adequate to ensure compliance with the revised
Federal MSWLF criteria. Washington made amendments to Chapter 173-351
of the Washington Administrative Code, which became effective in
November 2012 and November 2015. On June 16, 2016, Washington submitted
to EPA an amended application which incorporated the amendments,
seeking a determination of full program adequacy for Washington's MSWLF
permitting program. The amended application included a detailed
description of changes made to Washington's MSWLF permitting program
since the March 31, 1994 EPA determination of partial program adequacy.
Specifically, Washington addressed the following portions of its MSWLF
permit program that were not approved in the March 31, 1994
determination of partial program adequacy:
    (1) Revised the definitions of Existing MSWLF Unit and Lateral
Expansion, per the federal regulations found in 40 CFR 258.2.
    (2) Eliminated equivalent and arid liner designs in the state rule,
retained composite liner requirements, and incorporated an option for
alternate liner design, consistent with federal regulations.
    (3) Revised the rules to require monitoring for total metals in
groundwater.
    (4) Adopted revisions to Appendix 3 of WAC 173-351-990 to include
two hazardous organic constituents: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo- p-
dioxin - [CAS 1746-01-6] and alpha, alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine [CAS
122-09-8]. This revision affects landfills that are required to perform
assessment monitoring under the rule, and is necessary to be consistent
with federal rules in 40 CFR part 258.
    (5) Adopted new post-closure care period criteria, which are based
on potential risk to human and environmental receptors, per 40 CFR part
258.61(b).
    (6) Made revisions to allow for issuance of Research, Development,
and Demonstration (RD&D) landfill permits, pursuant to the 2004
rulemaking by EPA (69 FR 13242, March 22, 2004).
    Washington Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan C. Thompson,
certified in a letter dated June 10, 2016 that the regulations cited in
the Washington Department of Ecology's Amended Application for
Municipal Solid Waste Facilities Program Determination of Adequacy were
enacted and full effective at the time of the application and will
continue to be when the state's permit program is fully approved.

II. Decision

    In addition to those portions of the State's MSWLF permit program
that were approved on March 31, 1994, EPA has determined that the
State's revised MSWLF permit program will ensure adequacy with the
Federal criteria in 40 CFR part 258. In addition, Washington has
demonstrated that its MSWLF permit program contains specific provisions
for public participation, compliance monitoring, and enforcement. After
reviewing Washington's amended application, EPA has concluded that
Washington's MSWLF permit program meets all of the statutory and
regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Accordingly, Washington is
granted a determination of full program adequacy for its MSWLF
permitting program.
    By finding that Washington's MSWLF permit program is adequate, EPA
does not intend to affect the rights of Federally-recognized Indian
Tribes in Washington, nor does it intend to limit the existing rights
of the State of Washington. RCRA section 4005(a) provides that citizens
may use the citizen suit provisions of RCRA section 7002 to enforce the
40 CFR part 258 criteria independent of any State enforcement program.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new Information Collection Request
(ICR) burden under the PRA. The purpose of this action is to approve
amendments to Washington's MSWLF permitting program which result in it
meeting all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by
RCRA. The OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the ICR for 40 CFR part 239, Requirements for
State Permit Program Determination of Adequacy and part 258, MSWLF
Criteria. This action does not impose any additional reporting
requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This rule will not create any additional
burden for small entities. Small entities are not required to take any
action as a consequence of this rule, and this action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have
therefore concluded that this

action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated
small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The costs involved
in this action are imposed only by voluntary participation in a federal
program.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA has concluded that this action will have
no new tribal implications, nor would it present any additional burden
on the tribes. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance
costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. Washington has incorporated those requirements from the
Federal MSWLF landfill criteria (40 CFR part 258) not found in
Washington's existing program and EPA has determined that Washington's
program includes terms and conditions that are at least as protective
as the MSWLF landfill criteria for municipal solid waste landfills, to
assure protection of human health and the environment.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The purpose of this action is to approve amendments to Washington's
MSWLF permitting program which result in it meeting all of the
statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. The EPA
believes that the human health and environmental risk addressed by this
action will not have a new disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 239

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Intergovernmental relations, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 258

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of section
2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).

    Dated: October 20, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-26754 Filed 11-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1546-1549]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00211]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73992; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2014-142]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its
Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To Eliminate
Transaction Fees for Midpoint Passive Liquidity Orders That Remove
Liquidity From the Exchange and That Are Designated as ``Retail'' but
Which Are Not Executed in the Retail Liquidity Program

January 6, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 22, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services (``Fee Schedule'') to eliminate transaction fees for
Midpoint Passive Liquidity (``MPL'') orders that remove liquidity from
the Exchange and that are designated as ``retail'' but which are not
executed in the Retail Liquidity Program. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective January 2, 2015. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to eliminate
transaction fees for MPL orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange
and that are designated as ``retail'' orders, but which are not
executed in the Retail Liquidity Program. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective January 2, 2015.
    For securities priced $1.00 or greater, the Exchange currently
charges qualifying ETP Holders and Market Makers in Tier 1 \4\ and Tier
2 \5\ a fee of $0.0030 per share for MPL orders \6\ in Tape A, B and C
securities that remove liquidity from the NYSE Arca Book. Similarly,
the current basic rate, which is applicable when tier rates do not
apply, is $0.0030 per share for MPL orders in Tape A, B and C
securities that remove liquidity from the NYSE Arca Book. The Exchange
proposes to eliminate the fee for MPL orders that

remove liquidity from the NYSE Arca Book that are designated as retail
orders and that meet the requirements of Rule 7.44(a)(3), but which are
not executed in the Retail Liquidity Program \7\ (``Retail Orders'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Tier 1 are ETP Holders and Market Makers that provide
liquidity an average daily volume (``ADV'') per month of 0.70% or
more of the US consolidated ADV (``CADV'') or provide liquidity an
average daily share volume per month of 0.15% or more of the US CADV
and are affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that provides an
ADV of electronic posted executions (including all account types) in
Penny Pilot issues on NYSE Arca Options (excluding mini options) of
at least 100,000 contracts, of which at least 25,000 contracts must
be for the account of a market maker.
    \5\ Tier 2 are ETP Holders and Market Makers that provide
liquidity an average daily share volume per month of 0.30% or more,
but less than 0.70% of the US CADV.
    \6\ MPL Order is defined in Rule 7.31(h)(5) as a Passive
Liquidity Order priced at the midpoint of the PBBO. Rule 7.31(h)(4)
defines a Passive Liquidity Order as an order to buy or sell a
stated amount of a security at a specified, undisplayed price.
    \7\ The Retail Liquidity Program is a pilot program designed to
attract additional retail order flow to the Exchange for NYSE Arca-
listed securities and securities traded pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges (``UTP Securities'') while also providing the potential
for price improvement to such order flow. See Rule 7.44. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71176 (December 23, 2013), 78 FR
79524 (December 30, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-107).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be eligible to for the proposed pricing for MPL orders, an MPL
order would need to meet the requirements of Rule 7.44(a)(3). Rule
7.44(a)(3) defines a retail order as an agency order or a riskless
principal order that meets the criteria of Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural
person and is submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member Organization
(``RMO''),\8\ provided that no change is made to the terms of the order
with respect to price or side of market and the order does not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. An ETP Holder may designate an order a Retail Order either
(1) by designating certain order entry ports at the Exchange as
``Retail Order Ports'' and attesting, in a form and/or manner
prescribed by the Exchange, that all orders submitted to the Exchange
via such Retail Order Ports are Retail Orders; or (2) by means of a
specific tag in the order entry message.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``RMO'' is defined in Rule 7.44(a)(2) as an ETP Holder that
is approved by the Exchange to submit Retail Orders. However, an
order designated as a Retail Order of an RMO for purposes of the
Retail Liquidity Program is separate from the designation of an
order as a Retail Order for purposes of existing pricing tiers in
the Fee Schedule. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71722
(March 13, 2014), 78 [sic] FR 15376 (March 19, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-
2014-22) (``Arca Retail Approval Order'') [sic]. The proposed rule
change solely concerns Retail Orders outside the Retail Liquidity
Program.
    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68322
(November 29, 2012), 77 FR 72425 (December 5, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-
2012-129). ETP Holders designating orders as Retail Orders by using
a tag in the order entry message will be required to have written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to assure that it will
only designate orders as Retail Orders if all requirements of a
Retail Order are met. The written policies and procedures must
require the ETP Holder to (i) exercise due diligence before entering
a Retail Order to assure that entry as a Retail Order is in
compliance with the requirements specified by the Exchange, and (ii)
monitor whether orders entered as Retail Orders meet the applicable
requirements. If the ETP Holder represents Retail Orders from
another broker-dealer customer, the ETP Holder's supervisory
procedures must be reasonably designed to assure that the orders it
receives from such broker-dealer customer that it designates as
Retail Orders meet the definition of a Retail Order. The ETP Holder
must (i) obtain an annual written representation, in a form
acceptable to the Exchange, from each broker-dealer customer that
sends it orders to be designated as Retail Orders that entry of such
orders as Retail Orders will be in compliance with the requirements
specified by the Exchange, and (ii) monitor whether its broker-
dealer customer's Retail Order flow continues to meet the applicable
requirements. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to define the term ``Retail Orders''
separately in the Fee Schedule to distinguish the pricing applicable to
orders designated as retail that are eligible for this proposed change,
the existing Retail Order Tier and the existing Retail Orders that
provide liquidity to the Book from the pricing applicable to executions
of orders designated as retail in the Retail Liquidity Program, which
are referred to in the Fee Schedule as ``RMO Retail Orders'' and are
covered in the section of the Fee Schedule entitled ``Fees and Credits
Applicable to Executions in the Retail Liquidity Program.'' As noted
above, the Exchange proposes to define the term ``Retail Order'' in an
earlier point of the Fee Schedule, thereby obviating the second
definition currently in the Retail Order Tier section of the Fee
Schedule. Accordingly, Exchange proposes to delete the phrase ``as
defined in Rule 7.44(a)(3)'' in the Retail Order Tier.
    The Exchange proposes to retain the fees for MPL orders that remove
liquidity from the Exchange but that are not designated as Retail
Orders at the current rates. The proposed amended Fee Schedule would
distinguish between MPL orders that remove liquidity and that are
designated Retail Orders, which would not be charged a fee, from MPL
orders that remove liquidity and that are not designated Retail Orders,
and which would continue to be charged the existing fee for MPL Orders
that take liquidity.
    The Exchange also proposes to add explanatory material to footnote
2 of the Fee Schedule that orders with specific rates (e.g., MPL,
Tracking Orders, Passive Liquidity Orders, Retail Orders that provide
liquidity to the Book, Retail Price Improvement Orders, and RMO Retail
Orders) may be used to qualify for volume thresholds but are not
eligible for tiered rates.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems ETP Holders would
have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that removing a fee for MPL orders that
remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated Retail
Orders is reasonable because it will encourage the submission of orders
that meet the requirements to be designated as ``retail'' to the
Exchange, thus enhancing order execution opportunities for all
participants, but specifically retail investors. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that markets and price discovery optimally function through
the interactions of diverse flow types, and also believes that growth
in internalization has required differentiation of retail order flow
from other order flow types. As the Exchange has previously noted, a
significant percentage of the orders of individual investors are
executed over-the-counter.\12\ The Exchange accordingly further
believes that the proposed change is reasonable because it would
contribute to maintaining or increasing the proportion of retail flow
in Exchange-listed securities that are executed on a registered
national securities exchange, rather than executing in off-exchange
venues. The Exchange further believes that defining the term ``Retail
Orders'' separately from the term ``RMO Retail Orders'' would provide
transparency in the Fee Schedule concerning which pricing is applicable
to which orders designated as retail, and specifically, that the
proposed pricing change for MPL orders is only applicable to orders
designated as ``retail'' that are not executed as part of the Retail
Liquidity Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71722 (March 13,
2014), 78 [sic] FR 15376 (March 19, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-22); see
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-73702 (Nov. 28, 2014),
79 FR 72049, 72051 (Dec. 4, 2014) (order approving NASDAQ OMX BX
Retail Price Improvement Program and noting that most marketable
retail order flow is executed in the over-the-counter markets,
pursuant to bilateral agreements, without ever reaching a public
exchange) (``BX Retail Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that while the proposed price change
would treat retail order flow differently from order flow submitted by
other market participants, such segmentation would not be inconsistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ which requires that the

rules of an exchange are not designed to permit unfair discrimination.
The Commission has previously recognized that the markets generally
distinguish between retail investors, whose orders are considered
desirable by liquidity providers because such retail investors are
presumed on average to be less informed about short-term price
movements, and professional traders, whose orders are presumed on
average to be more informed.\14\ The Commission has further recognized
that, because of this distinction, liquidity providers are generally
inclined to offer price improvement to less informed retail orders than
to more informed professional orders.\15\ The Exchange believes that
the differentiation proposed herein is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination, but instead is reasonably designed to attract retail
flow to the Exchange, while helping to ensure that retail investors
benefit from the better price that liquidity providers are willing to
give their orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed increase of
retail order flow to the Exchange might also create a desirable
opportunity for institutional investors to interact with retail order
flow that they are not able to reach currently. The Exchange therefore
believes that the proposed change would further promote a competitive
process around retail executions such that retail investors would
receive better prices than they currently do through bilateral
internalization arrangements. The Exchange believes that the
transparency and competitiveness of the proposed rule change on an
exchange market would result in better prices for retail investors.\16\
The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it would contribute to investors' confidence in the fairness of
their transactions and because it would benefit all investors by
increasing the liquidity pool and potential for price-improving
executions at the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ See BX Retail Approval Order at 72051.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ See, e.g., Arca Retail Approval Order at 79528. The
Exchange notes that other markets offer separate non-tier and tiered
pricing for retail orders, see NASDAQ Price List, available at
http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2, and EDGX
Exchange Fee Schedule, available at http://www.directedge.com/trading/EDGXFeeSchedule.aspx, as well as retail price improvement
pricing for ``Retail Orders'' that remove displayed liquidity or
mid-point peg liquidity. See BATS BYX Exchange Fee Schedule,
available at http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the ability to designate MPL orders as Retail
Orders is available equally to all similarly situated ETP Holders that
submit qualifying orders and satisfy the other related, existing
requirements.
    The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive
forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\17\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would increase competition among execution venues and encourage
additional execution opportunities on the Exchange. For the same
reasons, the proposed change also would not impose any burden on
competition among market participants. The Exchange believes that while
it is the first to offer designated Retail Orders the ability to take
at the mid-point for free through MPL orders, providing significant
price improvement, the proposed change also permits the Exchange to
compete with other markets, including NASDAQ, which does not charge but
provides a credit for designated Retail Orders that take liquidity in
Retail Liquidity Provider programs,\18\ as well as over-the-counter
trading that offers mid-point executions at low fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70860 (November
13, 2013), 78 FR 69512 (November 19, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-138).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and
with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of ETP Holders or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \19\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \20\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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) \21\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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-NYSEARCA-2014-142 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-142. 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 Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and
on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEARCA-2014-142 and should be
submitted on or before February 2, 2015.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00211 Filed 1-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 13833-13834]
[DOCID:fr17mr06-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[P-199-205]

South Carolina Public Service Authority; Notice of Application
Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions

March 9, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-199-205.
    c. Date filed: March 15, 2004.
    d. Applicant: South Carolina Public Service Authority (SCPSA).
    e. Name of Project: Santee Cooper Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Santee and Cooper Rivers in Berkeley, Calhoun,
Clarendon, Orangeburg, and Sumter Counties in South Carolina, about 50
miles north of Charleston and 60 miles southeast of Columbia, South
Carolina. The project does not affect federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. John Dulude, P.E., South Carolina Public
Service Authority, One Riverwood Plaza, P Box 2946101, Moncks Corner,
SC 29461-2901,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Monte TerHaar<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6035.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of

that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. Project Description: The existing 118-megawatt (MW) Santee
Cooper Project consists of: (1) The 2.2 mile-long Santee Dam on the
Santee River; (2) the 1.2 mile-long Pinopolis Dam on the Cooper River;
(3) the 5-mile-long Diversion Canal which connects Lake Marion and Lake
Moultrie; (4) the Santee Spillway Hydroelectric Station with one 2.0-MW
turbine generating 13,823 megawatt-hours (MWh) annually; (5) the
Pinopolis Hydroelectric Station with one 8.0-MW turbine and four 27.0-
MW turbines for a total installed capacity of 116 MW generating 210,204
MWh annually; (6) the 43-mile-long Lake Marion Reservoir, located on
the Santee River; (7) the 12-mile-long Lake Moultrie Reservoir, located
on the Cooper River.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    n. Procedural schedule and final amendments: At this time we
anticipate preparing one environmental assessment (EA). Recipients will
have 30 days to provide the Commission with any written comments on the
EA. A final EA may be prepared based on the comments received. The
application will be processed according to the following schedule.
Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.
    Comments, terms and conditions due: May 2006.
    Reply comments due: June 2006.
     Notice of the Availability of the EA: September 2006.
    End of public comment period on EA: October 2006.
    Final decision on license: December 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3863 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From:	"Frey, Nathan J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To:	Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Date:	06/14/2012 08:42 PM
Subject:	Re: Apparently we're ready for a final clean version

Through the OP chain is great. Thanks for your patience throughout. It was great working with you!

----- Original Message -----
From: Lydia Wegman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 08:36 PM
To: Frey, Nathan J.
Subject: Re: Apparently we're ready for a final clean version

I think a clean version is coming to you through our usual OP chain.  Do you want me to send you a clean versionb independent of that process?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frey, Nathan J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: 06/15/2012 12:32 AM GMT
To: Lydia Wegman
Subject: Apparently we're ready for a final clean version

Please confirm with Gina/Janet re: latest conversations. Please send the final clean version to me when available. Thanks!