[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63238-63239]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22009]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32254; 812-13889]

Advisors Series Trust and Orinda Asset Management, LLC; Notice of
Intention To Rescind an Order

September 8, 2016.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of the Commission's intention to rescind an order
pursuant to section 38(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940
(``Act'').

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

SUMMARY: At the request of Advisors Series Trust (``AST'') and Orinda
Asset Management, LLC (``Orinda,'' and together, the ``Applicants''),
the Commission intends to rescind an order previously issued to
Applicants under section 6(c) of the Act that granted an exemption from
section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from
certain disclosure requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Advisors Series Trust and Orinda Asset Management, LLC,
Investment Company Act Release Nos. 30043 (April 23, 2012) (notice)
and 30065 (May 21, 2012) (order) (``Prior Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order rescinding the Prior
Order will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on October 3, 2016 and should be accompanied by proof of service
on the Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, Advisors Series
Trust, 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, WI

53202 and Orinda Asset Management, LLC, 4 Orinda Way, Suite 100B,
Orinda, CA 94563.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6876, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

Background

    1. The Prior Order granted the Applicants relief from section 15(a)
of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements, to permit certain series of AST to enter into
and materially amend subadvisory agreements without shareholder
approval. Applicants have requested that the Prior Order be rescinded
because they are not presently relying on the Prior Order and will not
do so in the future.
    2. Section 38(a) of the Act states, in relevant part, that the
Commission shall have authority to rescind an order as is necessary or
appropriate to the exercise of the powers conferred upon the Commission
elsewhere in the Act. The Commission intends to rescind the Prior Order
pursuant to section 38(a) of the Act.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22009 Filed 9-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57645-57646]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0629]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Temporary Change of
Dates for Recurring Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard District,
Wrightsville Channel; Wrightsville Beach, NC; Correction

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register published on September 8, 2011, the
Coast Guard published a Temporary Final Rule changing the date of the
special local regulation for this year's Wilmington YMCA Triathlon. In
that Temporary Final Rule, the line number for the temporary line in
the Table to Sec.  100.501 was wrong. This Correction fixes that error.
The date and all other details in the Final Rule were correct.

DATES: This correction is effective September 16, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this correction,
contact Kevin d'Eustachio, Office of Regulations and Administrative
Law, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information about the original regulation, contact BOSN3 Joseph M.
Edge, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2011-22919 appearing on page
55561 in the Federal Register of Thursday, September 8, 2011, the
following correction is made:

Sec.  100.501  Special Local Regulations; Marine Events in the Fifth
Coast Guard District.

0
1. On page 55563, in the third column, in the third amendatory
instruction, remove the words ``line No. 63'' and replace with ``line
No. 59''.

    Dated: September 12, 2011.
Erin Ledford,
Acting Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law (CG-0943),
U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2011-23743 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 61657]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2012-0054]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated June 15, 2012, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a
waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad
safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 242.403-(b), (c)(1)-(3), (d),
(e)(1)-(4), (e)(6)-(11), (e)(13) and f(1)-(2). FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2012-0054.
    The Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS) pilot project
for Amtrak was initially approved by FRA on May 11, 2010. In Docket
Number FRA-2010-27678, Amtrak requested and was granted a waiver of
certain provisions of 49 CFR Part 240, which governs the certification
of locomotive engineers, to support the pilot project. On May 11, 2010,
FRA granted the waiver for a period of 5 years. The railroad now
requests a similar waiver from the conductor certification regulations
for purposes of participating in the C3RS pilot project. Amtrak, the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and the United
Transportation Union desire to shield the reporting employee and the
railroad from punitive sanctions that would otherwise arise, as
provided in selected sections of 49 CFR Part 242, to encourage
conductor reporting of close calls and protect conductors and Amtrak
from discipline or sanctions arising from the incidents reported
pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding for the C3RS, dated May 11,
2010.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays. If you do not have access to the Internet, please
contact FRA's Docket Clerk at<PHONE_NUMBER>, who will provide
necessary information concerning the contents of the petition.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate Docket Number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received within November 26, 2012 of the date of
this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken.
Comments received after that date will be considered as far as
practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78,) or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 2, 2012.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-24920 Filed 10-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


The form shall be used for registration as municipal advisors by
natural persons, and for amendments to registrations, pursuant to
Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-4).

Sec.  249.1320  Form MA-W, for withdrawal from registration as a
municipal advisor.

    The form shall be used for filing a notice of withdrawal from
registration as a municipal advisor pursuant to Section 15B of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-4).

Sec.  249.1330  Form MA-NR, for appointment of agent for service of
process by non-resident municipal advisor, and non-resident general
partner and non-resident managing agent of a municipal advisor.

    The form shall be used for appointment of agent for service of
process by a non-resident general partner and non-resident managing
agent of a municipal advisor pursuant to Section 15B of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-4).

    By the Commission.

    Dated: December 20, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
    Note: The following Forms will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations:
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA11.083

[FR Doc. 2010-32445 Filed 1-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-C


[Federal Register: August 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 168)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53268]
[DOCID:fr31au10-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 239 and 258

[EPA-R01-RCRA-2010-0676; FRL-9193-2]

Adequacy of New Hampshire Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA Region 1 proposes to approve New Hampshire's modification
of its approved Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Program. On March 22,
2004, EPA issued final regulations allowing research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) permits to be issued to certain municipal solid
waste landfills by approved states. On June 28, 2010 New Hampshire
submitted an application to EPA Region 1 seeking Federal approval of
its RD&D requirements.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing on
or before November 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
RCRA-2010-0676, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, to the attention of Juiyu Hsieh
     Mail: Send written comments to Juiyu Hsieh, RCRA Waste
Management Section, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration (OSRR
07-1), EPA New England--Region I, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100,
Boston, MA 02109-3912
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Juiyu
Hsieh, RCRA Waste Management Section, Office of Site Restoration and
Remediation (OSRR 07-1), EPA New England--Region I, 5 Post Office
Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Office's normal hours of operation.
    For detailed instructions on how to submit comments, please see the
direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juiyu Hsieh at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving New Hampshire's Research Development and
Demonstration (RD&D) permit program through a direct final rule without
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial
action and anticipates no adverse comments to this action. Unless we
get written adverse comments which oppose this approval during the
comment period, the direct final rule will become effective on the date
it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal.
If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. For additional information, see the direct
rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 16, 2010.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2010-21119 Filed 8-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26598-26601]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0400; Product Identifier 2019-NM-022-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus SAS Model A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-
212, A321-213, A321-231 and A321-232 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a quality control review, which determined that the wrong
aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts. This
proposed AD would require a one-time eddy current conductivity
measurement of certain structural parts of the outer flaps to determine
if the incorrect alloy was used, and replacement if necessary, as
specified in an European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will
be incorporated by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 22,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on

the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0400; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0400;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-022-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The agency
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this NPRM based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact the agency receives about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0012, dated January 24, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0012'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus SAS Model A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-
211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231 and A321-232 airplanes. The MCAI
states:

    Following a quality control review on the Airbus final assembly
line, it was discovered that wrong aluminum alloy was delivered by a
supplier for several structural parts. The results of the
investigations highlighted that part of the stock could be impacted
by this wrong material. Prompted by this finding, EASA published AD
2015-0218 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-05-02 (82 FR 12407,
March 3, 2017)], requiring an [special detailed inspection] SDI of
certain cabin, cargo compartment and airframe parts. Subsequent
investigation results established that outer flaps structure are
also affected. Structural investigations demonstrated the capability
to sustain the static limits loads, and sufficient fatigue life up
to a certain inspection threshold.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the outer flap, possibly resulting in
reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the
inspection [service bulletin] SB to provide inspection instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time SDI of suspected parts for material identification and,
depending on findings, replacement with serviceable parts.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0012 describes procedures for a one-time eddy current
conductivity measurement of certain structural parts on the outer flaps
to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, and replacement
of any affected part with a serviceable part. This material is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2019-0012, as incorporated by reference, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
This proposed AD also would require sending the inspection results to
Airbus SAS.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to
use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for
compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. As a result,
the FAA expects that EASA AD 2019-0012 will be incorporated by
reference in the FAA's final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore,
require compliance with the provisions specified in EASA AD 2019-0012,
except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory
text of this proposed AD. Service information specified in EASA AD
2019-0012 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-0012 will
be available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0400 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 29 airplanes
of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                     Estimated Costs for Required Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510...........................              $0             $510          $14,790
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table does not include estimated costs for reporting.

    The FAA estimates that it would take about one work-hour per
product to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this
proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these
figures, the FAA estimates the

cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be
$2,465, or $85 per product.
    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified
in this proposed AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the agency has included
all known costs in the cost estimate.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information proposed by this NPRM is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this NPRM has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this NPRM would be mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have
federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD
would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2019-0400; Product Identifier 2019-NM-
022-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by July 22, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A321-111, A321-112,
A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231 and A321-232
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a quality control review, which
determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture
several structural parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
structural parts made of incorrect aluminum alloy, which could
result in reduced structural integrity of the outer flaps and
reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-
0012, dated January 24, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0012'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0012

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019-0012 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0012 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2019-0012 mandates a parts
installation limitation, this AD requires the following parts
installation limitation: From the effective date of this AD, only
serviceable parts as defined in EASA AD 2019-0012 are allowed to be
installed on any airplane.
    (4) Where any service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-
0012 specifies reporting, this AD requires reporting all inspection
results at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or
(h)(4)(ii) of this AD. If operators have reported findings as part
of obtaining any corrective actions approved by Airbus SAS's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA), operators are not required to
report those findings as specified in this paragraph.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA,

has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0012 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraphs (h)(4) and (i)(2) of this
AD, RC procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.
    (4) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement: A federal agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately one
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0012, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this EASA AD at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. EASA AD 2019-0012 may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0400.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 29, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-11832 Filed 6-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 67973]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26729]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87676; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2019-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc; Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule Assessed
on Members To Establish a Monthly Trading Rights Fee

December 6, 2019.
    On August 1, 2019, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the EDGA Fee Schedule to establish a
monthly Trading Rights Fee to be assessed on Members. The proposed rule
change was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 20,
2019.\4\ The Commission received one comment letter on the proposed
rule change, and one response letter from the Exchange.\5\ On September
27, 2019, the Commission temporarily suspended the proposed rule change
and instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ On November 21, 2019, the
Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-CboeEDGA-2019-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86684 (August 14,
2019), 84 FR 43242.
    \5\ See Letters from: Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, dated September 12, 2019; Adrian
Griffiths, Assistant General Counsel, Cboe, dated September 25,
2019. Comment letters are available on the Commission's website at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebyx-2019-013/srcboebyx2019013.htm.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87143, 84 FR 52922
(October 3, 2019).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26729 Filed 12-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30019]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12499]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0192; FRL- 9927-95-Region-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio: Cleveland and Delta; Determination of Attainment for the 2008
Lead Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On February 20, 2015, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA) submitted a request to the Environmental Protections Agency
(EPA) to make a determination under the Clean Air Act that the
Cleveland and Delta nonattainment areas have attained the 2008 lead
(Pb) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). In this action,
EPA is proposing to determine that the Cleveland and Delta
nonattainment areas (areas) have attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS. These
determinations of attainment are based upon complete, quality-assured
and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2012-2014 design
period showing that the areas have monitored attainment of the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. Additionally, as a result of this proposed determination, EPA is
proposing to suspend the requirements for the areas to submit
attainment demonstrations, together with reasonably available control
measures, a reasonable further progress (RFP) plans, and contingency
measures for failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines for as long
as the areas continue to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0192, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is making an attainment determination as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the action is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: May 13, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-12499 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	October 17, 2014

SUBJECT:	Revised Technology Review for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations Tanks

FROM:	Lesley Stobert, EC/R Inc.

TO:		Paula Hirtz, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

The EPA proposed amendments to off-site waste and recovery operations (OSWRO) national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) on July 2, 2014, based on residual risk and technology reviews conducted for the source category. The purpose of this memorandum is to present a revised analysis related to the technology review for tanks at OSWRO facilities, considering comments submitted during the public comment period for the proposed OSWRO NESHAP amendments.

1.0	INTRODUCTION

On July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37850), the EPA proposed amendments to the OSWRO source category following the results of a review required by section 112(d)(6) of the CAA, which directs the EPA to review previously issued NESHAP regulations and to revise them as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes and control technologies) no less frequently than every 8 years. Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to assess, within 8 years of promulgation of the original NESHAP for major sources and area sources subject to MACT, the remaining risks due to emissions of HAP from these source categories and determine whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. These reviews are collectively referred to as residual risk and technology reviews (RTRs).

For the July 2014 proposal, a technology review for tanks at OSWRO facilities was conducted.  Under CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA proposed to require more stringent emissions controls for tanks of certain capacities storing materials above a specified vapor pressure. Following the July 2014 proposal, the EPA received comments from one industry trade association challenging some of the data and assumptions used in the analysis of emissions reduction and costs associated with the emissions controls for these tanks. We have considered these comments and revised certain aspects of our technology review analysis for OSWRO tanks.

2.0	TANKS RE-ANALYSIS

2.1 	Tanks at OSWRO Facilities

Tanks are used for many different applications at OSWRO facilities to accumulate, store or treat off-site materials. The amount of HAP emissions from tanks depends on the type of material in the tank, the type of tank (e.g., fixed roof tanks, internal floating roof tanks, external floating roof tanks), the methods used to fill and empty the tank, and the number of turnovers per year.

Emissions of HAP from fixed roof tanks and floating roof tanks are the result of working and breathing losses. Working losses occur when vapors are displaced by a rising level of liquid in the tank. Breathing losses occur as a result of liquid level changes due to fluctuations in ambient temperature or pressure. The quantity of emissions from tanks depends greatly on the volatility of the organic material in the tanks and whether the tanks are vented to the atmosphere, equipped with a pressure-vacuum relief valve, vented to an air emission control device, or fitted with a floating roof.

2.2 	Summary of Existing MACT Level of Control

The current OSWRO MACT standards for tanks require either Level 1 or Level 2 controls, depending on the tank capacity and the vapor pressure of the materials in the tank. Tanks subject to Level 1 control requirements are required to be equipped with a fixed roof designed to form a continuous barrier over the entire surface area of the liquid in the tank, with no visible cracks, holes, gaps, etc., between roof section joints or where the roof and tank wall meet. Openings in the roof must be equipped with a closure device or connected to a closed vent system and routed to a control device. The fixed roof and its closure devices are subject to routine visual inspection and repair requirements.

For tanks subject to Level 2 control requirements, one of the following five control alternatives must be used: (1) equip the fixed roof tank with an internal floating roof; (2) equip the fixed roof tank with an external floating roof; (3) equip the tank with a vapor-tight cover and vent to a control device that has a HAP removal or destruction efficiency of 95 percent; (4) use a pressure tank; and (5) locate the tank inside a permanent total enclosure (PTE) that is vented to a combustion control device that has a HAP destruction efficiency of 95 percent.

Tanks used to manage a waste stabilization process are subject to Level 2 requirements.  Other tanks are subject to Level 1 or Level 2 controls as shown below in Table 1.

     Table 1. Tank Control Levels for Tanks at Existing and New Facilities
Current OSWRO MACT Requirements
                            Applicability Threshold
                                 Control Level

                                     Size
                                    (m[3])
                             Vapor Pressure (kPa)

Existing Sources
                                 Less than 75
                                   < 76.6
                                       1

                                   >= 76.6
                                      2*

                           75 <= capacity < 151
                                   < 27.6
                                       1

                                   >= 27.6
                                       2

                               151 <= capacity
                                   < 5.2
                                       1

                                    >= 5.2
                                       2
New Sources
                                 Less than 38
                                   < 76.6
                                       1

                                   >= 76.6
                                      2*

                           38 <= capacity < 151
                                   < 13.1
                                       1

                                   >= 13.1
                                       2

                               151 <= capacity
                                   < 0.7
                                       1

                                    >= 0.7
                                       2
* Except that fixed roof tanks equipped with an internal floating roof and tanks equipped with an external floating roof shall not be used

2.3	Proposed Standard for Tanks

At proposal, we identified two potential developments in existing practices and control techniques not currently required by the OSWRO MACT standards for tanks at existing sources.
One option we evaluated (Option 1) was to revise the applicability of the OSWRO requirements to use the same thresholds for Level 2 control as the thresholds for control required by other MACT standards, specifically the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). Based on information received from the industry as part of a CAA section 114 survey, which showed that the industry primarily uses fixed roof tanks vented to control devices, under Option 2 we also considered the impacts of requiring a 98 percent emissions reduction for tanks required to use Level 2 control, rather than the currently required 95 percent emissions reduction, along with the revised capacity and vapor pressure thresholds of Option 1. Based on the estimated control costs and emissions reductions, revisions to the standards for tanks at existing sources to require Option 1 were proposed. Table 2 presents a summary of the tank size and vapor pressure thresholds considered for existing sources under both options.

Table 2. Storage Tank Size Applicability Threshold Alternatives for Existing Sources
Regulatory Options
                            Applicability Threshold
                                 Control Level
                             Option 1 Requirements
                             Option 2 Requirements

                                    If Size
                                   (m[3]) is
                          And Vapor Pressure (kPa) is

Options 1 and 2
                                 Less than 75
                                   < 76.5
                                       1
                                  Fixed roof

                                   >= 76.5
                                     2[a]
                                95% control[b]
                                98% control[b]

                           75 <= capacity < 151
                                   < 13.1
                                       1
                                  Fixed roof

                                   >= 13.1
                                       2
                                95% control[b]
                                98% control[b]

                               151 <= capacity
                                   < 5.2
                                       1
                                  Fixed roof

                                    >= 5.2
                                       2
                                95% control[b]
                                98% control[b]
[a] Except that fixed roof tanks equipped with an internal floating roof and tanks equipped with an external floating roof shall not be used
[b] Control efficiency would apply to tanks vented to a control device and tanks inside a permanent total enclosure (PTE) that are vented to a combustion control device; use of an internal or external floating roof or a pressure tank would still be available control options.

2.4 	Revised Estimation of Tank Emissions

Based on comments regarding the proposed revised tank standards from the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC), an industry trade association, we have revised our analysis of tank emissions for tanks with capacities greater than or equal to 75 m[3], but less than 151 m[3], if the vapor pressure of the stored material is 13 kPa or greater. While we have not revised our estimate of the number of tanks in this size and vapor pressure range that would require controls under Option 1, we have revised some of the parameters used to estimate emissions potential from these tanks using the EPA's TANKS 4.09d program.

To estimate the number of tanks existing in the OSWRO source category with a capacity range of 75 m[3] to 151 m[3] and with a vapor pressure of stored material between 13.1 kPa and 27.6 kPa (i.e., those tanks with a stored material vapor pressure of 2.76 kPa are already regulated under the current NESHAP), OSWRO CAA section 114 survey data was used and then scaled up to nationwide values based on the number of known OSWRO facilities. Table 3 shows the estimated number of tanks in this size and vapor pressure range and how this estimate was calculated. Although CKRC commented that they believe there are more tanks in this size and vapor pressure range than the estimate used at proposal, we received no data to support this assertion, and many of the CKRC member companies submitted data through the CAA section 114 survey, which was used in developing this estimate of tanks in this size and vapor pressure range in the source category.

  Table 3. Estimated OSWRO Tank Population Based on CAA 114 Survey Responses
                           Tank Size/Vapor Pressure
            Estimated Number of Tanks in the OSWRO Source Category
Estimated Number of Tanks in the OSWRO Source Category that Would Require Level 2 Controls
                                  Explanation
                   75 - 151 m[3] and 13.1 <= kPa < 27.6
                                   21 tanks
                                   14 tanks
One of 15 facilities responding to the survey has tanks with this size and vapor pressure. Total number of tanks for this facility is 7. Scaling up to 49 facilities in the source category, 1/15 x 49 = 3 facilities have 7 tanks or 21 total tanks.

The one facility reporting tanks of this size and vapor pressure already uses Level 2 emissions controls for these tanks. It is assumed that the tanks of this size and vapor pressure at other facilities are not already controlled with Level 2 controls.

We estimated the emission potential from a model tank in the capacity range of 75 m[3] to 151 m[3] and vapor pressure between 13.1 kPa and 27.6 kPa using the EPA's TANKS 4.09d program, which is a software tool that calculates HAP emissions from fixed and floating roof tanks. The parameters shown in Table 4 were used as inputs to the TANKS program and were based on information reported in the OSWRO CAA section 114 survey responses and on comments from CKRC. The specific changes incorporated since proposal include:

   * Tank conservation vent pressure setting of 0.5 psi rather than 0.03 psi to reflect probable vent settings currently in place under control Level 1;
   * Tank location of Concordia, KS, rather than Houston, TX. Concordia, KS is the closest city to the geographic center of the continental U.S. included in the TANKS program and is more representative of national average temperatures;
   * Revised mix of tank constituents to include non-HAP contents, with an overall HAP content revised to 60 percent from 100 percent to more accurately reflect typical OSWRO tank contents.

We note that although CKRC commented that they believe the estimated throughput is too high, we have not changed our estimate. The commenter did not provide detailed information to support the use of a different value. Our estimate of 4,996,918 gal/yr was developed from data reported in the supporting documentation for the proposed storage tank uniform standards, and data from the one facility reporting tanks in this size and vapor pressure range is similar to this estimate.

The revised estimated emission potential for tanks with capacities greater than or equal to 75 m[3], but less than 151 m[3], if the vapor pressure of the stored material is between 13.1  kPa and 27.6 kPa is shown in Table 4. See the Appendix to this document for more information on the inputs used and outputs obtained from the TANKS 4.09d program.

              Table 4. Estimation of Tank HAP Emission Potential
                         Size and Vapor Pressure Range
                            Capacity[1] (gal/m[3])
                                Height[1] (Ft)
                               Diameter[1] (ft)
                              Throughput[2] (gal)
                     Tank Contents Vapor Pressure[3] (kPa)
                                  Location[4]
                               Tank Contents[5]
                  Speciated and Total Emission Potential[6]
                                    (lb/yr)
                                     Tank
                >=75 to < 151 m[3] and 13.1<kPa<27.6
                                  25,000 gal
                                  (94.6 m[3])
                                     28.4
                                     12.3
                                   4,996,918
                                     14.86
                                 Concordia, KS
10% methanol*
                                      361

20% methylene chloride*
                                     2,863

10% tetrachloroethylene*
                                      52

10% toluene*
                                      83

10% trichloroethane (1,1,1)*
                                      417

20% acetone
                                     1,482

6.66% cyclohexene
                                      204

6.67% isopropyl alcohol
                                      79

6.67% methyl ethyl ketone
                                      182

                                                                Total Emissions
                                     5,722

                                                            Total HAP Emissions
                                     3,776
[1] Capacity, height and diameter based on average of CAA section 114 survey response data for tanks meeting these thresholds.
[2] Due to insufficient OSWRO survey response data (data not reported or units not reported), throughput estimated via linear interpolation from data reported in the supporting documentation for the proposed storage tank uniform standards (Memorandum from Randall, D., RTI International, to Parsons, N., EPA/OAQPS. Survey of Control Technology for Storage Vessels and Analysis of Impacts for Storage Vessel Control Options. January 20, 2012. EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871-0027). This value is similar to the value obtained from the average of the 7 tanks at the one facility reporting tanks in this size and vapor pressure range, which reported an average of 19.161 tons of annual throughput. Based on the tank emissions reported by this facility, the average weight per gallon of stored material is 8 lbs/gal, resulting in an average throughput of 4,790,143 gal.
[3] Vapor pressure was determined with TANKS4.0.9d based on the tank contents.
[4] Location assumed as Concordia, KS, the closest city to the geographic center of the continental U.S. to be representative of a national average.
[5] Chemicals included are based on comments from CKRC. The relative amount of each chemical varied to give more weight to chemicals with higher vapor pressures to make the overall vapor pressure of the tank be above the 13.1 kPa threshold for regulation. * Denotes chemicals that are HAP.
[6] Uncontrolled emissions from TANKS 4.0.9d.
To determine the nationwide emissions reduction that would be achieved under Option 1, we first determined the nationwide HAP emissions from the additional tanks that would require Level 2 control under Option 1. This was calculated using the estimated tank population shown in Table 3, the Level 1 HAP emissions per tank for this size and vapor pressure type shown in Table 4, and the estimated number of uncontrolled tanks within the estimated tank population shown in Table 3. This calculation is shown below:
Baseline HAP EmissionsTanks: 75-151 m3 and 13.1-27.6 kPa=14 tanksx3,776lbyr2,000lbton=26.4 tpy

The Option 1 emissions reduction requirement is 95 percent. Application of a 95 percent emissions reduction to the uncontrolled emissions calculated above results in a reduction of 26.4 tons per year (tpy).

2.5 	Revised Estimate of Option 1 Costs

Based on comments from CKRC, we have revised our analysis of tank control costs under Option 1. As described above, Option 1 considers lowering the vapor pressure threshold to apply to more storage tanks, which requires additional storage tanks to control emissions with Level 2 controls. To estimate the costs for requiring these additional storage tanks to use Level 2 controls, it was assumed that the emissions from these tanks would be routed to an existing control device at the facility already used to control emissions from other tanks. We previously assumed that the only additional costs associated with Option 1 would be for ductwork for the estimated 21 additional tanks that would be captured under the new vapor pressure threshold.

We have made several revisions to our prior cost estimate. First we have revised the analysis to include costs for only the assumed 14 tanks without Level 2 emissions controls. CKRC commented that the EPA should have included a flame arrestor for each tank to prevent back-flash to the tanks. We have revised the estimated costs to include costs for flame arrestors. However, since one flame arrestor typically is installed in the piping system that serves several tanks, we have assumed that two arrestors per facility (i.e., two arrestors to serve the 7 tanks at each facility) would be installed. In addition, we have added costs associated with adding a carbon adsorption system. While some air pollution control devices may have sufficient capacity to control additional tanks, it is possible that the facilities with these tanks may not have excess capacity to control emissions from these tanks. In this case, depending on the control device(s) already in place, an additional carbon adsorption unit may be needed or could be used for these tanks rather than other control devices already at the facility. Based on the relatively low flow rate expected for these tanks and the costs of the different types of carbon adsorption systems, we assumed carbon canisters would be used for these tanks. We did not add, as the commenter suggested, costs for a nitrogen blanketing system, as these systems are not required and could already be in place on these tanks.

Based on information contained in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, the revised nationwide capital costs associated with the Tank Option 1, including ductwork, flame arrestors, and carbon adsorption canisters, were estimated to be $139,000 with nationwide annual costs of $192,000. See the Appendix to this document for more information about how these costs were determined. The revised annual HAP emissions reduction estimate for Option 1 is 26.4 tpy, and the revised estimate of the annual cost per ton of HAP removed is $7,000. These cost estimates are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Revised Nationwide Costs and Emission Reductions of Regulatory Option 1 Tanks
                            Regulatory Alternative
                         HAP Emissions Reduction (tpy)
                               Capital Cost ($)
                             Annual Costs
($/yr)
                        Cost Effectiveness ($/ton HAP)
                  Incremental Cost Effectiveness ($/ton HAP)
Option 1:  (HON TS/VP thresholds, 95%  control)[1]
                                     26.4
                                   $139,497
                                   $191,886
                                    $7,268
                                     -----
      [1] The costs associated with this option are for ductwork, flame arrestors and a carbon adsorption system (canisters).

                                   Appendix

TOTAL ANNUAL COST SPREADSHEET PROGRAM--STRAIGHT DUCTWORK [1]

COST BASE DATE:  CEPCI 1993 [2]

                                                                          359.2

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2013 [3]

                                                                          567.3

INPUT PARAMETERS

   Inlet stream flowrate (acfm):[4]

                                                                            729

   Duct velocity (ft/min): [5]

                                                                           3840

   Duct length (ft): [6]

                                                                            150

   Material of construction: [7]

304 SS Sheet

   Insulation thickness (in.): (text input) [8]

                                                                              0

   Duct design: [9]

Circ.-spiral

   Cost equation parameters: [10]

          a:
                                                                           1.56

          b:
                                                                              1

   Cost equation form: [11]

                                                                              1

   Control system installation factor: [12]

                                                                            1.5

   (if no system, enter '0')
   Fan-motor combined efficiency (fraction):

                                                                            0.6

DESIGN PARAMETERS

   Duct diameter (in.):

                                                                     5.89777904

   Pressure drop (in. w.c.): [13]

                                                                    5.314321378

CAPITAL COSTS

Equipment Cost ($)--base:

                                                                         $1,380

    '      '    ' --escalated:

                                                                         $2,180

Purchased Equipment Cost ($):

                                                                         $2,354

Total Capital Investment ($): [14]

                                                                         $3,531

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

ANNUAL COST INPUTS

   Operating factor (hours/year):

                                                                           8760

   Electricity price ($/kWhr): [15]

                                                                          0.067

   Annual interest rate (fractional):

                                                                           0.07

   Ductwork economic life (years):

                                                                             15

   Capital recovery factor (system):

                                                                    0.109794625

   Taxes, insurance, admin. factor:

                                                                           0.04

ANNUAL COSTS

 Cost ($/yr)
   Wt.Fact.

Electricity

                                                                           $445
                                                                    0.457075677

Taxes, insurance, administrative

                                                                           $141
                                                                    0.144978319

Capital recovery

                                                                           $388
                                                                    0.397946003

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Cost

                                                                           $974
                                                                              1

Notes:

[1] Data used to develop this program were taken from 'OAQPS Control Cost Manual', 5th edition, Chapter 10.  Prices are for CIRCULAR straight ductwork, only.
[2] Base ductwork costs reflect this date.
[3] PPI = Producer Price Index PCU 3444#1 ('Air-conditioning ducts and stove pipe') for year and quarter shown.  Ductwork equipment cost has been escalated to this date via this PPI.
[4] Median flow rate of tanks controlled by thermal oxidizers in OSWRO CAA section 114 survey
[5] See 'Manual,' pp. 10-30 to 10-33.
[6] Duct length is a site-specific parameter that can vary from < 10 to > 1000 ft.
[7] Choices available are: carbon steel sheet (galv. CS sh.), stainless steel sheet (304 SS sh.), coated carbon steel plate (coat. CS pl.), 304 stainless steel plate (304 SS pl.), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP)
[8] Choices are: 0, 1, and 3.
[9] Choices are: circular spiral (circ.-spiral) and circular longitudinal (circ.-long.)
[10] Equation type and parameters depend on duct material of construction.  Parameters reflect 2nd quarter 1993 costs.  See 'Manual,' pp. 10-44 to 10-49.
[11] Choices are: power function (1) and exponential (2).
[12] Installation factor depends on control device ductwork is supporting.  This factor, when multiplied by Purchased Equipment Cost, yields Total Capital Investment (TCI).  If ductwork is installed alone, factor is 1.25 to 1.50.  (Default = 1.50.)  See 'Manual'.
[13] Pressure drop applies ONLY to circular, spiral-wound galvanized duct with 10 joints per 100 feet.  For pressure drop data for other duct types, see 'Manual,' Chapter 10.
[14] Product of installation factor and Purchased Equipment Cost.  Costs are presented both in terms of 2nd quarter '93 and above escalation date.  Latter costs are based on Producer Price Index PCU 3444#1 ('Air-conditioning ducts and stove pipe')
[15] 2012 Table 5.3. Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers: Industrial http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_3

TOTAL ANNUAL COST --DETONATION ARRESTOR

CAPITAL COSTS

Equipment Cost ($):[1]

                                                                        $10,000

Sales Tax and Freight  (fractional):

                                                                           0.08

Purchased equipment cost:

                                                                     $10,800.00

Direct and indirect installation costs (fractional):[2]
                                                                            0.5

Direct installation costs ($):

                                                                      $5,000.00

Total Capital Investment ($): [14]

                                                                        $15,800

====================================================================
ANNUAL COST INPUTS

   Operating factor (hours/year):

                                                                           8760

   Annual interest rate (fractional):

                                                                           0.07

   Economic life (years):

                                                                             15

   Capital recovery factor (system):

                                                                    0.109794625

   Taxes, insurance, admin. factor:

                                                                           0.04

   Maintenance labor rate ($/hr):[3]

                                                                         54.117

   Maintenance labor factor (hr/year):

                                                                              4

ANNUAL COSTS

 Cost ($/yr)
   Wt.Fact.
Taxes, insurance, administrative

                                                                           $632
                                                                    0.244655604
Capital recovery

                                                                         $1,735
                                                                    0.671546755
Maintenance labor

                                                                           $216

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Cost

                                                                         $2,583
                                                                    0.916202359

Notes:

[1] Based on equipment price stated by commenter CKRC, docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360-0066
[2] Based on 'OAQPS Control Cost Manual', 5th edition, Section 2, Chapter 1, page 1-50 for equipment that would have similar installation costs (hoods and ducts)
[3] May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates NAICS 325000 - Mean of Installation, Maintenance and Repair Occupations http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_325000.htm plus 110% overhead

Carbon Working Capacity Calculation

INPUT PARAMETERS:

   Inlet stream flowrate (acfm):[1]

                                                                           8.90

   Inlet stream temperature ([o]F):[2]

                                                                             78

   Inlet stream pressure (atm):[3]

                                                                              1

   Inlet VOC flowrate (lb/hr):[4]

                                                                          4.573

   VOC molecular weight (lb/lb-mole):[4]
                                                                          70.57

   VOC inlet volume fraction:

                                                                   4.767688E-02

   VOC inlet partial pressure (psia):

                                                                         0.7007

   Freundlich isotherm equation constants for VOC (see Table 1 below):

     VOC number (enter Table 1 # or zero, if no data):

      K:[5]
                                                                          3.223

      M:[5]
                                                                          0.414

DESIGN PARAMETERS:

   Carbon equilibrium capacity--Freundlich (lb VOC/lb carb):
                                                                         2.7819

   Carbon working capacity (lb VOC/lb carbon):
                                                                         1.3909

[1] Flow rate calculated using 219.6 turnovers/yr and 22754.81 gal for working loss and breathing loss emission rate (0.0266 lb/hr) and vapor density (0.0274 lb/ft3) for 7 tanks
[2] Assumed ambient temperature

[3] Assumed ambient pressure

[4] Based on model tank emissions

[5] The K and M constants were calculated using a mole fraction weighting of the emission components (see "Heat content - mid tanks").

Table 1.    Freundlich Constants for Selected Compounds.

These constants fit the following equation: Q  =  K(P)^M  where:  Q = equilibrium adsorption capacity (lb/lb carbon),  P  = VOC partial pressure (psia at 1 atm & listed temperature)

                           Correlation Range (psia)
 VOC  name
   VOC number
                                       K
                                       M
Temperature (F)
                                    Minimum
                                    Maximum
Benzene
                                     1001
                                     0.597
                                     0.176
                                      77
                                    0.0001
                                     0.05
Chlorobenzene
                                     1002
                                     1.05
                                     0.188
                                      77
                                    0.0001
                                     0.01
Cyclohexane
                                     1003
                                     0.508
                                     0.210
                                      100
                                    0.0001
                                     0.05
Dichloroethane
                                     1004
                                     0.976
                                     0.281
                                      77
                                    0.0001
                                     0.04
Phenol
                                     1005
                                     0.855
                                     0.153
                                      104
                                    0.0001
                                     0.03
Trichloroethane
                                     1006
                                     1.06
                                     0.161
                                      77
                                    0.0001
                                     0.04
Vinyl chloride
                                     1007
                                     0.200
                                     0.477
                                      100
                                    0.0001
                                     0.05
m-Xylene (low-pressure range)
                                     1008
                                     0.708
                                     0.113
                                      77
                                    0.0001
                                     0.001
m-Xylene (high-pressure range)
                                     1009
                                     0.527
                                    0.0703
                                      77
                                     0.001
                                     0.05
Acrylonitrile
                                     1010
                                     0.935
                                     0.424
                                      100
                                    0.0001
                                     0.015
Acetone
                                     1011
                                     0.412
                                     0.389
                                      100
                                    0.0001
                                     0.05
Toluene
                                     1012
                                     0.551
                                     0.110
                                      77
                                    0.0001
                                     0.05
Note: This program has been based on data and procedures in Chapter 4 of the OAQPS CONTROL COST MANUAL (5th edition).

Carbon Adsorption Canister System (1,000 lb Canister System)

COST BASE DATE:  CEPCI 1999

                                                                          390.6

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2013

                                                                          567.3

Capital Costs

-- Carbon canister equipment cost (1,000 lb carbon): ($1999)[a]

                                                                         $5,600

-- Carbon canister installation cost (1,000 lb carbon): ($1999)[a]

                                                                         $3,200

-- Carbon canister equipment cost (1,000 lb carbon): ($2013)

                                                                         $8,133

-- Carbon canister installation cost (1,000 lb carbon): ($2013)

                                                                         $4,648

Purchased Equipment Cost ($): ($2013)

                                                                         $8,784

Total Capital Investment ($): ($2013)[b]

                                                                        $13,432

-- Carbon canister, total (lb)

                                                                           1000

-- Inlet VOC flowrate (lb/hr)

                                                                          4.573

-- Carbon working capacity (lb VOC/lb carbon)[c]

                                                                         2.0864

-- Days per canister (days/canister)

                                                                          19.01

-- Number of canister exchanges per year

                                                                           19.2

Annual Costs

Cost of carbon replacement ($/lb)($1999)[d]

                                                                           2.00

Cost of carbon replacement ($/lb)($2013)

                                                                           2.90

Annual cost of carbon replacement

                                                                        $81,005

Annual maintenance[e]

                                                                           $940

Capital recovery[f]

                                                                         $1,475

Taxes, insurance, administrative[g]

                                                                           $537

Total Annual Cost (without credits)

                                                                        $83,957

[a]  Cost from Section 1.3.2 of Carbon Adsorbers from the EPA Control Cost Manual
[b]  Includes vessel, instrumentation, sales tax, and freight

[c]  Assumes 75% of the equilibrium capacity

[d]  Average carbon cost from Section 1.3.2 of Carbon Adsorbers from the EPA Control Cost Manual
[e]  Assumes 7% of installed capital cost

[f]  Assumes 15 year equipment life and 7% interest

[g]  Assumes 4% of installed capital cost

Total Tank Control Costs

Total Capital Investment ($): ($2013)

1,000 lb canister system
                                                                        $13,432

ducts
                                                                        $24,717

flame arrestor
                                                                        $31,600

                                                                        $69,749
per facility

                                                                       $139,497
per source category
Total Annual Cost (with credits)

1,000 lb canister system
                                                                        $83,957

ducts
                                                                         $6,819

flame arrestor
                                                                         $5,166

                                                                        $95,943
per facility

                                                                       $191,886
per source category