[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5906-5910]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02081]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94086; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule

January 27, 2022.
    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 January 21, 2022, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American''
or the ``Exchange'') 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 the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') regarding the Floor Broker Fixed Cost
Prepayment Incentive Program. The Exchange proposes to implement the
fee change effective January 21, 2022.\4\ The proposed change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
December 29, 2021 (SR-NYSEAmer-2021-50), with an effective date of
January 3, 2022, then withdrew such filing and amended the Fee
Schedule on January 12, 2022 (SR-NYSEAmer-2022-02), which latter
filing the Exchange withdrew on January 21, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 purpose of this filing is to modify the Floor Broker Fixed Cost
Prepayment Incentive Program (the ``FB Prepay Program''), a prepayment
incentive program that allows Floor Broker organizations (each, a
``Floor Broker'') to prepay certain of their annual Eligible Fixed
Costs in exchange for volume rebates, as set forth in the Fee
Schedule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fee Schedule, Section III.E.1, Floor Broker Fixed Cost
Prepayment Incentive Program (the ``FB Prepay Program''), available
here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf. ``Eligible Fixed Costs''
include monthly ATP Fees, the Floor Access Fee, and certain monthly
Floor communication, connectivity, equipment and booth or podia
fees, as set forth in the table in Section III.E.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the FB Prepay Program offers participating Floor Brokers
an opportunity to qualify for rebates by achieving growth in billable
manual volume by a certain percentage as measured against one of two
benchmarks (the ``Percentage Growth Incentive''). Specifically, the
Percentage Growth Incentive is designed to encourage Floor Brokers to
increase their average daily volume (``ADV'') in billable manual
contract sides to qualify for a Tier; each Tier of the FB Prepay
Program corresponds to an annual rebate equal to the greater of the
``Total Percentage Reduction of pre-paid annual Eligible Fixed Costs''
or the annualization of the monthly ``Alternative Rebate.'' \6\ In
either case, participating Floor Brokers receive their annual rebate
amount in the following January.\7\ Floor Brokers that wish to
participate in the FB Prepay Program for the following calendar year
must notify the Exchange no later than the last business day of
December in the current year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id. The Percentage Growth Incentive excludes Customer
volume, Firm Facilitation trades, and QCCs. Any volume calculated to
achieve the Firm Monthly Fee Cap and the Strategy Execution Fee Cap,
regardless of whether either of these caps is achieved, will
likewise be excluded from the Percentage Growth Incentive because
fees on such volume are already capped and therefore do not increase
billable manual volume. See id.
    \7\ See Fee Schedule, Section III.E.1.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As further described below, the Exchange proposes to modify the
qualifying benchmarks, growth percentage requirements, and rebate
amounts for the FB Prepay Program, and further proposes to offer Floor
Brokers that participate in the FB Prepay Program additional per
contract credits for certain QCC trades. The Exchange also proposes to
adjust the basis for the calculation of a participating Floor Broker's
Eligible Fixed Costs for the following calendar year.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
January 21, 2022.
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to modify the benchmarks that Floor Brokers
that participate in the FB Prepay Program must meet to qualify for the
Percentage Growth Incentive. Currently, to qualify for the Percentage
Growth Incentive, a Floor Broker must increase their ADV for the
calendar year above the greater

of (1) 20,000 contract sides in billable manual ADV, or (2) 105% of the
Floor Broker's total billable manual ADV in contract sides during the
second half of 2017.\9\ The Exchange proposes to modify each of the
minimum thresholds to qualify for the Percentage Growth Incentive.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to (1) modify the first benchmark
to increase the requisite minimum contract sides in billable manual ADV
from 20,000 to 30,000, and (2) modify the second benchmark from 105% of
the Floor Broker's total billable manual ADV in contract sides during
the second half of 2017 (i.e., July through December 2017) to the Floor
Broker's total billable manual ADV in contract sides during the second
half of 2020 (i.e., July through December 2020).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Fee Schedule, Section III.E.1, FLOOR BROKER FIXED COST
PREPAYMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM (the ``FB Prepay Program'').
    \10\ See proposed Fee Schedule, FLOOR BROKER FIXED COST
PREPAYMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM (the ``FB Prepay Program'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that 30,000 ADV is a reasonable minimum
threshold above which a participating Floor Broker would need to
increase volume to earn a rebate under the FB Prepay Program,
particularly in light of the increased options volume executed by Floor
Brokers in the past year. The Exchange notes that Floor Brokers that
are new to the Exchange would also be eligible to qualify for the
Percentage Growth Incentive based on this minimum threshold. For Floor
Brokers that exceed 30,000 ADV in growth, the Exchange believes that it
is reasonable to continue to use each Floor Broker's historical volume
as a benchmark against which to measure growth and also believes that
updating the benchmark to account for the Floor Broker's more recent
activity on the Exchange is reasonable. The Exchange further believes
that, in light of the market volatility in the first half of 2020 and
the unusually high volumes observed in 2021, Floor Broker activity in
the second half of 2020 would be an appropriate benchmark against which
to measure volume for purposes of the FB Prepay Program. All Floor
Brokers that aim to achieve the rebate would still be required to
increase volume executed on the Exchange, and the total annual rebate
available for achieving each Tier would continue to be the same
regardless of whether the Floor Broker qualifies based on growth over
30,000 ADV contract sides or its second half of 2020 volume, as
proposed.
    The Exchange also proposes to modify the growth requirement for
Tier 2 to decrease the requirement from 30% to 20%. The Exchange
further proposes to increase the Alternative Rebate amounts for all
Tiers, as set forth in the table below. Finally, the Exchange proposes
to eliminate Tier 4. The Exchange believes eliminating this Tier is
reasonable in light of the proposed changes described above, including
because Tier 3, as modified, would offer participating Floor Brokers an
Alternative Rebate amount greater than the amount currently offered by
Tier 4. The Exchange believes the proposed modifications would continue
to incentivize Floor Brokers to participate in the FB Prepay Program by
making Tier 2 more achievable and by enhancing the rebate amount
available across all Tiers through the Alternative Rebate.
    The following table reflects the proposed changes (with deletions
in brackets and new text in italics):

                                        FB Prepayment Program Incentives
                          [Based on annual ADV in contract sides for the calendar year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total percentage
                                                        reduction of pre-
               Tier                 Percentage growth      paid annual               Alternative rebate
                                        incentive        eligible fixed
                                                              costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1...........................                   5                  10  [$2,000] $8,000/month.
Tier 2...........................             [30] 20                  50  [$4,000] $16,000/month.
Tier 3...........................                  50                  80  [$8,000] $24,000/month.
[Tier 4..........................                 100                 100  $16,000/month]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, as proposed, a participating Floor Broker would qualify for
the Percentage Growth Incentive by executing ADV growth in manual
billable contract sides that is 5%, 20%, 50%, or 100% over the greater
of (1) 30,000 contract sides ADV, or (2) 100% of their ADV during the
second half of 2020 (i.e., July through December 2020). A Floor Broker
that participates in the FB Prepay Program and achieves a Percentage
Growth Incentive Tier, as modified, will continue to be eligible for an
annual rebate that is the greater of the ``Total Percentage Reduction
of pre-paid annual Eligible Fixed Costs'' or the ``Alternative Rebate''
based on the Tier achieved. A Floor Broker that is new to the Exchange
(or one that did not execute at least 30,000 contract sides in billable
manual ADV in the second half of 2020) would continue to have the
ability to qualify for the Percentage Growth Incentive by executing at
least 30,000 contract sides in manual billable ADV, increased by the
specified percentages during the year. The total rebate available for
achieving each Tier would be the same regardless of whether the Floor
Broker qualifies based on 100% of its second half of 2020 volume or the
minimum 30,000 ADV contract sides benchmark.
    The Exchange also proposes to provide participants in the FB Prepay
Program with the opportunity to qualify for enhanced credits on QCC
transactions. Specifically, Floor Brokers that participate in the FB
Prepay Program and increase their QCC credit eligible contracts in a
month by at least 20% over the greater of their second half of 2021
average monthly QCC credit eligible volume or 1,500,000 contracts will
receive an additional credit of $0.04 per contract on the first 300,000
QCC credit eligible QCC trades and an additional credit of $0.01 per
contract on all QCC credit eligible QCC trades above 300,000, subject
to the monthly maximum credit per Floor Broker firm. The Exchange
believes that the proposed credits would provide an additional
incentive for Floor Brokers to participate in the FB Prepay Program.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify the date it will use for
the calculation of a Floor Broker's Eligible Fixed Costs for the
following calendar year. The FB Prepay Program currently specifies that
a Floor Broker that commits to the program will be invoiced in January
for Eligible Fixed Costs,

based on annualizing their Eligible Fixed Costs incurred in the
previous November.\11\ The Exchange proposes to modify the Fee Schedule
to specify that the annualization of Eligible Fixed Costs would be
based on costs incurred in November 2020. The Exchange believes that
Floor Brokers' costs as of November 2020 would more accurately reflect
Eligible Fixed Costs for the coming calendar year based on anticipated
fixed costs in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Fee Schedule currently provides that the ``Exchange
will not issue any refunds in the event that a Floor Broker
organization's prepaid Eligible Fixed Costs exceeds such actual
annual costs, except that the Exchange will refund certain of the
prepaid Eligible Fixed costs that were waived for Qualifying Firms,
as defined, and set forth in, Sections III.B and IV.'' See Fee
Schedule, Section III.E.1, FLOOR BROKER FIXED COST PREPAYMENT
INCENTIVE PROGRAM (the ``FB Prepay Program''). The Exchange proposes
clarifying changes to (1) delete the word ``such'' from the
description of actual Eligible Fixed Costs, and (2) delete the
reference to the circumstances under which the Exchange would refund
certain prepaid Eligible Fixed Costs, as the Fee Schedule no longer
provides for a waiver to Qualifying Firms in connection with COVID-
19 related considerations. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
92559 (August 4, 2021), 86 FR 43700 (August 10, 2021) (SR-NYSEAmer-
2021-34) (removing language from the Fee Schedule associated with
COVID-19 related fee waivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\15\ Therefore, currently no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options order flow. More specifically, in November 2021, the Exchange
had less than 8% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed
equity and ETF options trades.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \16\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options was 9.09%
for the month of November 2020 and 7.06% for the month of November
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of
an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The Exchange believes the proposed modifications to the FB Prepay
Program are reasonable because participation in the program is
optional, and Floor Brokers can elect to participate and seek to
qualify for the Percentage Growth Incentive as they see fit. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed change is reasonably designed
to encourage Floor Brokers to provide liquidity on the Exchange, to
continue to incent Floor Brokers to participate in the FB Prepay
Program, and to ensure that Floor Brokers that are new to the Exchange
(or Floor Brokers that did not execute more than 30,000 ADV in contract
sides) could also participate in the program, including by continuing
to offer two alternative means to achieve the same rebate at each Tier.
The Exchange believes that 30,000 ADV is a reasonable minimum threshold
above which a participating Floor Broker would need to increase volume
in order to realize the proposed Percentage Growth Incentive (and is on
a similar playing field with Floor Brokers that exceeded this volume
requirement in 2020). For Floor Brokers that exceeded 30,000 ADV in the
second half of 2020, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to use each
Floor Broker's historical volume as a benchmark against which to
measure future growth to achieve the Percentage Growth Incentive and
further believes that activity in the second half of 2020 would provide
an appropriate updated benchmark in light of the market volatility in
the first half of 2020 and the unusually high volumes observed in 2021.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the
Percentage Growth Incentive are reasonable because they are designed to
continue to incent Floor Broker participation in the FB Prepay Program
by making Tier 2 more achievable and by offering increased rebate
amounts and therefore are designed to encourage increased executions by
Floor Brokers on the Exchange, which activity would benefit all market
participants.
    Moreover, the proposed change to offer participants in the FB
Prepay Program credits on QCC transactions is reasonable because it
would provide Floor Brokers with the opportunity to earn additional
credits that they otherwise would not receive, based on their QCC
trading activity. The Exchange believes that such credits would
encourage Floor Brokers to increase both their billable volume and
their QCC transactions executed on the Exchange, which would benefit
all market participants by expanding liquidity and providing more
trading opportunities, including to non-Floor Broker market
participants (as well as participating Floor Brokers who do not reach
the volume thresholds, as proposed).
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change with respect to
the date used for the calculation of Eligible Fixed Costs is reasonable
because it expects Floor Broker organizations' November 2020 costs to
provide a more accurate basis for annualizing Eligible Fixed Costs for
the coming calendar year based on anticipated fixed costs in 2022.
    Finally, to the extent the proposed change continues to attract
greater volume and liquidity to the Exchange Floor, the Exchange
believes the proposed change would improve the Exchange's overall
competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market
participants. In the backdrop of the competitive environment in which
the Exchange operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt
by the Exchange to increase the depth of its market and improve its
market share relative to its competitors.

The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business that Floor Brokers transact on the Exchange, and
Floor Brokers are not obligated to participate in the FB Prepay Program
or attempt to trade sufficient volume to qualify for one of the
Percentage Growth Incentive Tiers. In addition, all participating Floor
Brokers have the opportunity to qualify for the same rebate at each
Tier through two alternatives means (i.e., growth over the greater of
at least 30,000 contract sides in billable ADV or the Floor Broker's
total billable manual ADV in the second half of 2020). The Exchange
also notes that the proposed changes are designed to encourage Floor
Brokers that have previously enrolled in the FB Prepay Program to
reenroll for the upcoming year, as well as to attract Floor Brokers
that have not yet participated in the program.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to
the FB Prepay Program are an equitable allocation of fees and credits
because they would apply to participating Floor Brokers equally and are
intended to encourage the important role performed by Floor Brokers in
facilitating the execution of orders via open outcry and providing
opportunities to obtain price improvement, a function which the
Exchange wishes to support for the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed change with respect to
the calculation of Eligible Fixed Costs is equitable because it would
continue to be based on each Floor Broker organization's annualized
costs and because the November 2020 basis for annualizing costs would
provide a more accurate reflection of Eligible Fixed Costs for the
coming calendar year based on anticipated fixed costs in 2022.
    To the extent that the proposed change continues to incent Floor
Brokers to participate in the FB Prepay Program and achieve the volume
required to qualify for the Percentage Growth Incentive, the increased
order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue
for, among other things, order execution. Similarly, to the extent the
proposed change, and, in particular, the proposed additional credit for
QCC transactions, encourages Floor Brokers to participate in a greater
variety of transactions on the Exchange, the resulting increased order
flow would likewise continue to make the Exchange a more competitive
venue for order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change would improve market quality for all market participants on
the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more order flow to the
Exchange thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes the proposed modifications to the FB Prepay
Program are not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply to all
similarly-situated Floor Brokers. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange, and Floor Brokers are
not obligated to participate in the FB Prepay Program or try to achieve
any of the Percentage Growth Incentive Tiers.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory to non-Floor Brokers because it is intended to encourage
Floor Brokers to continue facilitating the execution of orders via open
outcry and providing opportunities to obtain price improvement, a
function that benefits all market participants.
    To the extent that the proposed change continues to attract
participation in the FB Prepay Program and incent Floor Brokers to
increase volume to qualify for the Percentage Growth Incentive, the
increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more
competitive venue for, among other things, order execution. Thus, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality
for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence,
attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving market-wide
quality and price discovery.
    In addition, to the extent that the proposed change attracts a
variety of transactions to the Exchange, this increased order flow
would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order
execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would
improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and,
as a consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange Floor,
thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery. The
resulting increased volume and liquidity would provide more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads to all market participants and thus
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 14, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed change
will continue to incent Floor Brokers to participate in the FB Prepay
Program and encourage order flow to be directed to the Exchange Floor,
which would enhance the quality of quoting and may increase the volumes
of contracts traded on the Exchange. To the extent that the proposed
change imposes an additional competitive burden on non-Floor Brokers,
the Exchange believes that any such burden would be appropriate because
of Floor Brokers' important role in facilitating the execution of
orders via open outcry and providing opportunities for price
improvement, and the Exchange believes the proposed change is designed
to encourage and support that function.
    In addition, to the extent that the proposed change in fact
encourages Floor Broker volume, all market participants should benefit
from the improved market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and
increased transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase
in order flow directed to the Exchange will benefit all market
participants and improve competition on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed
change would promote competition

between the Exchange and other execution venues by encouraging
additional orders to be sent to the Exchange Floor for execution. The
proposed modifications to the FB Prepay Program are designed to
continue to incent Floor Broker participation in the program, including
by making the incentives more achievable and increasing the amounts of
the rebates available. The Exchange thus believes that the proposed
change would continue to encourage Floor Brokers to execute orders on
the Floor of the Exchange, which would increase volume and liquidity,
to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads.
    Given the robust competition for volume among options markets,
implementing programs to attract order flow, such as the proposed
modifications to the FB Prepay Program, are consistent with the above-
mentioned goals of the Act.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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) \18\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \19\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 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) \20\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-06. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-06, and should be
submitted on or before February 23, 2022.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02081 Filed 2-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 230 (Friday, December 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 68659]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26278]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-345-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: SCRM Filing Nov 2021 to be
effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211129-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/21.

     Docket Numbers: RP22-346-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Update GT&C Section 6 to be
effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211129-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-347-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Quarterly Fuel and Lost and
Unaccounted For Update Filing to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211129-5130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/21.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 29, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-26278 Filed 12-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6473-6474]
[DOCID:fr08fe06-84]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions
To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

February 1, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12632-000.
    c. Date filed: December 20, 2005.
    d. Applicant: East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Lake Livingston Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On Lake Livingston and the Trinity River, in Polk, San
Jacinto, Walker and Trinity, Counties, Texas. Dam is owned by the
Trinity River Authority of Texas.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. John H. Butts, Manager, East Texas
Electric Cooperative, Inc., 2905 Westward Drive, P.O. Box 631623,
Nacogdoches, TX 75963,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in 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.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would consist of:
(1) The existing Lake Livingston 14,400-foot-long, 45 to 90-foot-high
dam owned by the Trinity River Authority of Texas, (2) an existing
impoundment with a surface area of approximately 83,000 acres having a
storage capacity of 1,750,000 acre-feet and a normal water surface
elevation of 131.0 feet mean sea level, (3) a proposed powerhouse
containing three turbine/generating units having a total installed
capacity of 24-megawatts, (4) a proposed 2-mile-long, 138-kilovolt
transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project
would have an average annual generation of 118 gigawatt-hours, which
would be sold to a local utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also 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, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
h. above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions

on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed
by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the
Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-1670 Filed 2-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46838-46839]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1069]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection
requirements relating to the blood establishment registration and
product listing requirements in the Agency's regulations and on Form
FDA 2830.

DATES: Submit electronic or written comments on the collection of
information by October 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing, Form FDA 2830--21
CFR Part 607 (OMB Control Number 0910-0052)--Extension

    Under section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 360), any person owning or operating an establishment that
manufactures, prepares, propagates, compounds, or processes a drug or
device must register his or her name, place of business, and all such
establishments with the Secretary of Health and Human Services on or
before December 31 of each year. He or she must also submit, among
other information, a listing of all drug or device products
manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed by him or
her for commercial distribution. In part 607 (21 CFR part 607), FDA has
issued regulations implementing these requirements for manufacturers of
human blood and blood products.
    Section 607.20(a), in brief, requires owners or operators of
certain establishments that engage in the manufacture of blood products
to register and to submit a list of every blood product in commercial
distribution.
    Section 607.21, in brief, requires the owners or operators of
establishments entering into the manufacturing of blood products to
register within 5 days after beginning such operation and to submit a
list of every blood product in commercial distribution at the time. If
the owner or operator of the establishment has not previously entered
into such operation for which a license is required, registration must
follow within 5 days after the submission of a biologics license
application. In addition, owners or operators of all establishments so
engaged must register annually between November 15 and December 31 and
update their blood product listing every June and December.
    Section 607.22 requires the use of Form FDA 2830, Blood
Establishment Registration and Product Listing, for initial
registration, for subsequent annual registration, and for blood product
listing information.
    Section 607.25 sets forth the information required for
establishment registration and blood product listing.
    Section 607.26, in brief, requires certain changes to be submitted
on FDA Form 2830 as an amendment to establishment registration within 5
days of such changes.
    Section 607.30(a), in brief, sets forth the information required
from owners or operators of establishments when updating their blood
product listing information every June and December, or at the
discretion of the registrant at the time the change occurs.
    Section 607.31 requires that additional blood product listing
information be provided upon FDA request.
    Section 607.40, in brief, requires certain foreign blood product
establishments to comply with the establishment registration and blood
product listing information requirements discussed earlier in this
document and to provide the name and address of the establishment and
the name of the individual responsible for submitting the establishment
registration and blood product listing information, as well as the
name, address, and phone number of its U.S. agent.
    Among other uses, this information assists FDA in its inspections
of facilities and is essential to the overall regulatory scheme
designed to ensure the safety of the Nation's blood supply. Form FDA
2830 is used to collect this information.
    Respondents to this collection of information are human blood and
plasma donor centers, blood banks, certain transfusion services, other
blood product manufacturers, and independent laboratories that engage
in quality control and testing for registered blood product
establishments.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
            21 CFR section                   Form FDA 2830          Number of     responses per   Total annual     Average  burden per      Total hours
                                                                   respondents     respondent       responses            response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
607.20(a), 607.21, 607.22, 607.25,     Initial Registration....              68               1              68  1......................              68
 and 607.40.
607.21, 607.22, 607.25, 607.26,        Re-registration.........           2,615               1           2,615  0.5 (30 minutes).......           1,308
 607.31, and 607.40.
607.21, 607.25, 607.30(a), 607.31,     Product Updating List...             166               1             166  0.25 (15 minutes)......              42
 and 607.40.
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................  ........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  .......................           1,418
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs of operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information based
upon information obtained from FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research's database and FDA experience with the blood establishment
registration and product listing requirements.

    Dated: August 5, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-18945 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 34358-34359]
[DOCID:fr15jy09-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0283]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Studies and Clinical
Trials; Implementation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Postmarketing
Studies and Clinical Trials--Implementation of Section 505(o) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' The Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) added new provisions to
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) authorizing FDA to
require certain postmarketing studies and clinical trials for
prescription drugs and biological products approved under the act or
the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act). This draft guidance
provides information on the implementation of the new provisions and a
description of the types of postmarketing studies and clinical trials
that will generally be required under the new legislation
(postmarketing requirements (PMRs)) and the types that will generally
be agreed-upon commitments (postmarketing commitments (PMCs)) because
they do not meet the new statutory criteria for required postmarketing
studies and clinical trials.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance
by October 13, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of this draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER
at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Send one self-addressed adhesive
label to assist the office in processing your requests. Submit written
comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
www.regulations.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Clark, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug

Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6144, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Stephen Ripley, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-
6210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Postmarketing Studies and Clinical Trials--Implementation of
Section 505(o) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' In the
past, FDA has used the term ``PMC'' to refer to studies (including
clinical trials), conducted by an applicant after FDA has approved a
drug for marketing or licensing, that were intended to further refine
the safety, efficacy, or optimal use of a product, or to ensure
consistency, and reliability of product quality. These commitments were
either agreed upon by FDA and the applicant or, in certain
circumstances, required by FDA. Prior to the passage of FDAAA, FDA
required PMCs in the following situations:
     Subpart H and subpart E accelerated approvals, which
require postmarketing studies to demonstrate clinical benefit (21 CFR
314.510 and 601.41);
     Deferred pediatric studies, where studies are required
under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) (21 CFR 314.55(b) and
601.27(b)); and
     Animal Efficacy Rule approvals, where studies to
demonstrate safety and efficacy in humans are required at the time of
use (21 CFR 314.610(b)(1) and 601.91(b)(1)).
    Title IX, section 901 of FDAAA (Public Law 110-85) amended the act
by adding new section 505(o) (21 U.S.C. 355(o)). Section 505(o) of the
act authorizes FDA to require certain postmarketing studies or clinical
trials for prescription drug and biological products approved under
section 505 of the act or section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262).
Section 505(o)(3)(B) of the act states that postmarketing studies and
clinical trials may be required for one of three purposes:
     To assess a known serious risk related to the use of the
drug;
     To assess signals of serious risk related to the use of
the drug; or
     To identify an unexpected serious risk when available data
indicates the potential for a serious risk.
    This draft guidance provides information on the implementation of
new section 505(o) of the act. The draft guidance also describes which
types of postmarketing studies and clinical trials will be required
(PMRs) under section 505(o) of the act and which types will be agreed-
upon commitments because they do not meet the statutory criteria for
required studies and trials (PMCs).
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on the
implementation of section 901 of FDAAA on postmarketing studies and
clinical trials. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any
person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative
approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance provides information on the implementation of
section 901 of FDAAA. The collections of information requested in the
draft guidance would be submitted under 21 CFR 314.80, 314.81, and
601.70. These collections of information are subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and are approved under OMB control
numbers 0910-0230, 0910-0001, and 0910-0338. Section VI of the draft
guidance refers to procedures in the guidance entitled ``Formal Dispute
Resolution: Appeals Above the Division Level,'' which contains
collections of information approved under OMB control number 0910-0430.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/
Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or
http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 2, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-16867 Filed 7-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43559-43560]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18346]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0696; Product Identifier 2017-SW-101-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model MBB-BK
117 D-2 helicopters. This proposed AD would require replacing the
rescue hoist cable cut pushbutton flip guard (flip guard). This
proposed AD is prompted by reports of unintended lifting of several
flip guards. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to correct an
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 26,
2018.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0696; 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 proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review the referenced service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clark Davenport, Flight Test Engineer,
Flight Test Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2017-0038, dated February 22,
2017 (AD No. 2017-0038), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus
Helicopters Models MBB-BK 117 D-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-2m helicopters. The
EASA AD advises that multiple events were reported of unintended
lifting of the flip guard and that the flip guard has two stable
positions, open and closed. AD No. 2017-0038 states that if the
unintended lifting is not detected, the requirement for dual action
when activating the rescue hoist cable cut is not guaranteed. According
to EASA, this condition, if not corrected, could result in inadvertent
cutting of the rescue hoist cable and subsequent personal injury.
    EASA further advises that Airbus Helicopters has developed an
improved mono-stable (closed) flip guard, and AD No. 2017-0038 requires
installing the new flip guard and re-identifying the collective lever
switch unit.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    Airbus Helicopters has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. MBB-BK117
D-2-67A-002, Revision 0, dated January 23, 2017, which contains
procedures for replacing flip guard part number (P/N) 79552176 with
improved flip guard P/N 79553511 and for identifying the collective
lever switch unit with the Alert Service Bulletin number.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require before the next hoist operation or
within

440 hours time in service (TIS), whichever occurs first, replacing the
flip guard with flip guard P/N 79553511 on the collective lever switch
unit.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117 D-2m helicopters; this
proposed AD would not as these models are not type certificated in the
U.S. Also, the EASA AD requires compliance within 440 hours TIS, this
proposed AD would require compliance before the next hoist operation or
within 440 hours TIS, whichever occurs first. Finally, the EASA AD
requires identifying the collective lever switch unit with the service
information number; this proposed AD would not.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 21 helicopters of
U.S. Registry.
    At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that
operators would incur the following costs in order to comply with this
proposed AD. Replacing the flip guard would require about 14 hours, and
required parts would cost $735, for a cost per helicopter of $1,925 and
a cost of $40,148 to the U.S. fleet.
    According to Airbus Helicopter's service information, some of the
costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby
reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control
warranty coverage by Airbus Helicopters. Accordingly, we have included
all costs in our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2018-0696;
Product Identifier 2017-SW-101-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model
MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, certificated in any category, with a
cable cut flip guard (flip guard) part number (P/N) 79552176
installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as unintended lifting of a
flip guard. This condition could result in inadvertent cutting of
the rescue hoist cable and subsequent personal injury.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 26, 2018.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    Before the next hoist operation or within 440 hours time in
service (TIS), whichever occurs first, remove flip guard P/N
79552176 from service and install flip guard P/N 79553511 on the
collective lever switch unit.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
Clark Davenport, Flight Test Engineer, Flight Test Branch,
Compliance and Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. MBB-BK117 D-2-
67A-002, Revision 0, dated January 23, 2017, which is not
incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the
subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (972) 641-
3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0038, dated February 22, 2017. You
may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov
in the AD Docket.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6700 Rotorcraft
Flight Control.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 13, 2018.
Mitchell Soth,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-18346 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Date: June 2, 2003 Subject: MACT Floor, Regulatory Alternative, and Impacts for Particulate Metals Emissions From Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Process Vents Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP EPA Project No. 95/ 08; RTI International Project No. 08550.001.011 From: David Randall To: MON Project File I. Introduction This memorandum describes development of a MACT floor for particulate matter ( PM) HAP emissions ( metal compounds) from process vents. This memorandum also presents the impacts for the MACT floor and a regulatory alternative.

II. Summary of Data Our database of information from responses to the EPA ICR for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing processes and state permits contained information on PM HAP emissions from 17 vents for 8 processes at 6 facilities. Two additional facilities ( No. 60 and No. 88) reported phosphorus compound emissions, but since phosphorus compounds are not a HAP, we excluded them from the analysis. Plant no. 207 reported chromium, nickel, and cobalt compounds out of an afterburner. These emissions may have been from the auxiliary fuel rather than the process, but for the purposes of this analysis, we assumed that the metals are from the process and that the afterburner achieves no control of the metals emissions. Table 1 summarizes the HAP metals data.

III. MACT Floor Since only six sources emit PM HAP compounds, the MACT floor for existing sources is based on the five sources with the best performance. Only one source is controlling PM HAP emissions using add on controls, and we are unaware of any other means sources have taken to reduce PM HAP emissions. The mean performance ( percent reduction) of the top five sources is less than 20 percent, which does not correlate with the performance of a typical control device, and the median performance is no emissions reductions. Thus, the MACT floor for PM HAP emissions from process vents at existing sources is no emissions reduction. 2 Table 1. Summary of HAP Metals Data Facility Process No. of vents HAP Control device Uncontrolled emissions, lb/ yr Control efficiency, percent 63 I1 1 Manganese compounds Spray chamber 1,000 99.9 63 C1 1 Manganese compounds Rotoclone 8,045 98 63 C2 1 Manganese compounds Baghouse 415 97 91 1 2 Manganese compounds None 424 0 95 1 1 Nickel and chromium compounds None 155 0 139 1 6 Cobalt compounds None 15 0 198 1 4 PM10 chromium compounds Filter 3.6 0 207 1 1 Nickel, cobalt, and chromium compounds Afterburner 3.2 0 The MACT floor for new sources is based on the control achieved by the best performing source. The best performing source is facility no. 63, which is routing emission streams from three processes to three different control devices. The 97 percent control achieved by the baghouse ( fabric filter) is considered the best demonstrated performance level for a similar source. Particulate control efficiencies are influenced by factors such as filtration velocity, particle loading, and particle characteristics, which in turn vary depending on the processes that emit them. Variations in stream characteristics make it difficult to conclude that the higher reported control efficiencies for the spray chamber and Rotoclone could be achieved for all process vents that emit PM HAP. The performance criterion for the best performing source is the lowest uncontrolled PM HAP emission level for any of the controlled processes ( i. e., 415 lb/ yr). Thus, the new source MACT floor for PM HAP emissions from process vents is 97 percent control for each process with uncontrolled PM HAP emissions greater than or equal to 400 lb/ yr.

IV. Regulatory Alternative We developed a regulatory alternative for existing sources that is consistent with the MACT floor for new sources ( i. e., 97 percent control for each process with uncontrolled PM HAP emissions greater than or equal to 400 lb/ yr).

V. Impacts Two facilities ( Nos. 63 and 91) meet the threshold for control under the regulatory alternative. Although facility no. 63 already meets the control level of the regulatory alternative, 3 we used the emission stream characteristics for this facility as a model to estimate the impacts of the regulatory alternative. We assumed that a single fabric filter would be used to control the PM HAP emissions from all three emission streams. Using the reported flow rate for one vent and average default flow rates for the other two emission streams at plant 63, the total emission stream flow rate was estimated to be 1,130 scfm. For this flow and an estimated gas to cloth ratio of 8, a pulse jet fabric filter would require only 240 square feet ( ft2) of fabric area. We used 2,000 ft2 in the cost analysis because this is the smallest size for which the EPA OAQPS cost correlations are valid. 1 We assumed the temperature of the emission stream is ambient, which allows for the use of inexpensive polypropylene bags. We assumed 250 ft of ductwork, 20 elbows, and 3 dampers would be needed to convey emissions to the fabric filter. We assumed that the fabric filter is a " packaged" system for which the installation costs are equal to 25 percent of the purchased equipment costs.

We assumed that the PM metals emissions are from catalysts, and that the emission streams are routed through closed vent systems. However, it is possible that a hood or other capture system would also be needed if the PM HAP is emitted by manually emptying bags of raw material ( including catalysts) into an open vessel. We assumed operation for 8,760 hr/ yr to be consistent with the operation of one of the processes at plant 63. We assumed that the captured dust would be disposed of as a hazardous waste at a cost of $ 150/ ton. As shown in Attachment 1, the fabric filter would cost about $ 68,000/ yr and remove about 4.3 Mg/ yr of PM HAP for a cost effectiveness of about $ 16,000/ Mg of HAP removed. In addition, electricity consumption would be about 24,000 kwh/ yr; generating the electricity would use about 230 million Btu/ yr of fuel energy ( coal) and increase emissions of CO, NO x, SO 2, and PM 10 by about 0.2 Mg/ yr; and about 4.3 Mg/ yr of hazardous waste would be generated. There would be no wastewater impacts, but solid waste impacts could be higher than 4.3 Mg/ yr if the owner or operator elects to use a dust collector that includes water sprays and discharges the collected dust in slurry form. The cost per Mg of HAP reduction would be even higher for plant no. 91 because the uncontrolled emission level is so much lower than for plant no. 63. Taking all of these results into consideration, we recommend setting the existing source standard for PM HAP emissions from process vents at the MACT floor.

VI. References 1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. OAQPS Control Cost Manual, EPA Publication No. EPA 453/ B 96 001. February 1996. Chapter 5. Fabric Filters. Attachment 1 Cost Algorithm for Fabric Filter A 2 TOTAL ANNUAL COST SPREADSHEET PROGRAM FABRIC FILTERS [ 1]

COST BASE DATE: Second Quarter 1998 [ 2]

VAPCCI ( Fourth Quarter 1998 FINAL): [ 3] 110.9 INPUT PARAMETERS:

 Inlet stream flowrate ( acfm): 1130  inlet PM HAP load, lb/ yr 9460  Inlet stream temperature ( oF): 77 Assumed  Inlet stream temperature, adjusted pulse jet on 77  Dust type: Metal ,..  Inlet dust loading ( gr/ ft3): 2.9  Dust mass median diameter ( microns): 7  Filtration time ( min): 10  Dust specific resistance ( in. H2O/ fpm/ lb/ ft2): 15  G/ C ratio factors ( shaker & reverse air): A: 2.0 B: 0.9 C: 1.2  G/ C ratio factors ( pulse jet): Material: 9.0 Application: 1.0  G/ C ratio factors ( cartridge filter A: 2.1 B: 0.8 C: 0.75 D: 0.9 E: 1.075  Cleaning pressure, psig ( pulse jet only): 100  Fraction of bags cleaned ( shaker & rev air): 0.1  Insulation required? (' yes'= 1;' no'= 0): 0  Stainless steel required? (' yes'= 1;' no'= 0): 0  Bag material: Polypropylene  Fabric effective residual drag ( in. H2O/ fpm): 1.1  Bag prices ($/ ft2): ( from table below, for bag material selected above only) [ 4] Cleaning Mech. Bag Diam. ( in.) Price ($/ ft2)  Pulse jet BBR 4.5 to 5.125 0.53 6 to 8 0.60 Pulse jet cart. 4.875 0.00 6.125 0.00 Shaker strap 5 0.88 Shaker loop 5 1.01 Reverse air w/ o rings 8 0.00 11.5 0.00  Cost of ductwork, ($): diameter, in 1.00 straight duct cost ( carbon steel), $/ ft 1.22 length of ductwork, ft 250.00 assumed elbows ( carbon steel), $ each 36.33 number of elbows 20.00 assumed damper ( carbon steel), $ each 27.26 number of dampers 3.00 assumed total cost, $ 1,113 use minimum diameter of 3 in. Highest value among 3 streams at plant 63 rounded to nearest inch; assume 2000 ft/ min minimum size for costing in 3 in. dia.

use minimum diameter of 3 in. A 3 DESIGN PARAMETERS  Gas to cloth ratio ( acfm/ ft2 cloth area): Shaker: 2.16 Reverse air: 2.16 Pulse jet: 8.04 Cartridge: 1.22  Net cloth area required ( ft2): Shaker: 523 Reverse air: 523 Pulse jet: 140 Cartridge: 927  Gross cloth area required ( ft2): Shaker: 1046 Reverse air: 1046 Pulse jet: 140 Cartridge: 927  Area per bag reverse air ( ft2) ( 8 in. x 24 ft) 50.3  Number of bags reverse air: 21  Area per bag shaker ( ft2) ( 5 in x 8 ft): 10.5  Number of bags shaker 100  Area per bag pulse je Small ( 4.5 in. x 8 ft) 9.42 Large ( 5.125 in. x 10 ft) 13.42  Number of bags/ cages ( pulse jet onlSmall bags 15 Large bags 11  Area per bag cartridge ( ft2): 153  Number of bags cartridge: 7  Bag pressure drop ( in. w. c.): Shaker: 2.67 Reverse air: 2.67 Pulse jet: 6.47 Cartridge: 1.43  Baghouse shell pressure drop ( in. w. c.): 3.00  Ductwork pressure drop ( in. w. c.): 4.00 CAPITAL COSTS Equipment Costs ($): Item: Cost ($): Shaker Rev air P J ( mod) P J ( com) P J ( cartridge)  Baghouse 29,097 0 14,788 16,633 0 Use cost for 2000 ft2 if area< 2,000 Bags small 921 0 74 74 0 "  large 84 84 Insulation 0 0 0 0 0 Stainless 0 0 0 0 0 Cages small 0 0 90 90 0 " 0 0 121 121 0 Auxiliaries 1113 0 1,113 1,113 0  Total small 31,130 0 16,065 17,910 0 "  large: 16,106 17,951 PEC($) base: 36,734 0 18,956 21,134 0 ' '  esc.: 46,743 0 19,340 21,561 0 TCI ($): 101,432 0 41,968 26,952 0 Packaged system ( 1.25* PEC) ($/ acfm) 90 0 37 24 0 ================================================================================== A 4 ANNUAL COSTS ($/ yr): Item Shaker Reverse air P J ( modular) P J ( common) P J ( cartridge)  Oper. labor 0 0 Supv. labor 0 0 Maint. labor 19,425 0 Maint. matl. 19,425 0 Electricity 1,620 0 Compr. air 297 0 Bag repl. 137 0 Dust dispos. 710 0 Overhead 23,310 0 Tax, ins., adm 1,078 0 Cap. recov. 2,521 0   Total Annual 0 0 0 68,523 0 ton removed ( 98% reduction) 4.635 ($/ ton):[ 6] 0 0 0 14,783 0 $/ Mg 16,295 ANNUAL COST WEIGHTING FACTORS:

Item Shaker Reverse air P J ( mod) P J ( com) P J ( cartridge)  Oper. labor 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 0.000 0.000 Supv. labor 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 0.000 0.000 Maint. labor 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 0.283 0.000 Maint. matl. 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 0.283 0.000 Overhead 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 0.340 0.000  S/ T labor: 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 0.907 0.000 Compr. air 0.000 0.000 # DIV/ 0! 0.004 0.000 Bag repl. 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 0.002 0.000 Dust dispos. 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 0.010 0.000 Electricity 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 0.024 0.000 Tax, ins., adm 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 0.016 0.000 Cap. recov. 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 0.037 0.000  S/ T capital: 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 0.053 0.000   Total: 0.000 # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! 1.000 0.000 ============================================================================ A 5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROSS AND NET CLOTH AREA Net Cloth Area >/= ( ft2): Gross/ Net Area Ratio:  1 2.000 4001 1.500 12001 1.250 24001 1.170 36001 1.125 48001 1.110 60001 1.100 72001 1.090 84001 1.080 96001 1.070 108001 1.060 132001 1.050 180001 1.040 [ 1] Parameters and other input data needed for this program can be found Chapter 5 is found at: HTTP:// WWW. EPA. GOV/ TTN/ CATC/ PRODUCTS. HTML# CCCINFO.

[ 2] Base equipment costs reflect this date.

[ 3] VAPCCI = Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Index ( for fabric filters) corresponding to year and quarter shown. Base equipment cost, purchased equipment cost, and total capital investment have been escalated to this date via the VAPCCI.

[ 4] These prices pertain to the bag material entered above. If this bag material is not available for a baghouse type, enter ' 0'. ( See ' Manual,' Chapter 5, Table 5.8.)

[ 6] Total annual cost ($/ yr) divided by total particulate captured ( tons/ yr). If PM10, PM2.5, or other fractions are desired, divide by ratio of PM10, PM2.5, etc., to total PM. [ 5a] Total equipment cost for " small" and " large" bags and cages cases, respectively. [ 5] Cage prices calculated from " 500 cage lots" cost equations. ( See Table 5.8.) in Chapter 5 ( December 1998 revision) of the ' OAQPS Control Cost Manual' ( 5th edition). A 6 BAG PRICES ( 2nd quarter 1998 $/ ft2) FOR SELECTED MATERIALS [ excerpted from Table 5.8, Chapter 5] *************************************************************************************************************************

Cleaning Mech. Bag Diam.

( in.) Polyethylene Polypropylene Nomex Homo acrylic Fiberglas Cotton Teflon

Pulse jet TR 4.5 to 5.125 0.75 0.81 2.17 1.24 1.92 NA 12.21 6 to 8 0.67 0.72 1.95 1.15 1.60 NA 9.70 Pulse jet BBR 4.5 to 5.125 0.53 0.53 1.84 0.95 1.69 NA 12.92 6 to 8 0.50 0.60 1.77 0.98 1.55 NA 9.00 Pulse jet cart. 4.875 2.95 NA 6.12 NA NA NA NA 6.125 1.53 NA 4.67 NA NA NA NA Shaker strap 5 0.63 0.88 1.61 1.03 NA 0.70 NA Shaker loop 5 0.61 1.01 1.53 1.04 NA 0.59 NA Rev. air w/ rings 8 0.63 1.52 1.35 NA 1.14 NA NA 11.5 0.62 NA 1.43 NA 1.01 NA NA Rev. air w/ o " 8 0.44 NA 1.39 NA 0.95 NA NA 11.5 0.44 NA 1.17 NA 0.75 NA NA