             EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

             EPA Registration Division contact: Kerry Leifer, Branch Chief, Chemistry,  Inerts and Toxicology Assessment Branch (CITAB)<PHONE_NUMBER>.

             Lamberti-USA, Inc., 161 Washington Street, Conshohocken, PA 19428.

             EPA has received a pesticide petition ([TBD]) from Spring Regulatory Sciences (SRS) on behalf of Lamberti-USA, Inc. (Lamberti), 161 Washington Street, Conshohocken, PA 19428 (EPA Co. No 86861) requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an Inert Ingredient Tolerance Exemption for D-Glucopyranose, oligomeric, maleates, C8-16-branched and linear alkyl glycosides, sulfonated, potassium salts (CAS Nos.  2585031-35-0; 2587364-77-8; 1228577-37-4), hereby referred to as AGEs, K salts under 40 CFR 180.910. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

             Residue Chemistry

             Plant metabolism. Since this request is for an exemption from the Establishment of a Tolerance, no additional residue studies are required.

            	2.  Analytical method. An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency has established an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

             3. Magnitude of residues.  SRS on behalf of Lamberti is petitioning the Agency to add an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for food use.  Therefore, information regarding the nature and magnitude of chemical residues resulting from the use of this inert ingredient is not required.

             B. Toxicological Profile

             1. Acute toxicity. AGEs have low acute toxicity via the oral route (oral LD50 > 5,000 mg/kg). There is no available data regarding acute exposure via the dermal, eye or inhalation routes.

              Genotoxicity. Mutagenicity studies (Ames Test) were available for review for the surrogate chemicals, d- glucopyranose, oligomeric, 6-(dihydrogen 2-hydroxy-1,2,3-propanetricarboxylate), l-(coco alkyl) ethers, sodium salts (CAS No. 151911-51-2), d-glucopyranose, oligomeric, 6-(hydrogen 2- sulfobutanedioate), 1-(coco alkyl) ethers, sodium salts (CAS No. 151911-53-4) or d- glucopyranose, oligomers, monosulfosuccinate, coco alkyl glycosides, sodium salts, d- glucopyranose, oligomeric, 6-[hydrogen (2R,3R)-2,3-dihydroxybutanedioate), 1-( coco alkyl) ethers, sodium salts (CAS No. 151911-52-3). The results of these studies were negative.
              Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test in rats there were no observed adverse effects for parental systemic or reproductive/developmental effects at 1000 mg/kg/day.

             4. 	Subchronic toxicity. NA-Remove

             5. Chronic toxicity.
             A 2 year chronic oral study in rats treated with citric acid was available for review. Rats were administered 5% or 3% citric acid (approx. 2,000 or 1,200 mg/kg/d) in the diet. There were no adverse effects observed at 2,000 mg/kg/day. Chronic studies were also available for the rabbit and dog. There were no adverse effects observed in either study at doses up to 1500 and 1400 mg/kg/day, respectively.

              Animal metabolism. Studies on the metabolism of orally administered β-glucosides (metabolic cleavage of alkylglycosides) in mice show that rapid hydrolytic acetal cleavage takes place principally in the stomach and intestine of the mice. The cleavage products pass into the fatty acid and carbohydrate metabolic pathways. That assumption is also confirmed by another study on alkylglycosides where the β-glycosidic bond was rapidly hydrolyzed in intestine and liver. The cleavage products, sugars and long-chain alcohols, entered the pathways of lipid and carbohydrate metabolism.

              Metabolite toxicology.
                     NA-Remove

              Endocrine disruption. NA-Remove
             C. Aggregate Exposure

             In examining aggregate exposure, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).
             In addition to pesticide use, the AGEs have reported uses in personal care products, such as antiperspirants, shampoos, conditioners, and moisturizers.
              For the AGEs, a qualitative assessment for all pathways of human exposure (food, drinking water, and residential) is appropriate give the lack of human health concerns associated with exposure to AGEs when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations.

             1. Dietary exposure. Dietary exposure to AGEs can occur from eating food treated with AGEs or from drinking water. However, a quantitative assessment was not conducted since an endpoint of concern for risk assessment was not identified.

             i. Food. Residues of concern are not anticipated for dietary (food and drinking water) or for residential exposure from the use of AGEs for the proposed use pattern as an inert ingredient in pesticide products. SRS on behalf of Lamberti expects aggregate exposure to the AGEs to pose no appreciable dietary risk, given that the data on the AGEs show a lack of systemic toxicity at doses up to 1000 mg/kg/day.

             ii. Drinking water. Dietary exposure from drinking water to AGEs can occur by drinking water that has been contaminated by run-off from a pesticide treated area. Since an endpoint for risk assessment was not identified, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment from drinking water for AGEs was not conducted.

             2. Non-dietary exposure. The term "residential exposure" is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). AGEs have reported uses in personal care products, such as antiperspirants, shampoos, conditioners, and moisturizers. 180.910. Residential exposure to AGEs is possible; however, since there are no toxicological effects of concern occurring below 1,000 mg/kg bw/day, it is not necessary to conduct assessments of residential (non-occupational) exposures and risks. There are no dermal or inhalation toxicological endpoints of concern to the Agency therefore quantitative assessments have not been conducted.

             D. Cumulative Effects

             		SRS on behalf of Lamberti has not found the AGEs to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances and does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, SRS on behalf of Lamberti has assumed that does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

             E. Safety Determination

             1. U.S. population. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, SRS on behalf of Lamberti concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population.

             2. Infants and children. SRS on behalf of Lamberti has determined that reliable data shows the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected.

             F. International Tolerances

             SRS on behalf of Lamberti is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for AGEs, K salts, nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) been established for any food crops at this time.


[Federal Register: March 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 10242-10243]
[DOCID:fr05mr10-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-444-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 300 Line Project

February 25, 2010.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the 300 Line
Project proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGP) in the above
referenced docket. TGP requests authorization to expand its natural gas
pipeline system in Pennsylvania and New Jersey in order to increase the
natural gas delivery capacity to the northeast region of the United
States by approximately 350,000 dekatherms per day and improve the
reliability of it's existing 300 Line system.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the 300 Line Project in accordance with
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project,
with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    The U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers participated as
cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EA. Cooperating
agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to
resources potentially affected by TGP's proposal and participate in the
NEPA analysis. These cooperating agencies will adopt and use the EA to
consider the issuance of right-of-way grants on federally administered
lands.
    The proposed 300 Line Project includes the following facilities:
     Installation of approximately 127.4 miles of new 30-inch-
diameter pipeline loop \1\ in seven separate segments in Potter, Tioga,
Bradford, Susquehanna, Wayne, and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania; and
Sussex and Passaic Counties, New Jersey;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A loop is a segment of pipe that is usually installed
adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends.
The loop allows more gas to be moved through the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Construction of new compressor stations in Venango and
McKean Counties, Pennsylvania;
     Modifications to seven existing compressor stations in
Potter, Tioga, Bradford, Susquehanna, and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania,
and Sussex County, New Jersey;
     Installation of associated appurtenant aboveground
facilities including mainline valves and pig \2\ launchers/receivers;
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry
a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Contractor/pipe yards and access roads.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the
EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Regulatory Energy Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street,
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local
libraries and newspapers in the project area; intervenors to the FERC's
proceeding; and affected landowners, potentially affected landowners,
and other interested individuals and groups.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. The
Notice of Schedule for

Environmental Review issued on December 8, 2009, indicated that the EA
would be issued on February 19, 2010 and the 90-day Federal
authorization decision deadline was May 20, 2010. Due to the
unprecedented weather circumstances and subsequent closing of Federal
government offices in Washington, DC, during the week of February 8,
2010, issuance of the EA was delayed from February 19, 2010, until
February 25, 2010. Therefore, the 90-day Federal authorization decision
deadline is extended until May 26, 2010. To ensure that your comments
are properly recorded and considered prior to a Commission decision on
the proposal, it is important that FERC receives your comments in
Washington, DC on or before March 29, 2010.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP09-444-000) with your
submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling involves
preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on
paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard drive. You will
attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users must first
create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister.'' You will
be asked to select the type of filing you are making. A comment on a
particular project is considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply
filing comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\3\ Only intervenors
have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion of filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, then on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP09-444). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notifications of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4615 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                           EPA Meeting with HCNA LLC
                                 June 21, 2012

Attendees:
EPA OUST:
Liz McDermott, Linda Gerber, Paul Miller, Tim Roberts, Erin Knighton, Tim Smith

HCNA LLC: Karl Overman

Alan Anderson and Associates: Alan Anderson

At this meeting EPA and HCNA discussed the proposed changes to the UST regulations.  The discussion focused on airport hydrant systems and the capabilities of release detection on these types of systems.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4815-4816]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2033]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0038; FRL-9335-2]

Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and Information International
Associates; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and
its subcontractor, Information International Associates, in accordance
with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2). Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and
its subcontractor, Information International Associates, have been
awarded a contract to perform work for OPP, and access to this
information will enable Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and its
subcontractor, Information International Associates, to fulfill the
obligations of the contract.

DATES: Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and its subcontractor, Information
International Associates, will be given access to this information on
or before February 6, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mario Steadman, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0038. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under Contract No. EP-W-11-023, Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and its
subcontractor, Information International Associates, will perform
duties related to public access reference and referral:
    1. EPA Desktop Library support;
    2. Electronic resources management support, statistics reporting,
library desk reference, library services outreach, communications and
user support;
    3. Metadata cataloging of web pages, cataloging of library and
repository materials in support of the Headquarters and Chemical
Libraries and Repository;
    4. Information architecture support, consultation on site structure
and development, creation of content inventories, support workgroups
for the development of micro sites and resource directories; and
    5. Web development, graphics creation, web page coding, Web 2.0
project support for wikis and blogs and web site design.
    OPP has determined that access by Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and its
subcontractor, Information International Associates, to information on
all pesticide chemicals is necessary for the performance of this
contract.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7
of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(2), the
contract with Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and its subcontractor,
Information International Associates, prohibits use of the information
for any purpose not specified in the contract; prohibits disclosure of
the information to a third party without prior written approval from
the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the
contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from
unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA
Information Security Manual. In addition, Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and
its subcontractor, Information International Associates, are required
to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be
secured and protected against unauthorized release or compromise. No
information will be provided to Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and its
subcontractor, Information International Associates, until the
requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of
information provided to Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and its
subcontractor, Information International Associates, will be maintained
by EPA project officers for this contract. All information supplied to
Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and its subcontractor, Information
International Associates, by EPA for use in connection with this
contract will be returned to EPA when Ace Info Solutions, Inc., and its
subcontractor, Information International Associates, have completed
their work.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government
contracts, Government property, Security measures.

    Dated: January 19, 2012.
Michael Hardy,
Acting Director, Information Technology and Resources Management
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-2033 Filed 1-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35286-35287]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14156]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0179; FRL-10025-84-OAR]

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC): Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a public meeting of
the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) to be conducted via
remote/virtual participation only. The EPA renewed the CAAAC charter on
November 19, 2020 to provide independent advice and counsel to EPA on
economic, environmental, technical, scientific and enforcement policy
issues associated with implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1990.

DATES: The CAAAC will hold its next public meeting remotely/virtually
on Wednesday, July 21, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EST) and
Thursday, July 22, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EST). Members of
the public may register to listen to the meeting or provide comments,
by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by 5:00 p.m. (EST) July 19, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lorraine Reddick, Designated Federal
Official, Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (6103A), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Additional information about this meeting,
the CAAAC, and its subcommittees and workgroups can be found on the
CAAAC website: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section
10(a)(2), notice is hereby given that the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee will hold its next public meeting remotely/virtually on
Wednesday, July 21, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Thursday, July
22, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EST).
    The committee agenda and any documents prepared for the meeting
will be publicly available on the CAAAC website at http://www.epa.gov/caaac/ prior to the meeting. Thereafter, these documents, together with
CAAAC meeting minutes, will be available on the CAAAC website or by
contacting the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and requesting
information under docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0179. The docket office can be
reached by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Lorraine Reddick at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>preferably at least 7 days prior to the
meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: June 28, 2021.
John Shoaff,
Director, Office of Air Policy and Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2021-14156 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, August 29, 2016 4:15 PM
To:
Robert Doran<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Coke Ovens ICR Testing = Ok to go with 4 ports by 3 test points

Ok. We got a `go" from testers. You are actually following the protocol for horizontal stacks and 12 traverse points.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Robert Doran<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 4:06 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Coke Ovens ICR Testing = clarification needed

I have seen other quench towers that are square or rectangular such as this.  This tower is a rectangular tower approximately 50 feet long by 18 feet wide.  The top of the tower exhaust is 80-85 feet above grade.

Rob

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:49 PM
To: Robert Doran<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Coke Ovens ICR Testing = clarification needed

In your experience, is this configuration used by any other coke facilities? All the ones I've seen have reverse dimensions and are true "towers".

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Robert Doran<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:42 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Coke Ovens ICR Testing = clarification needed

50 feet is the length (or width).  The view is from the sky looking down on the exhaust of the tower.  The four ports would be at the same height (in the same plane) above the last baffle.

Rob

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:38 PM
To: Robert Doran<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Coke Ovens ICR Testing = clarification needed

Is 50 feet the height? Im not sure if we would want all four ports tested since we are asking for testing to be done near the top baffle. Is port #4 the top port?
_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Robert Doran<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:24 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Coke Ovens ICR Testing

I can wait.  Thank you for your help.

Rob

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:23 PM
To: Robert Doran<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Coke Ovens ICR Testing

Thanks for the diagram. You definitely don't need to go more than half way, but Im not surer if four ports is helpful or not. Can you wait until Thursday to find out? Our testing expert is out until then.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Robert Doran<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:13 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Coke Ovens ICR Testing

Dr. Jones,

There are no ports at present.  There will be four ports available on one side of the rectangular duct.

My question is that the because the facilities duct is 18 feet deep and due to safety considerations, testing logistics of having to handle 20 foot probe lengths vs. 10 foot probe lengths and not being able to be on the platform for long periods of time due to the regular quench cycle and dangers of being exposed to coke steam, time constraints and cost of building a stack platform we are requesting to test half-way across the duct (9 feet across).

We would test all 4 ports and 3 points per port for a total of 12 points traversed half-way across the 18 span (9 feet across).

I have enclosed a PDF picture of our proposed test matrix.

Best Regards,
Robert Doran     Business Leader, Pittsburgh Source Testing
CleanAir Engineering, Inc.
110 Technology Drive  |  Pittsburgh, PA 15275
O: +1.724.227.0118  | M: +1.412.897.6589  | F: +1.412.787.9138  |  cleanair.com
"Nobody Gets Hurt"

<< CleanAirEngineering Duct Diagram.pdf  >>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 2:24 PM
To: Robert Doran<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Coke Ovens ICR Testing

I could only see one question below. Let me know if you have another. We have approved the use of one port if and only if there are not two ports already available.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Robert Doran<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 1:44 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Coke Ovens ICR Testing

Dr. Donna Lee Jones,

Hello.  I hope this email finds you well.  I have a couple questions regarding the Coke Oven ICR.

We expect to be testing a quench tower at one of the Coke facilities requiring to do so for the Coke Oven ICR.  The quench tower has a dimension of approximately 50 feet x 18 feet.  There currently does not exist any test ports or a test platform.  A platform 10 feet wide x 50 feet long and 4 ports are being planned across the 50 foot length to allow traverse sampling across the 18 foot span.

Because of these large spans and the difficulty in using test probes with glass or quartz liners over 10 feet in effective length we would like to propose testing half way across the 18 foot span using 10 foot effective test probes allowing us to use glass liners as many of the test methods require.  We would still attempt to test at 12 sampling points up to the half way point of the 18 foot span.

Testing from both sides of the quench tower to cover the 18 foot span would require the facility to build 2 platforms instead of one.  The platforms would not be connected and would unnecessarily extend the amount of time to perform the test as well as make test extremely more difficult to complete as the test probes, sampling trains would  have to be completely disassembled, lower to ground level, raised up to the second platform and reassemble to complete the second half of the test.  This all while working with fragile laboratory glassware and trying to accomplish the tasks between quench cycles.

Would we get approval to test half of the quench span?

Best Regards,
Robert Doran     Business Leader, Pittsburgh Source Testing
CleanAir Engineering, Inc.
110 Technology Drive  |  Pittsburgh, PA 15275
O: +1.724.227.0118  | M: +1.412.897.6589  | F: +1.412.787.9138  |  cleanair.com
"Nobody Gets Hurt"


                 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 6
                                  TRIP REPORT
                            Date / author of Report
                                    4/14/16

                                NORMA E. REYES

Meeting called by
Presented to the Pueblo Governors during their Eight Northern Pueblos Council Monthly Meeting
Subject of meeting
Eight Northern Pueblos Council Monthly Meeting
Meeting Date(s)/Location
March 15, 2016, Espanola, NM
Attendees
Governors or Representative of the Governor for the following Pueblos:
Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of Tesuque, Ohkay Owingeh, Pueblo of Nambe, Pueblo of Ildefonso, Pueblo of Taos, and Pueblo of Pojoaque.  No one was representing the Pueblo of Santa Clara at this meeting.

FEMA: Norma Reyes, RTL

                                   OVERVIEW

PURPOSE
The Eight Northern Pueblos Council membership consist of the Governor's from the following Pueblos, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of Tesuque, Ohkay Owingeh, Pueblo of Nambe, Pueblo of Ildefonso, Pueblo of Taos, and Pueblo of Pojoaque Pueblo of Santa Clara.

The Governors meet monthly to conduct business so I asked to be placed on their agenda so we could remind the Governors of the comment period for the Second Draft of Tribal Declaration Pilot Guidance, highlight the changes and encourage submittal of comments.

Meeting Summary
RTL provided the Governors a packet with the exact information that had been sent to them by the Administrator. I reviewed the side by side document and informed that this were the primary changes to the first draft.  They listen intently, however, they did not have any comments other than asking questions about the current Tribal Declaration Process and Hazard Tribal Mitigation Plans.  I encouraged them to please submit their comments by April 7, 2016.
COMMENTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CONSULATION POLICY
General Comments:
 One of the Governors did share with his fellow Governors that his Pueblo would probably not go direct because he had a good relationship with the State and the fact that they did assist with half of the 25 percent cost share.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 36357]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13210]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77950; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change Amending the Definition of ``Block'' for Purposes
of Rule 72(d) and the Size of a Proposed Cross Transaction Eligible for
the Cross Function in Rule 76

May 31, 2016.
    On April 12, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') 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 its rules relating to pre-opening
indications and opening procedures. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on April 29, 2016.\3\ The
Commission has received no comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77701 (Apr. 25,
2016), 81 FR 25748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is June 13, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates July 28, 2016, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number
SR-NYSE-2016-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13210 Filed 6-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:09/11/2014
FROM: 		Laura Farris/EPA Region 8
TO:CLEAN Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602
SUBJECT:	Moffat County Community Meeting and Tours held on 09/10/2014 and 09/11/2014

SUMMARY:

On September 10, 2014, Shaun McGrath, EPA Region 8 Regional Administrator, and Carl Daly, EPA Region 8 Air Program Director, participated in a public meeting in Craig, Colorado, hosted by Moffat County Commissioner John Kinkaid on the Clean Power Plan that was proposed on June 2, 2014. Additionally, on September 11, Mr. McGrath and Mr. Daly met with officials from Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, and toured the Craig Power Plant and the Colowyo coal mine. They were accompanied by Rich Mylott, EPA Region 8 Public Affairs Specialist.
PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDEES  -  SEPTEMBER 10, 2014:
Shaun McGrath, EPA Region 8 Regional Administrator
Carl Daly, EPA Region Air Program Director
Rich Mylott, EPA Region 8 Public Affairs
Frank Hanel, General Manager KRAI Radio
Ray Beck, City Councilman
Gene Trisko, Esq, Senior Consultant, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
Amy Oliver, Executive Vice President and Director of the Energy Policy Center
Keith Kramer, Executive Director, Yampa Valley Partners
Rick Johnson, Plant Manager, Craig Station, Tri-State Generation & Transmission Assn.
Forrest Luke, Environmental Manager, Trapper Mine
Caryn Gibson, Superintendent, Delta County School District 50J
Russell George, President, Colorado Northwestern Community College
Mike Anson, Owner & CEO, Anson Excavating
John Ponikavar, Owner & CEO NAPA Auto Parts
Bonnie Peterson, Executive Director, Club 20
John Kinkaid, Moffat County Commissioner

Tri-State Employees:
Gigi Dennis, Senior Manager, External Relations
Dave Lock, Senior Manager, Government Relations
Lee Boughey, Senior Manager, Communications and Public Affairs
Andy Berger, Environmental Policy Manager
Drew Kramer, Public Affairs Manager
Paul Griffin, Senior Government Relations Advisor
Amy Robertson, Government Relations Advisor
Sarah Carlisle, Public Affairs Coordinator

Congressional Representatives:
Noah Koerper, Senator Bennet's Office
Jay Fetcher, Senator Udall's Office
Christian Reece and Josh Green, Representative Tipton's Office

Members of the Public

EPA TOUR AND EMPLOYEE MEETING AT CRAIG STATION PARTICIPANTS - September 11, 2014
Rick Johnson, Plant Manager, Tri-State G&T
Shaun McGrath, EPA Region 8 Administrator
Carl Daly, EPA Air Director and Regional Haze Program
Rich Mylott, EPA Public Affairs
Rick Gordon, Chairman of the Board, Tri-State G&T
Barbara Walz, SVP, Compliance and Policy, Tri-State G&T
Barry Ingold, SVP, Generation, Tri-State G&T

Other Tri-State Employees:
Gigi Dennis, Senior Manager, External Relations
Dave Lock, Senior Manager, Government Relations
Lee Boughey, Senior Manager, Communications and Public Affairs
Andy Berger, Environmental Policy Manager
Drew Kramer, Public Affairs Manager
Paul Griffin, Senior Government Relations Advisor
Amy Robertson, Government Relations Advisor
Sarah Carlisle, Public Affairs Coordinator

Craig Station Employees

COLOWYO MINE TOUR PARTICIPANTS  -  September 11, 2014
Chris McCourt, Mine Manager, Colowyo Mine
Shaun McGrath, EPA Region 8 Administrator
Carl Daly, EPA Air Director and Regional Haze Program
Rich Mylott, EPA Public Affairs
Rick Gordon, Chairman of the Board, Tri-State G&T
Barbara Walz, SVP, Compliance and Policy, Tri-State G&T
Barry Ingold, SVP, Generation, Tri-State G&T

Colowyo Mine Employees


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54744]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22715]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0380; FRL-9933-64-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; SO2 Revision for Walsh and Kelly

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a request submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management on June 1, 2015, to revise its state implementation plan
(SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2). The revision updates
information regarding Walsh and Kelly, Incorporated, a hot mix asphalt
plant located in Griffith, Lake County, Indiana. Walsh and Kelly,
Incorporated, is replacing its aggregate drum dryer. The revision does
not change any of the SO2 control requirements and will not
result in an increase in SO2 emissions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0380 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: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section
(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: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies 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 approving Indiana's SO2 SIP submittal 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 approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If EPA does not receive adverse comments in response to this
rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and will address all
public comments received 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 can 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: August 28, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-22715 Filed 9-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P