[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73612-73613]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30679]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14261-000; 14268-000; 14277-000; 14281-000]

Lock Hydro Friends Fund XVIII; Upper Hydroelectric LLC; FFP
Project 95 LLC; Riverbank Hydro No. 25 LLC; Notice of Competing
Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On September 1, 2011, Lock Hydro Friends Fund XVIII (Lock Hydro),
Upper Hydroelectric LLC (Upper Hydro), Riverbank Hydro No. 25 LLC
(Riverbank), and FFP Project 95 LLC (FFP 95) filed preliminary permit
applications, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project at the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) John C. Stennis Lock & Dam, located on
the Tombigbee River in Lowndes County, Mississippi. The sole purpose of
a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    Lock Hydro's Project No. 14261-000 would consist of: (1) One lock
frame module, the frame module will be placed in a new conduit and
contain five generating units with a total combined capacity of 10.0
megawatts (MW); (2) a new switchyard containing

a transformer; and (3) a proposed 1.9-mile-long, 34.5 kilo-volt (kV)
transmission line to an existing power line. The proposed project would
have an average annual generation of 52.560 GWh, and operate run-of-
river utilizing surplus water from the John C. Stennis Lock & Dam, as
directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Wayne F. Krouse, Hydro Green Energy, 5090
Richmond Avenue 390, Houston, TX 77056.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Upper Hydro's Project No. 14268-000 would consist of: (1) a 250-
foot-long, 100-foot-wide headrace channel; (2) a powerhouse containing
two generating units with a total capacity of 15.0 MW; (3) a 275-foot-
long, 100-foot-wide tailrace; (4) a 0.5-mile-long, 34.0 kV transmission
line. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of
72.0 GWh, and operate run-of-river utilizing surplus water from the
John C. Stennis Lock & Dam, as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Douglas Spaulding, Nelson Energy LLC, 8441
Wayzata Blvd., Suite 101, Golden Valley, MN 55426.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FFP 95's Project No. 14277-000 would consist of: (1) An 160-foot-
long, 100-foot-wide approach channel; (2) a powerhouse, located on the
west side of the dam, containing one generating unit with a total
capacity of 15.0 MW; (3) a 190-foot-long, 50-foot-wide tailrace; (4) a
4.16/46 KV substation; and (5) a 1.5-mile-long, 46 kV transmission
line. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of
59.9 GWh, and operate run-of-river utilizing surplus water from the
John C. Stennis Lock & Dam, as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corp.,
239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Riverbank's Project No. 14281-000 would consist of: (1) A forebay;
(2) an intake structure; (3) a powerhouse containing two generating
units with a total capacity of 13.25 MW; (4) a tailrace structure; and
(5) a 2.0-mile-long, 46 KV transmission line. The project would have an
estimated average annual generation of 52.4 gigawatt-hours (GWh), and
operate run-of-river utilizing surplus water from the John C. Stennis
Lock & Dam, as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Vincent Lamarra, Riverbank Power USA, 975
South State Highway 89/91, Logan, UT 84321.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6093.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14261-000, P-14268-000, 14277-000, or P-
14281-000) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: November 22, 2011.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30679 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 216)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57883-57884]
[DOCID:fr10no09-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

20 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2008-0034]
RIN 1218-AC08

Revising Standards Referenced in the Acetylene Standard

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is confirming the effective date of its direct final rule
that revises the Acetylene Standard for general industry by updating
references to standards published by standards-developing
organizations. The direct final rule stated that it would become
effective on November 9, 2009, unless OSHA received no significant
adverse comments on the direct final rule by September 10, 2009. OSHA
received eight comments on the direct final rule by that date, which it
determined were not significant adverse comments. Therefore, OSHA is
confirming that the direct final rule became effective on November 9,
2009.

DATES: The direct final rule published on August 11, 2009, is effective
on November 9, 2009. For the purposes of judicial review, OSHA
considers November 9, 2009 as the date of issuance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General information and press inquiries: Contact Jennifer Ashley,
Director, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Technical information: Contact Ted Twardowski, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202)
693-2070; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of this Federal Register notice. Electronic copies of this
Federal Register notice are available at http://www.regulations.gov.
This Federal Register notice, as well as news releases and other
relevant information, are also available at OSHA's Web page at http://
www.osha.gov.

ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), OSHA designates the
Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health as the
recipient of petitions for review of the final standard. Contact the
Associate Solicitor at the Office of the Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 11, 2009, OSHA published the
direct final rule in the Federal Register that revised the Acetylene
Standard for general industry by updating references to standards
published by standards-developing organizations (see 74 FR 40442). In
that Federal Register document OSHA also stated that it would confirm
the effective date of the direct final rule, if it received no
significant adverse comments on the direct final rule.
    OSHA received eight comments on the direct final rule, which it
determined were not significant adverse comments. Several of these
commenters observed that the Compressed Gas Association updated the CGA
G-1 standard this year, and recommended that OSHA adopt this new
edition (Exs. OSHA-2008-0034-0017, -0010, and -0022). OSHA did not
include the 2009 edition of CGA G-1 in the direct final rule because
that edition was not made available to OSHA prior to publication of the
direct final rule, and, therefore, was beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. In its comments, the Compressed Gas Association noted that
the only difference between the 2003 edition referenced in the direct
final rule and the recently issued 2009 edition is the addition of one
sentence to a note in section 5.2 of the 2009 edition, which reads,
``Additionally, single cylinders of acetylene and oxygen located at a
work station (e.g., chained to a wall or building column or secured to
a cart) shall be considered `in service' '' (see Ex. OSHA-2008-0034-
0020). Nevertheless, OSHA plans to update the reference to CGA G-1 in a
future rulemaking as resources and priorities permit.
    Another commenter complained of the economic burden imposed by the
flow-rate provision of the 2003 edition of CGA G-1 (Ex. OSHA-2008-0034-
0021). In this regard, the 1966 edition of the standard (the edition
cited previously in 29 CFR 1910.102(a)) specified a flow rate of one-
seventh of the capacity of the cylinder per hour regardless of the
duration of use, while the 2003 edition reduced this flow rate to one-
tenth of the cylinder capacity per hour during intermittent use, and
one-fifteenth of the cylinder capacity per hour during continuous use.
This commenter stated, ``As long as this flow rate [in the 2003
edition] remains advisory * * * this is not a problem.'' In the first
footnote in the preamble of the direct final rule, OSHA noted that
``both of these flow-rate provisions [in either the 1966 or 2003
editions] are advisory, not mandatory.'' Therefore, employers may use
any flow rate that provides employees with an appropriate level of
safety.
    Two commenters appeared to confuse the Acetylene Standard at 29 CFR
1910.102, which was the subject of this rulemaking, with OSHA's
standard regulating oxygen-fuel gas welding and cutting at 29 CFR
1910.253 (Exs. OSHA-2008-0034-0002 and -0018). The first commenter
asked, ``[W]hat are the dimension[s] of a wall that would separate
oxygen and acetylene tanks for storage in a[n industrial] shop.'' The
second commenter noted that a provision in the 2003 edition of CGA G-1
requires that a regulator and flow restrictor be attached to an
acetylene cylinder before opening the cylinder valve, and asserted that
this provision contradicted other OSHA standards requiring that a
cylinder valve be ``cracked'' before attaching a regulator to it. These
comments address requirements for the use of acetylene in welding
operations, which is regulated for general industry under 29 CFR
1910.253, and not the requirements for the generation and distribution
of acetylene, which is regulated for general

industry under 29 CFR 1910.102. Accordingly, practices and conditions
that apply to acetylene stored in cylinders and used in welding
operations may differ from the practices and conditions appropriate to
bulk storage of acetylene in generation and distribution facilities.
    One commenter expressed concern that OSHA would apply retroactively
to existing acetylene-generating facilities that were compliant with
the appropriate standards when originally constructed, those sections
of the NFPA 51A-2001 standard that address site location, design, and
materials (Ex. OSHA-2008-0034-0019). The commenter noted that applying
the updated NFPA standard in this fashion would require moving or
demolishing the facilities, or discontinuing operations. In response to
this commenter, OSHA notes that section 1.2.2 of NFPA 51A-2001 states,
``An existing plant that is not in strict compliance with the
provisions of this standard shall be permitted to continue operations
where such use does not constitute a distinct hazard to life or
adjoining property.'' This provision indicates clearly that NFPA 51A-
2001 does not apply to acetylene plants in existence prior to
publication of the standard when the operations in these plants do not
endanger employees. Therefore, OSHA considers acetylene plants in
existence prior to the effective date of NFPA 51A-2001 (i.e., February
9, 2001) to be in compliance with that standard when the acetylene
operations in these plants do not ``constitute a distinct hazard'' to
employees.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Acetylene, General industry, Occupational safety and health,
Safety.

Authority and Signature

    Jordan Barab, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation of this final rule.
OSHA is issuing this final rule pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and
657), 5 U.S.C. 553, Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31160),
and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 5, 2009.
Jordan Barab,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E9-27004 Filed 11-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 105)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26600]
[DOCID:fr03jn09-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0314; FRL-8906-2]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions concern the permitting of air
pollution sources. We are proposing to approve SDAPCD Rule 27.1--
Federal Requirements for the San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District's Alternative Mobile Source Emission Reduction Program
Approved on September 8, 2000, which is a local rule that regulates air
pollution sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or
the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by July 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0314, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105.

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaheerah Kelly, Permits Office (AIR-
3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rule: Rule 27.1--Federal Requirements for the San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District's Alternative Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Program Approved on September 8, 2000. In the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving this
local rule in a direct final action without prior proposal because we
believe the SIP revision is not controversial. If we receive adverse
comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct
final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this
proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: May 7, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-12790 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77788-77789]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0104]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated September 13, 2013, the New York and Lake Erie Railroad (NYLE)
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR 223.11, Requirements for existing
locomotives. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2013-0104.
    This petition relates to operation of Montreal Locomotive Works
(MLW) Locomotive FPA-2U, Reporting Marks NYLE 6758, and Locomotive FPA-
4, Reporting Marks NYLE 6764, that are prohibited from operation on the
general system of railroads without window glazing that meets the
requirements of 49 CFR 223.11. These locomotives are in tourist/
excursion service and operate on approximately 31 miles of track in
rural Cattaraugus and Chautauqua Counties in western New York State.
The locomotives were previously covered under Waiver FRA-1998-4822 when
they were in biweekly service on NYLE's sister railroad, the Oil Creek
and Titusville Lines (OCTL) in rural northwestern Pennsylvania. OCTL
never had problems with window breakage due to vandalism and never had
to replace glass due to breakage from flying objects. Maximum
authorized speed on NYLE is 25 mph, the same as it was on OCTL. The
cost of installing compliant glazing on these historic locomotives
remains prohibitively expensive.

    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by February 7, 2014 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-30534 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7607-7608]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2924]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63821; File No. SR-EDGX-2011-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

February 2, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 25, 2011, the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
the ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer, or any person
associated with a registered broker or dealer, that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    In SR-EDGX-2011-01,\4\ the Exchange filed for immediate
effectiveness a rule filing to amend Rule 11.9 to add its routing
strategies, which were contained in its fee schedule, to the rule and
to introduce additional routing strategies to the rule. Two of those
strategies that the Exchange added to Rules 11.9(b)(3)(q) and (r) were
the SWPA/SWPB routing strategies. Under the SWPA strategy, an order
would check the System for available shares and then would be sent to
Protected Quotations and only for displayed size. Under this strategy,
orders would not have to contain sufficient size to execute against all
Protected Quotations (emphasis added). If any shares remain unexecuted,
such remainder will be cancelled back to the User. Under the SWPB
routing strategy, an order would check the System for available shares
and then is sent to Protected Quotations and only for displayed size.
Under this strategy, orders would have to contain sufficient size to
execute against all Protected Quotations. The entire SWPB order will be
cancelled back to the User immediately if at the time of entry there is
insufficient quantity in the SWPB order to fulfill the displayed size
of all Protected Quotations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-EDGX-2011-01 (January 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this filing, the Exchange proposes to add the corresponding flag
for the use of the SWPA/SWPB strategies, SW, to its fee schedule and
assign it a fee of $0.0031 per share for removal of liquidity from all
market centers except from the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). For any
SWPA/SWPB orders that remove liquidity from the NYSE, the Exchange will
continue to assign Flag D and charge a fee of $0.0023 per share. This
is clarified in proposed footnote 8 to the fee schedule. The lower fee
charged for removing liquidity from the NYSE is consistent with the
processing of similar routing strategies by EDGX's competitors.
Secondly, of the major market centers, the NYSE fees for removing
liquidity itself are lower, and EDGX is thus able to pass back such
lower rates to its Members.
    EDGX Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to the
Exchange fee schedule on January 25, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\6\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities. The fee of $0.0031 per share is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges in that this order type is
limited in its interaction with other Member orders as it only executes
to the extent a Member order is at the Protected Quotation. As a
result, compared to other routing strategies that always sweep the EDGX
book before routing out, such as ROBA (fee of $0.0025 per share), the
SWPA/SWPB fees are higher. Secondly, the fee is equitable when compared
to other similar type strategies of EDGX's competitors. As noted in SR-
EDGX-2011-01, the SWPA/SWPB routing strategies are based on Nasdaq's
MOPP strategy and BATS Parallel T routing strategy.\7\ Nasdaq charges
$0.0035 per share for MOPP orders and BATS charges $0.0033 per share
for such orders. EDGX's rate is even more competitive than these. The
Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly

competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive
pricing structure designed to incent market participants to direct
their order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rates are equitable in that they apply uniformly to all
Members. The Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive
with those charged by other venues and therefore continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ See, e.g., NASDAQ Rule 4758 and BATS Rule 11.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \9\ thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2011-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2011-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\10\ all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
EDGX-2011-02 and should be submitted on or before March 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
Exchange's Web site at http://www.directedge.com, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at EDGX, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2924 Filed 2-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53047-53048]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20777]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3253-015]

Mad River Power Associates; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment

    On November 3, 2020, Mad River Power Associates filed an
application for a subsequent license to continue operating the existing
639-kilowatt Campton Hydroelectric Project No. 3253 (project). The
project is located on the Mad River in Grafton County, New Hampshire,
and occupies approximately 0.08 acre of federal land administered by
the U.S. Forest Service.
    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on July 7, 2021,
Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for
environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the
record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not
anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on
the application to license the project.
    The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested
parties. All comments filed on the EA will be

analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing
decision.
    The application will be processed according to the following
schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues EA......................  March 2022.\1\
Comments on EA............................  May 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Amanda Gill
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations
under 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(1) require that EAs be completed within 1
year of the federal action agency's decision to prepare an EA. This
notice establishes the Commission's intent to prepare an EA for the
Campton Hydroelectric Project. Therefore, in accordance with CEQ's
regulations, the EA must be issued within 1 year of the issuance
date of this notice.

    Dated: September 20, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-20777 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 250 (Monday, December 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79530-79533]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71172; File No. SR-MIAX-2013-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's By-Laws

December 23, 2013.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on December 9, 2013, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the Exchange's By-Laws.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to: (i) Amend certain sections of its By-Laws
to correspond with an Equity Rights Program (``ERP'') recently
established by the Exchange; \3\ and (ii) make other non-substantive
revisions to reflect changes since the Commission granted the
Exchange's registration as a national securities exchange on December
3, 2012.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70498 (September 25,
2013), 78 FR 60348 (October 1, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-43).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68341 (December 3,
2012), 77 FR 73089 (December 7, 2012) (File No. 10-207).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The filing corresponds with the recently implemented ERP, pursuant
to which units representing the right to

acquire equity in the Exchange's parent holding company, Miami
International Holdings (``LLM Member''),\5\ were issued to
participating Members in exchange for payment of an initial purchase
price or the prepayment of certain transaction fees and the achievement
of certain liquidity addition volume thresholds on the Exchange over a
23-month period. This filing amends the By-Laws to the extent necessary
to incorporate rights to participating Members in an ERP to appoint
representation to the MIAX Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission notes that the defined term ``LLM Member'' is
a typographical error. The Commission understands that the Exchange
meant ``LLC Member'' here, a term used throughout this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article I, Definitions
    The Exchange proposes to amend the By-Laws to provide definitions
for key terms used to incorporate provisions related to the ERP.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes the following definitions:
     ``Effective Date'' means the date of effectiveness of
these Amended and Restated By-Laws.
     ``ERP Agreement'' means the agreement pursuant to which
Units were issued.
     ``ERP Director'' means an Industry Director who has been
nominated by an ERP Member and appointed to the Board of Directors.
     ``ERP Member'' means an Exchange Member who acquired Units
pursuant to an ERP Agreement sufficient to acquire an ERP Director or
an Observer position.
     ``Exchange Contract'' means a contract that is then listed
for trading by the Exchange or that is contemplated by the then current
business plan of the Company to be listed for trading by the Exchange
within ninety (90) days following such date.
     ``Measurement Period'' means the time period over which
Units are vested.
     ``Observer'' has the meaning set forth in Article II,
Section 2.2 of these By-Laws.
     ``Performance Criteria'' means the trades on MIAX in an
amount equal to a percentage of the average daily volume of contracts
traded on all options exchanges for all option classes listed on MIAX
as reported to The Options Clearing Corporation for a specified
Measurement Period in an amount such that the ERP Member earns Units
during such specified Measurement Period.
     ``Specified Entity'' means (i) any U.S. securities option
exchange (or facility thereof) or U.S. alternative trading system on
which securities options are traded (other than the Company or any of
its affiliates) that lists for trading any option contract that
competes with an Exchange Contract, (ii) any person that owns or
controls such U.S. securities option exchange or U.S. alternative
trading system, and (iii) any affiliate of a person described in clause
(i) or (ii) above.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that this definition is nearly identical
to that used by another competing options exchange. See Limited
Liability Company Agreement of NYSE Amex Options, Article I, 1.1.
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64742 (June 24, 2011),
76 FR 38436 (June 30, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-018) (Exhibit 5A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Unit'' means a combination of securities or types of
securities packaged together as one.
    The Exchange will renumber the pre-existing definitions accordingly
to accommodate the additions.
Article II, Section 2.2, Composition of the Board
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Board of Directors composition
provisions to provide that ERP Directors will be included in the number
of Industry Directors for purposes of calculating the composition of
the Board. In addition, the Exchange proposes to specify that Member
Representative Directors will not include ERP Directors for purposes of
calculating the Board composition.
    The Exchange proposes to add a restriction to the qualifications of
a Director so that after the effective date of the Amended and Restated
By-Laws, in the event a Director becomes a member of the board of
directors or similar governing body of a competing options exchange or
alternative trading system that trades options, such individual shall
immediately cease to be a Director of the Company and the resulting
vacancy shall be filled by the standard nominating and appointment
procedures.\7\ Existing Directors that may be in violation would be
grandfathered in and not subject to the new restriction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that this restriction is nearly identical
to that used by another competing options exchange. See Limited
Liability Company Agreement of NYSE Amex Options, Article VIII,
8.1(h). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64742 (June 24,
2011), 76 FR 38436 (June 30, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-018) (Exhibit
5A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to provide that an ERP Member
has a right to nominate a Director or appoint an Observer to the Board
of Directors. If the ERP Member is otherwise able to nominate an ERP
Director, an Observer appointment would be in lieu of such ERP Director
nomination.\8\ As discussed below, the Nominating Committee shall
formally nominate only those persons whose names have been approved and
submitted by the applicable ERP Members. The LLC Member is then
obligated to vote for the nominated ERP Director. The nominee shall be
appointed at the first annual meeting of the Company following the
effective date of the By-Law amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ At this time, an ERP Member may only have at most a Member
Representative Director and an ERP Director, or a Member
Representative Director and an Observer, but not an ERP Director and
an Observer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Observers appointed by ERP Members will be subject to the same
statutory disqualification restrictions as Directors. Similar to
Directors, in the event an Observer appointed after the effective date
of the Amended and Restated By-Laws becomes a member of the board of
directors or similar governing body of a competing options exchange or
alternative trading system that trades options, such individual shall
immediately cease to be an Observer of the Company.\9\ Observers will
have the right to attend all meetings of the Board of Directors in a
nonvoting observer capacity and, in this respect, the Company shall
give such representative copies of all notices, minutes, consents, and
other materials that it provides to its directors at the same time and
in the same manner as provided to such Directors; provided, however,
that such representative shall agree to hold in confidence and trust
and to act in a fiduciary manner with respect to all information so
provided; and provided further, that the Company reserves the right to
withhold any information and to exclude such representative from any
meeting or portion thereof if access to such information or attendance
at such meeting could adversely affect the attorney-client privilege
between the Company and its counsel or result in disclosure of trade
secrets or a conflict of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes these changes are reasonably designed to
ensure that the Board of Directors maintains the appropriate
composition after the ERP and that Directors and Observers are
qualified to represent ERP Members on the Board. The changes will also
help to ensure that Directors, ERP Directors, and Observers, are
qualified and held to the same restrictions against statutory
disqualification and conflicts of interests by being a member of the
board of directors or similar body of a competitor. The Exchange notes
that no substantive changes are being proposed to the Board's
composition; the Board size will increase, but the current composition
will remain.

Article II, Section 2.3, Terms of Office
    The Exchange proposes to amend this Section to provide that in the
event that an ERP Member who has the right to nominate an ERP Director
and which fails to meet its Performance Criteria under the ERP
Agreement for three consecutive Measurement Periods such that it only
meets the required performance criteria of an ERP Member that may
appoint an Observer, then the individual designated by the non-
performing ERP Member shall immediately cease to be an ERP Director of
the Company and such ERP Member shall cease to have the right to
nominate an ERP Director. Such non-performing ERP Member shall continue
to maintain Observer rights as set forth in the By-Laws.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the non-performing ERP
Member satisfies the Performance Criteria for a subsequent Measurement
Period, then such ERP Member may reappoint an ERP Director at the
immediately following annual meeting of the Company. Additionally, in
the event that an ERP Member who has the right to appoint an Observer
and which fails to meet its Performance Criteria for three consecutive
Measurement Periods, then the individual designated by the non-
performing ERP Member shall immediately cease to be an Observer and
such non-performing ERP Member shall cease to have the right to appoint
an Observer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the non-
performing ERP Member satisfies the Performance Criteria for a
subsequent Measurement Period, then such ERP Member may reappoint an
Observer. The Exchange believes that it is fair and reasonable to treat
non-performing ERP Member's that can nominate an ERP Director
differently than non-performing ERP Member's that can only appoint
Observers. ERP Members that can nominate ERP Directors have assumed
greater performance obligations under the ERP Agreement, and thus even
at the non-performing level are entitled to more protections to their
representation on the Board than non-performing ERP Members that can
only appoint Observers.
    The Exchange also proposes to provide that an individual ERP
Director or Observer position shall be immediately terminated following
the transfer of common stock or warrants of the LLC Member acquired
pursuant to the ERP Agreement by an ERP Member which, after giving
effect to such transfer, results in such ERP Member holding less than
20% of the aggregate number of shares of common stock of the LLC Member
issued or issuable pursuant to the Units acquired pursuant to the ERP
Agreement collectively.
    The Exchange believes these changes regarding Terms of Office are
reasonably designed to account for the removal of Directors or
Observers of non-performing ERP Members and Members that no longer have
a controlling interest in the shares that provided them the right to
such appointments.
Article II, Section 2.4, Nomination and Election
    The Exchange proposes to provide that the Nominating Committee
shall nominate to ERP Director positions only those persons whose names
have been approved and submitted by the applicable ERP Members having
the right to nominate such person. As mentioned above, the LLC Member
is then obligated to vote for the nominated ERP Director. The nominee
shall be appointed at the first annual meeting of the Company following
September 30, 2013, which was the closing date of the ERP Program.
Article II, Section 2.8, Vacancies
    The Exchange proposes to provide that in the event that an ERP
Director position becomes vacant that the applicable ERP Member will
retain the ability to nominate a person to fill the vacant ERP Director
position. To eliminate any potential confusion between the treatment of
true vacancies and the non-performance provisions in Article II,
Section 2.3(c), the Exchange proposes to specify that Section 2.8(c)
will not apply for a vacancy resulting from an ERP Director position
becoming vacant due to a non-performing ERP Member. In the situation of
non-performance of an ERP Member, the provisions of Article II, Section
2.3(c) would apply.
Article II, Section 2.9, Removal and Resignation
    The Exchange proposes to provide that ERP Directors may only be
removed for cause, which shall include, without limitation, such
Director being subject to a statutory disqualification.
Article IV, Section 4.2, Board Committees
    The Exchange proposes to provide that committee members will be
subject to the same statutory disqualification restrictions as
Directors and Observers. Similar to Directors and Observers, in the
event a committee member appointed after the effective date of the
Amended and Restated By-Laws becomes a member of the board of directors
or similar governing body of a competing options exchange or
alternative trading system that trades options, such individual shall
immediately cease to be a committee member of the Company.\10\ The
Exchange believes these changes are reasonably designed to ensure that
committee members are qualified and held to the same standards as
Directors and Observers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that this restriction is nearly
identical to that used by another competing options exchange. See
Limited Liability Company Agreement of NYSE Amex Options, Article
VIII, 8.3(d). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64742
(June 24, 2011), 76 FR 38436 (June 30, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-018)
(Exhibit 5A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article X, Sections 10.3 and 10.4
    The Exchange proposes to provide that Observers will be subject to
the same participation rights on the Board during meetings pertaining
to the self-regulatory function of the Company as other members of the
Board. In addition, Observers will be subject to the same requirements
to maintain the confidentiality of all books and records of the Company
reflecting confidential information pertaining to the self-regulatory
function of the Company.
Miscellaneous Non-Substantive Changes.
    In addition to the changes set forth above, the Exchange proposes
to make the following non-substantive changes to the current By-Laws.
The Exchange proposes to delete dated references to time periods and
events that have expired since the proposal of the New By-Laws.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete provisions in Article II,
Section 2.5, and Article III, Section 3.1(b), regarding Interim
Directors and Interim Member Representative Directors since these
appointments have already occurred. Consistent with this change, the
Exchange proposes to remove references to Article II, Section 2.5 and
Interim Directors and Interim Member Representative Directors from
Article I(bb) and Article II, Section 2.2(b)(i).
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it
enables the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to
carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce
compliance by its Members and persons associated with its Members, with
the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations

thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange; and that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. In addition, the proposed
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the Act,\13\ in that it
enables the Exchange to assure a fair representation of its members in
the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs and
provide that one or more directors shall be representative of issuers
and investors and not be associated with a member of the exchange,
broker, or dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed amendments to the By-Laws are reasonably
designed to incorporate provisions related to the ERP in a manner that
ensures that the Exchange will remain so organized as to have the
capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to
enforce compliance by its Members and persons associated with its
Members, with the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The changes will also help
to ensure that Directors, ERP Directors, Observers, and committee
members are qualified and held to the same restrictions against
statutory disqualification and conflicts of interests by being a member
of the board of directors or similar body of a competitor. The proposed
ERP Directors will be subject to the same restrictions as current
Directors including evaluating proposals with the Company's self-
regulatory status in mind, restricting participation in activities
where there is a conflict of interest, and [sic] requirement to
maintain the confidentiality of information related to the Company's
self-regulatory function. The proposed Observers will be subject to the
same restrictions as current Directors regarding maintain [sic] the
confidentiality of information related to the Company's self-regulatory
function. However, Observers will be not be subject to the same
restrictions as current Directors regarding evaluating proposals with
the Company's self-regulatory status in mind and restricting
participation in activities where there is a conflict of interest. The
Exchange believes that treating Observers differently than Directors in
these circumstances is reasonable because Observers will not be
affirmatively voting on any such proposals in their non-voting observer
capacity.
    In addition, the Exchange's proposed amendments address other non-
substantive revisions to reflect changes since the Commission granted
the Exchange's registration as a national securities exchange.
    The proposal will continue to assure a fair representation of its
Members in that ERP Directors will not affect the current Member
Representation Director calculation or process in any way. The Exchange
notes that no substantive changes are being proposed to the Board's
composition; the Board size will increase, but the current composition
will remain.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes to the
Exchange By-Laws are designed to enable the Exchange to be so organized
as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act and to
comply, and to enforce compliance by its Members and persons associated
with its Members, with the provisions of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. As such, this is
not a competitive filing and thus should not impose any burden on
competition.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2013-58 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2013-58. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2013-58,
and should be submitted on or before January 21, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-31128 Filed 12-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


RESOLUTION NO. 2005 04 OF THE MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT WHEREAS, The Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut ( the " Mohegan Tribe") is a federally recognized American Indian Tribe recognized by the United States pursuant to 25 C. F. R. 89, 59 Fed. Reg. 12140; and WHEREAS, the Mohegan Tribe is governed by the Mohegan Tribal Council pursuant to the Constitution of the Mohegan Tribe; and WHEREAS, the Mohegan Tribal Council possesses legislative and executive authority under the Tribal Constitution ; and WHEREAS, the Tribe has previously adopted several Ordinances relating to protection of Air Quality in the Mohegan Indian Reservation: Ordinance 2002 12 establishing an Environmental Protection Department ( MEPD); Ordinance 2002 14 adopting an area wide NOx Emissions Limitations Regulation; Ordinance 2002 49 amending the MEPD Ordinance; and Ordinance 2003 16, amending the NOx Emissions Limitations Regulation .

WHEREAS, the Tribe is currently in the final stages of submitting to the U. S. Environmental Department Agency ( EPA) its formal Request for Eligibility Determination for Treatment as a State under the Clean Air Act and approval of Tribal TIP ( Implementation Plan); and WHEREAS, one of the requirements for final submission is that the Tribe agree to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the EPA regarding coordination of any criminal violations of federal environmental laws; and WHEREAS, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mohegan Tribal Council hereby approves the Memorandum of Agreement with the EPA regarding coordination of any criminal violations of federal environmental laws ( a copy of which is attached); and WHEREAS, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mohegan Tribal Council hereby approves submission to EPA of the Request for Eligibility Determination for Treatment as a State under the Clean Air Act and approval of Tribal TIP ( Implementation Plan). Dated this 16th day of February, 2005 at Uncasville, Connecticut.

f : DJANS OF CONNECTICUT ATTEST:

Shirley M. alsh Recording Secretary


[Federal Register: September 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 59299]
[DOCID:fr27se10-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday,
September 29, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
September 29, 2010 will be:

    institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution
and settlement of administrative proceedings; and other matters
relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 23, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24228 Filed 9-23-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 65163]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27479]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677; FRL-9987-50]

Receipt of Information Under the Toxic Substances Control Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing its receipt of information submitted
pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement issued under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document
identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which information
has been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance
and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the information received.
Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is
identified in Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: John Schaeffer, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Chemical Substances and/or Mixtures

    Information received about the following chemical substance(s) and/
or mixture(s) is provided in Unit IV.: Acetaldehyde, reaction products
with formaldehyde, by-products from (CASRN 68442-60-4).

II. Authority

    Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a
notice in the Federal Register reporting the receipt of information
submitted pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement promulgated
under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603).

III. Docket Information

    A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this Federal Register
document, which announces the receipt of the information. Upon EPA's
completion of its quality assurance review, the information received
will be added to the docket identified in Unit IV., which represents
the docket used for the TSCA section 4 rule, order, and/or consent
agreement. In addition, once completed, EPA reviews of the information
received will be added to the same docket. Use the docket ID number
provided in Unit IV. to access the information received and any
available EPA review.
    EPA's dockets are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

IV. Information Received

    As specified by TSCA section 4(d), this unit identifies the
information received by EPA: Acetaldehyde, reaction products with
formaldehyde, by-products from (CASRN 68442-60-4).
    1. Chemical use(s): Acetaldehyde, reaction products with
formaldehyde, by-products from, is a chemical intermediate used in
processing as a reactant in the construction industrial sector.
    2. Applicable rule, Order, or Consent agreement: Chemical testing
requirements for third group of high production volume chemicals
(HPV3), 40 CFR 799.5089.
    3. Information received: EPA received the following information:
    a. Physical-Chemical Properties: Boiling point.
    b. Physical-Chemical Properties: Melting point.
    c. Physical-Chemical Properties: Vapor pressure.
    d. Physical-Chemical Properties: Partition coefficient.
    e. Physical-Chemical Properties: Water solubility.
    f. Biodegradation.
    g. Acute toxicity to fish.
    h. Daphnia immobilization study.
    i. Acute oral, skin and eye irritation.
    j. Chromosomal aberrations assay with Chinese hamster ovary cell.
    k. Micronucleus test in bone marrow cells of CD-1 mice.
    l. Rationale for conducting both the in vitro and in vivo
chromosome aberration test.
    m. Repeated dose oral toxicity study in rats.
    n. Reproduction/Developmental toxicity screening test in rats.
    o. Rationale for use of alternate data to address F1 data
requirements in rats.
    p. Ames test report.
    The docket ID number assigned to this information is EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2009-0112.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: December 7, 2018.
Lynn Vendinello,
Acting Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2018-27479 Filed 12-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


The Honorable Louis DeRoin Chairman Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska 3345 B Thrasher Road White Cloud, KS 66074 9624 Dear Chairman DeRoin:

On July 18, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) promulgated the National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQS) for fine particulate matter or PM 2.5. This standard addresses particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter and was based on EPA's review of a number of health studies which indicate that exposure to fine particulate matter is correlated with increased mortality and serious health affects such as aggravation of lung disease, asthma attacks, and heart problems.

As a first step in the process towards implementing this new fine particulate matter standard, the EPA requests that you submit recommended designation and documentation in accordance with section 107( d)( 1)( A) of the Clean Air Act to us by February 15, 2004. Your Tribe's participation in this process is optional. The recommended area designation should be based on quality assured air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2000 to 2002. EPA may make modifications to these designations as it deems necessary. If EPA determines that a modification to a Tribe's recommendation is necessary, the EPA will notify the Tribe no later than 120 days prior to promulgating the designations. This will provide the Tribe an opportunity to demonstrate why the EPA's modification is not appropriate. EPA intends to promulgate final designations by December 15, 2004, based on the most recent available data.

We will consult with your Vice Chairman in this process and offer the EPA's assistance so that his office might advise you on the designation of your reservation. We are also available to meet with you at your request. A copy of the guidance and a Fact Sheet are enclosed. The documents may also be found at the following webpage: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ naaqs/ pm/ pm25_ index. html We will keep your tribe informed of any additional guidance and other support activities. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Art Spratlin, Director of the Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division, who may be contacted at ( 913) 551 7401.

Sincerely,

James B. Gulliford Regional Administrator Enclosures cc: Harvey Fredrick Vice Chairman ARTD/ APDB: cas: c: JROBINSON/ DeRoin. WPD/ 062603 APDB APDB CNSL ARTD OEP RGAD Robinson Tapp Patrick Spratlin Bustos Guilliford 06/ / 03 06/ / 03 06/ / 03 06/ / 03 06/ / 03 06/ / 03


www.erg.com
www.erg.com

MEMORANDUM

TO:	Eric Goehl, Paula Hirtz, Kaye Whitfield, and Kim Teal, U.S. EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

FROM:	Eastern Research Group, Inc.

DATE:	April 26, 2019

SUBJECT:	Documentation for Surface Coating of Metal Coil Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Modeling File
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Risk and Technology Review (RTR) database used in estimating residual risk for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Surface Coating of Metal Coil (40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS). This NESHAP covers only Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112 major sources.
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from stationary sources. In the first stage, section 112(d) requires the EPA to develop maximum achievable control technology (MACT)-based standards for categories of industrial sources. In the second stage, known as the residual risk stage, section 112(f)(2) requires EPA to assess the health and environmental risks that remain after sources come into compliance with the NESHAP based on the MACT. If additional risk reductions are necessary to protect public health with an ample margin of safety or to prevent adverse environmental effects, EPA must develop standards to address these remaining risks. As part of this second stage, data were gathered to assess the residual risks from the surface coating of metal coil source category.
FACILITY LIST DEVELOPMENT
The list of facilities potentially subject to the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Coil was initially developed using the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA) Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database tool in January of 2016 and again in 2017.  The ECHO facility list was compared to a list of facilities provided with the original rulemaking. We then reviewed air permits (those available online) to help determine whether each facility remaining on the list is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS. The ECHO searches and permit reviews resulted in a list of 48 facilities subject to subpart SSSS that were included in the modeling file. The list of facilities is provided in Appendix A.
RECORDS ASSIGNED TO CATEGORY
Emissions data were pulled from the 2011 NEI v2 for the original ECHO facility list and from the 2014 NEI v1 for the additional facilities added from the second ECHO search. The 2014 NEI v1 data were not available at the time the data were compiled for the original ECHO facility list; the 2011 NEI v2 were the most recent data available at that time. The Source Classification Codes (SCCs) and unit descriptions were reviewed and compared to air permits, where available, in order to assign records to the metal coil coating category. The SCC and unit descriptions were also used to assign Emission Process Groups in the modeling file. The Emission Process Groups are used to understand the relative contribution of each type of process to the overall risk results after modeling is completed.
SPECIATION PROFILES
After records were assigned to the category, we performed an overall review of the emissions to determine if the data for each facility were both complete and representative. We found that some facilities reported organic and metal HAP for metal coil coating operations, while others reported only criteria pollutants such as particulate matter (PM) or criteria pollutant precursors such as volatile organic compounds (VOC).
ORGANIC SPECIATION PROFILE
Twenty-two of the 48 facilities in the final modeling file reported both VOC and organic HAP emissions for metal coil coating processes. The emissions for these facilities were used to develop speciation profiles using the weighted-average ratio of each organic HAP to VOC. The HAP-to-VOC ratio was calculated for each organic HAP as the sum of the reported HAP emissions divided by the sum of the reported VOC emissions for those processes with both VOC and HAP.
The NEI data included some organic HAP that were only reported once in the dataset.  These HAP were excluded from the profile, because they were not considered to be typical or expected for all coil coating facilities. These HAP included N,N-dimethylformamide, tetrachloroethylene, and triethylamine.  These HAP appear in the modeling file only for those facilities that reported them to the NEI.
A small amount of benzene (0.01 lb/yr) was reported for several process IDs related to coil coating at one facility. Because benzene was reported by only one facility, and because this HAP is not expected to be used as a coating solvent or a component of solvent blends, the benzene emissions were excluded from the speciation profile and the modeling file.
Some glycol ether emissions in NEI appear as a generic glycol ether pollutant code, while others reported emissions as 2-butoxyethyl acetate, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, or butyl carbitol acetate. These pollutants and the generic glycol ether are assigned the same dose response values in risk modeling; thus emissions were combined to calculate a single glycol ether ratio value for the emissions profile.
The speciation profiles were applied to 12 facilities that reported VOC but no organic HAP associated with metal coil coating. The remaining 14 facilities in the category reported organic HAP for metal coil coating but did not report VOC for the same NEI process IDs or the total reported organic HAP exceeded the reported VOC for the process and was considered to be an outlier. The data for these 14 facilities were not used in developing the organic speciation profile.
METALS SPECIATION PROFILE
Two facilities reported emissions of lead and PM10-Primary from metal coil surface coating processes and eight facilities reported emissions of PM10-Primary from metal coil surface coating processes without reporting metal HAP. The facilities with both lead and PM10-Primary were used to develop a speciation profile based on the weighted-average ratio of lead to PM10-Primary. The lead to PM10-Primary ratio was calculated as the sum of the reported lead emissions divided by the sum of the reported PM10-Primary emissions for the processes with both PM10-Primary and lead.  Six facilities reported metal HAPs from metal coil surface coating processes but did not report PM10-Primary for the same processes.  Therefore, the metal HAP emissions from these six facilities were included in the modeling file but were not used in developing the speciation profile.
INDUSTRY REVIEW FILE
The EPA prepared an industry review file and shared it with the National Coil Coating Association (NCCA) for review and comment. In response we received a memo from NCCA that focused on emissions of three HAP: hexavalent chromium, naphthalene and cadmium. The memo is included in the Metal Coil Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685.
QA OF MODELING FILE DATA
In addition to reviewing the modeling file for completeness of pollutants and emissions data, the stack and fugitive vent parameters and locational coordinates were also reviewed and revised as needed.  This review is discussed in detail in sections 6.1 through 6.3.
STACK PARAMETERS
Stack parameter fields include stack (or fugitive) height, exit gas temperature, stack diameter, exit gas velocity, and exit gas flow rate.  We used the stack parameter data reported in NEI where possible.  If non-fugitive stack parameters were not populated in NEI, then we first attempted to calculate missing values.  For example, missing flow rate coil be calculated using the reported diameter and velocity.  If there was not enough information to calculate missing values or if reported values were outside of typical QA range check minimum and maximum values, we used averages based on other facilities in the category and approximate stack heights based on satellite imagery or images from Google Street View(C).
Fugitive vents are required to have the same five stack parameter fields populated in the modeling file.  The stack diameter, exit gas velocity, and exit gas flow rate were populated using national default values of 0.003 ft, 0.0003 ft/sec, and 0 actual cubic ft/sec, respectively.  If fugitive height or temperature values were not provided in NEI, we assigned national default values of 10 ft and 72 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively.
LOCATIONAL COORDINATES
All latitudes and longitudes were mapped and reviewed using ArcGIS.
EMISSIONS VALUES
The 2011 NEI included emissions of hexavalent chromium for four Precoat Metals (Precoat) facilities. The EPA contacted Precoat and the National Coil Coating Association (NCCA), the industry trade association, to ask specifically about these emissions. No other facilities in the source category reported chromium emissions. The EPA also conducted a site visit to the Precoat facility located in Columbia, South Carolina to review the coil coating operations and potential sources of these emissions. The Precoat representative stated that the hexavalent emissions were not reported by Precoat, but that the Precoat facilities report total chromium and the states and EPA apply different speciation factors to speciate these emissions into trivalent chromium and hexavalent chromium fractions in the inventories. He stated that the chromium releases were primarily offsite disposal releases, not air releases, and that the air releases of chromium were based on the historical assumption that 0.5 percent of the chromium in the applied prime coat was emitted to the air. He stated that this assumption was made by the previous owners of the facilities and that Precoat had continued to use this factor. The factor was not based on any measured emissions, no testing was ever conducted, and no analytical data exist to support the factor. The NCCA confirmed that the hexavalent chromium emissions were the result of state-applied and EPA-applied factors to the total chromium reported by the facilities but that the coil coating processes and the oven temperatures did not support the emissions of hexavalent chromium reflected in the dataset.
During the Precoat site visit, EPA observed the coil coating application and curing processes. EPA observed that once the metal coil is cleaned, it goes through a pretreatment process consisting of a wet process followed by a dry process. The wet process consists of a series of inorganic chemical baths (can be either Ni/Zn or Ni/Zn/phosphate), followed by a dry chromic acid process that is roll applied to prepare the surface for coating. The following coating application process includes primers, some of which contain strontium chromium, that are also roll applied. The oven curing temperature for the prime coat at Precoat facilities vary depending on line speed but were reported to range well below temperatures that would cause any emissions of hexavalent chromium.
Because no data were available to support the use of this factor, and because there is no identifiable mechanism to cause these emissions (e.g., the material is roll applied and is not spray applied and oven temperatures are sufficiently low), the EPA did not apply chromium emissions to other facilities in the source category and removed these emissions from the modeling file.
ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS MULTIPLIER
Potential differences between actual emission levels and the maximum emissions allowable under the MACT standard (i.e., "allowable emissions") were calculated for the metal coil coating source category. The MACT allowable emissions are the actual emissions multiplied by a factor that represents the difference between the actual emissions (which are based on actual production rates, the HAP content of the coatings and other materials used by the facility, the coating application method, and the add-on control device destruction efficiency or outlet concentration) and the MACT emission limits.
    The portions of the metal coil coating line to which the NESHAP emission limits apply are the coating application stations and associated curing ovens. Compliance with the NESHAP emission limits can be achieved using several different options including: a compliant material as-purchased or as-applied (averaging) option, an emission rate with add-on controls option or a combination option of compliant coatings and an add-on control device. The standard also establishes operating limits for capture systems and add-on control devices. The compliance options apply to an individual coil coating line, to multiple lines as a group, or to the entire affected source.
    To use the as-purchased compliant material option facilities must demonstrate that the organic HAP content of each individual coating meets the emission limit (0.046 kg of organic HAP per liter solids). To use the as-applied compliant material option, facilities must demonstrate that the average of each coating or the average of all coating materials applied meets the emission limit (0.046 kg of organic HAP per liter solids). To use the emission rate with add-on controls option, facilities must demonstrate 1) an overall control efficiency of 98 percent or 2) an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv as carbon and 100 percent capture efficiency. (If facilities use a solvent recovery system, they may determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance test.) To use any compliance option involving an add-on control, except for a solvent recovery system and using a material balance, facilities are required to install control device parameter monitoring system equipment to demonstrate compliance with operating limits established for the emission capture and control systems.
    During development of the 2002 MACT, the EPA conducted a survey and results were received from 89 major source coil coating facilities operating a total of 105 coil coating lines.  According to the survey results, 75 percent of the coil coating lines employed the use of thermal oxidizers to control organic emissions, 23 percent of the coil coating lines used catalytic oxidizers and 2 percent used condenser/scrubber systems.
    As part of the RTR rulemaking process, operating permits for 39 major source coil coating facilities were reviewed and 37 were found to employ the use of add-on controls. Three of the operating permits showed that not all coating lines had add-on controls which indicates the facilities are complying with the NESHAP emission limits using the compliant material option or the emission averaging option.
    The primary add-on controls for these 37 facilities are thermal oxidizers, regenerative thermal oxidizers, and catalytic oxidizers. Based on review of the facility operating permits, when a facility specific compliance option is listed, the control efficiency option (98 percent) is the primary option for these control devices. Further review of the facility operating permits show that emission reductions for several thermal oxidizers are performing slightly above the 98 percent control efficiency level required by the NESHAP (in the range of 98.5 to 99.9 percent) which suggests that the actual emissions are slightly lower than the NESHAP allowable level for these control devices. For the majority of the facilities the control efficiency from the initial performance test, or most recent performance test, if periodic testing is required, was not available. All facility operating permits reflected the NESHAP requirements for add-on control devices. For each add-on control, we concluded that the organic HAP emissions were either equal to or slightly lower than the MACT allowable levels.

    Three of the operating permits showed that not all coating lines had add-on controls which indicates that the facility was complying with the NESHAP emission limits using the compliant material option or the emission averaging option. Facilities using these options are required to use compliant materials that meet the NESHAP emission rate limit (0.046 kg of organic HAP per liter solids), either individually or collectively, during each monthly compliance period. For these processes we believe the actual emission levels for these metal coil coating operations are a reasonable estimation of levels allowed by the NESHAP.
    To account for the slightly lower level of actual organic HAP emissions (due to the higher control efficiency of the add-on control devices) we chose to multiply the actual emissions by factor of 1.1 to represent the allowable emissions from the metal coil source category.
ACUTE EMISSIONS MULTIPLIER
As part of the risk assessment analysis, the EPA develops an acute risk estimate that is based on variations in the coating process and the expected highest annual hourly emissions for the source category. We based our estimate on the knowledge we gained about the source category during the RTR review process, site visits, information from coil coating facility contacts and the coil coating association, and review of facility operating permits.
The coil coating industry is mostly a toll industry, where a facility produces painted coil for many clients. The coil coating category is process specific, meaning the same basic process is used from facility to facility. The hours of production for each facility are based on customer demand, so some facilities run 12-hour shifts, while others run a full 8,760 hours per year. As described above in section 7.0, most coil coating operations roll-apply prime coat and finish coat to a moving metal strip (coil) in a continuous coating process (long batches) inside enclosures that are routed to add-on control devices. The coated coil is then cured in an oven that is routed to an add-on control device. Coil coating operations for three facilities roll apply compliant materials (as-purchased or as-applied) and do not require add-on controls.
The coils are seamed together end to end for continuous runs, resulting in consistent emissions. We expect there may be slight variations in emissions due to variations in the organic HAP content of the coatings from run to run. To account for this variability, we chose an acute multiplier of 1.1 for the coil coating category. Since coil coating is a continuous coating process, we don't expect significant changes in hour-to-hour emissions, which is typical of industries with batch operations. We believe that a default acute multiplier of 10 is not reasonable and does not appropriately represent the variation in hourly emissions for the coil coating category. Based on our knowledge of coil coating operations we believe that a conservative acute multiplier of 1.1 is appropriate to account for the slight variation in coating composition for this category.

Appendix A  -  Metal Coil Coating Modeling File Facility List
                            EIS Facility Identifier
                                 Facility Name
                               Location Address
                                     City
                                     State
                                    County
10642311
Precoat Metals
5888 East County Road 180
Blytheville
AR
Mississippi County
12577111
Precoat Metals Division Sequa Corporation
3399 Davey Allison Blvd
Hueytown
AL
Jefferson County
13431011
MSC Walbridge Coatings Inc<PHONE_NUMBER>)
30610 East Broadway
Walbridge
OH
Wood County
16808311
Metal Coaters<PHONE_NUMBER>)
2400 Yankee Road
Middletown
OH
Butler County
1866611
Wismarq Corp
11440 Addison St
Franklin Park
IL
Cook County
2551411
Signode Corp
7701 W 71st St
Bridgeview
IL
Cook County
2994211
Nichols Aluminum - Davenport - Rockingham Rd
1725 Rockingham Rd
Davenport
IA
Scott County
4019511
Precoat Metals Houston
16402 Jacinto Port
Houston
TX
Harris County
4785611
NCI Group Inc., Dba, Metal Coaters of CA
9133 Center Ave
Rancho Cucamonga
CA
San Bernardino County
4800211
Fuji Film Inc P Plant
211 Puckett Ferry Rd
Greenwood
SC
Greenwood County
5276311
Wolverine Gasket Division - Eagle-Picher Ind
3175 State Street
Blacksburg
VA
Montgomery County
5344111
Aleris Rolled Products Inc
1372 KY 1957
Lewisport
KY
Hancock County
5344211
Precoat Metals
2604 River Rd
Hawesville
KY
Hancock County
5694311
Wolverine Advanced Materials  -  Blacksburg
201 Industrial Park Rd
Blacksburg
VA
Montgomery County
6068311
Wismarq Corporation
930 Armour Rd
Oconomowoc
WI
Waukesha County
6234611
Wheeling Corrugating Company
West Virginia Route 2
Beech Bottom
WV
Brooke County
6235311
Precoat Metals
4502 Freedom Way
Weirton
WV
Brooke County
6263011
Edco Products Inc
8700 Excelsior Blvd
Hopkins
MN
Hennepin County
641911
Wolverine Advanced Materials
10825 County Road 44
Leesburg
FL
Lake County
6559911
Alumax Mill Prod Inc/Mill Prod
1480 Manheim Pike
Lancaster
PA
Lancaster County
6654511
Consolidated Systems, Inc
650 Rosewood Dr
Columbia
SC
Richland County
7212211
Constellium
3509 E 2nd St
Muscle Shoals
AL
Colbert County
7249611
Precoat Metals A Division Of Sequa Corp
1950 E Main St
Greenfield
IN
Hancock County
7304011
Precoat Metals-Precoat Metals
4301 S Spring
St. Louis
MO
St. Louis City
7316911
Material Sciences Corp
2300 E Pratt Blvd
Elk Grove Village
IL
Cook County
7330811
Novelis Corporation<PHONE_NUMBER>)
390 Griswold Street, N.E.
Warren
OH
Trumbull County
7376711
Precoat Metals Division Sequa Coatings
6300 Us Hwy 12
Portage
IN
Porter County
7409411
US Steel Corp/Irvin Plt
Camp Hollow Rd
Dravosburg
PA
Allegheny County
7745111
Edcoat Limited Partnership
30350 Edison Road
New Carlisle
IN
St. Joseph County
7746911
USG Interiors, Inc., Americoil Metals Corp., Westlake<PHONE_NUMBER>)
1000 Crocker Rd.
Westlake
OH
Cuyahoga County
7822411
Vulcraft Of New York Inc
5362 Railroad St
Chemung
NY
Chemung County
7874411
Brightsmith Llc/Falls Twp
120 Enterprise Ave
Morrisville
PA
Bucks County
7882611
Precoat Metals
25 Northgate Industrial Dr
Granite City
IL
Madison County
7891111
Alcoa Inc
4879 State St
Riverdale
IA
Scott County
7905611
Agfa Corporation
50 Meister Ave
Branchburg
NJ
Somerset County
7972711
Precoat Metals Corp.
2nd Rd & Hupp Rd
La Porte
IN
La Porte County
8109311
Logan Aluminum Inc
6920 Lewisburg Rd
Russellville
KY
Logan County
8115811
Ak Steel - Zanesville Works<PHONE_NUMBER>)
1724 Linden Avenue
Zanesville
OH
Muskingum County
8163211
Aleris Rolled Products, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER>)
1 Reynolds Road
Ashville
OH
Pickaway County
8181811
Alcoa Inc. - Warrick Operations
State Road 66 & State Road 61
Newburgh
IN
Warrick County
8230511
Precoat Metals
1095 Mendell Davis Drive
Jackson
MS
Hinds County
8235311
Jupiter Aluminum Corporation Jupiter
205 E Carey St
Fairland
IN
Shelby County
8267211
Crown Cork & Seal<PHONE_NUMBER>)
5201 Enterprise Blvd
Toledo
OH
Lucas County
8373611
Centria<PHONE_NUMBER>)
530 North Second Street
Cambridge
OH
Guernsey County
8405611
Springs Window Fashions/Montgomery Plt
8601 State Route 405
Montgomery
PA
Lycoming County
8463911
Ply Gem<PHONE_NUMBER>)
2615 Campbell Road
Sidney
OH
Shelby County
8499411
Metal Coaters
951 Prisock Road
Byram
MS
Hinds County
948011
Southwire Company  - Carrollton
One Southwire Drive
Carrollton
GA
Carroll County