[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22523-22526]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0094; Notice 1]

Hitachi Cable America Inc., Now Known as Proterial Cable America,
Inc., and Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Hitachi Cable America Inc. (HCA), now known as Proterial Cable
America, Inc. (PCA), and Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Harley-
Davidson) (collectively, ``the Petitioners'') have determined that
certain PVC, Nylon, and ``Revised Socket'' Nylon brake hose assemblies
equipped in certain model year (MY) 2008-2022 Harley-Davidson
motorcycles, and also sold to Harley-Davidson dealers as replacement
parts, do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. HCA filed an original noncompliance
report on July 27, 2022, and amended the report on August 25, 2022,
October 18, 2022, October 26, 2022, November 16, 2022, and March 30,
2023. Harley-Davidson filed its initial noncompliance report dated
August 9, 2022, and amended the report on December 6, 2022, February 7,
2023, February 8, 2023, and March 8, 2023. HCA petitioned NHTSA (the
``Agency'') on August 19, 2022, and amended its petition on November
10, 2022, for a decision that the subject noncompliances are
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety. Harley-Davidson
petitioned NHTSA on September 2, 2022, and amended its petition on
December 29, 2022, for a decision that the subject noncompliances are
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces receipt of the Petitioners' petitions.

DATES: Send comments on or before May 15, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., except on Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.

     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petitions are granted or denied, notice of the decision
will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for these petitions is
shown in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Manuel Maldonado, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: The Petitioners determined that certain PVC, Nylon,
and ``Revised Socket'' Nylon brake hose assemblies equipped in certain
MY 2008-2022 Harley-Davidson Touring, CVO Touring, Trike, Softail,
Revolution Max, VRSC, XG750A, and XL Sportster motorcycles, and also
sold as replacement parts, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3 of
FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106).
    HCA filed its initial noncompliance report on July 27, 2022, and
amended the report on August 25, 2022, October 18, 2022, October 26,
2022, November 16, 2022, and March 30, 2023, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. HCA
petitioned NHTSA on August 19, 2022, and later amended its petition on
November 10, 2022, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that the subject
noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle
safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part
556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Harley-Davidson filed its initial noncompliance report on August 9,
2022, and later amended the report on December 6, 2022, February 7,
2023, February 8, 2023, and March 8, 2023, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Harley-Davidson
petitioned NHTSA on September 2, 2022, and amended its petition on
December 29, 2022, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of the Petitioners' petitions is published
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency
decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the
petitions.
    II. Motorcycles and Equipment Involved: Approximately 6,174,355
PVC, Nylon, and ``Revised Socket'' Nylon brake hose assemblies
manufactured by HCA, between February 28, 2007, and October 13, 2022,
were reported by HCA as the population of the recall. Approximately
1,527,260 MY 2008-2022 Harley-Davidson Touring, CVO Touring, Trike,
Softail, Revolution Max, VRSC, XG750A, and XL Sportster motorcycles,
manufactured between May 17, 2007, and October 16, 2022, may have been
equipped with the noncompliant brake hoses assemblies manufactured by
HCA.
    III. Noncompliance: The Petitioners explain that certain Nylon, and
``Revised Socket'' Nylon assemblies do not meet high temperature
impulse (HTI), brake fluid compatibility (BFC), constriction, whip
resistance, and water absorption whip resistance requirements, and
certain PVC assemblies did not meet the whip resistance, water
absorption whip resistance, constriction, tensile, burst, and high
temperature impulse requirements. Therefore, the subject brake hose
assemblies do not comply with paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 106.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S5.3, S5.3.1, S5.3.2, S5.3.3,
S5.3.4, S5.3.7, S5.3.9, and S5.3.12 of FMVSS No. 106 include the
requirements relevant to the petitions, and are broadly summarized
herein. A hydraulic brake hose assembly must be capable of meeting the
requirements when tested under the conditions specified in the standard
and the applicable procedures of paragraph S6. Paragraph S5.3.1
pertains to the constriction requirement that every inside diameter of
the brake hose assembly shall not be less than 64 percent of the
nominal inside diameter of the brake hose. Paragraph 5.3.2 pertains to
the expansion and burst strength requirement that the maximum expansion
of a hydraulic brake hose assembly not exceed the values specified by
Table 1 at the given psi. The hydraulic brake hose assembly must then
withstand a water pressure of 4,000 psi for 2 minutes without rupture,
then not rupture at the less than 7,000 psi for a \1/8\ inch hose or
smaller or at less than 5,000 psi for a hose with a diameter larger
than \1/8\ inch. Paragraph S5.3.3 pertains to the whip resistance
requirement that the brake hose assembly not rupture when subjected to
a 35-hour continuous run on a flexing machine. Paragraph S5.3.4
pertains to the forces that a brake hose assembly must withstand
without separation of the hose from its end fittings. Paragraph S5.3.7
pertains to water absorption and whip resistance, and requires the hose
not to rupture when subjected to a 35-hour continuous run on a flexing
machine after immersion in water for 70 hours. Paragraph S5.3.9
provides the requirements for BFC after the brake hose assembly has
been exposed to brake fluid for a specified time at a specified
temperature. These requirements include compliance with constriction,
per S5.3.1, as well as withstanding water pressure of 4,000 psi for 2
minutes, and then shall not rupture at less than 5,000 psi. Paragraph
S5.3.12 describes the HTI test, which requires the brake hose assembly
to withstand pressure cycling, followed by a 2-minute, 4,000 psi
pressure hold test, during which the hose shall not rupture, and then
shall not subsequently burst at a pressure less than 5,000 psi.
    V. Summary of the Petitioners' Petitions: The following views and
arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of the Petitioners'
Petitions,'' are the views and arguments provided by the Petitioners.
These views and arguments have not been evaluated by the Agency and do
not reflect the views of the Agency. The Petitioners describe

the subject noncompliances and contend that the noncompliances are
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety. The
Petitioners' arguments for PVC, Nylon, and ``Revised Socket'' Nylon
hoses are combined and considered together, unless otherwise noted.
    The Petitioners believe that the subject noncompliances are
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons,
which are summarized in detail below:
    1. The Petitioners state that their own testing yielded
``variable,'' ``inconsistent,'' and ``nonuniform'' results with respect
to certain provisions of FMVSS No. 106. Furthermore, they argue that,
while there were failures, the leaking exhibited was minimal, and do
not pose a significantly greater risk to braking performance.
    2. According to the Petitioners, laboratory testing does not
reflect use of these brake hose assemblies in the ``real-world.''
    3. The Petitioners argue that supplemental testing demonstrates
that under extreme conditions, any noncompliances found in the subject
brake hose assemblies are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Supplemental testing was performed on similar or affected brake hose
assemblies, and the Petitioners believe that those test results support
a determination of inconsequential noncompliance.
    4. The Petitioners contend that prior Agency decisions on petitions
for inconsequential noncompliance support a finding of inconsequential
noncompliance for the Petitioners' subject petitions.
    5. The Petitioners conducted a review and analysis of field data
and concluded that the review revealed no documented crashes or
injuries attributable to the Petitioners' FMVSS No. 106 noncompliances.
    The following summarizes, in more detail, some of the main
arguments made by the Petitioners.
    With respect to the testing, HCA states that ``failures involved
leaks at the pre-crimp, which--as Exponent explains in its Supplemental
Technical Report--is not an anticipated failure mode because the
rotational test motion applied during Water Whip and Whip testing
stresses the hose element, not the end fitting pre-crimp area.'' \1\
Further, the petitioners argue that the leaks that were observed did
not result in observed pressure loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See HCA's supplemental petition dated November 10, 2022,
page 9 available on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Petitioners also claim that laboratory testing does not reflect
use of these brake hose assemblies in the ``real-world.'' The
Petitioners contend that Harley-Davidson motorcycles do not experience
the extreme stresses that brake hose assemblies are subjected to during
FVMSS No. 106 testing. The Petitioners specifically explain that the
``real-world'' forces that brake hose assemblies are subjected to in
the subject vehicles are principally vertical in nature between their
upper and lower suspension stopping points. The Petitioners also argue
that by contrast, the whip test applies principally rotational force,
thus, the Petitioners believe that it does not reflect the way
assemblies are typically mounted and utilized on a motorcycle. For this
reason, the Petitioners argue that the whip test is sufficient to
demonstrate that a brake hose assembly is resistant to dynamic fatigue,
but a failure does not necessarily mean that an assembly will fail when
exposed to ``real-world'' forces.
    HCA's contractor inspected 156 ``real-world'' motorcycles spanning
model years 2008-2020, which HCA characterizes as motorcycles that are
equipped with brake hose assemblies that are included in the scope of
HCA's recall. HCA explains that no signs of hose fatigue were observed
on those brake hose assemblies.
    The Petitioners also claim that supplemental testing demonstrates
that under extreme conditions, any noncompliance found in the subject
brake hose assemblies is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Supplemental testing was performed on similar or affected brake hose
assemblies, and the Petitioners believe that those results support a
determination of inconsequential noncompliance.
    Supplemental testing established by the Petitioners included full
vehicle brake performance and/or accelerated durability testing on
similar brake hose assemblies or on samples of affected brake hose
assemblies. The Petitioners characterize their supplemental tests in
various ways to include the following: accelerated durability testing,
full vehicle brake performance testing, ABS certification testing,
testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 122, laboratory-based dynamic
fatigue test, pressure and time sensitivity testing, room temperature
durability testing, elevated temperature durability testing,
accelerated durability suspension stroke testing, accelerated
durability suspension stroke testing following water absorption, and
lifetime accelerated durability testing.
    The Petitioners also claim that the following Agency decisions on
petitions for inconsequential noncompliance support a finding of
inconsequentiality for these petitions:
     Daimler Trucks North America, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 87 FR 14325 (March 14,
2022);
     Coupled Products II, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 70 FR 35774 (June 21, 2005);
     Coupled Products, Grant of Appeal of Decision on
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 70 FR 32397 (June 2, 2005);
     General Motors, Grant of Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 57 FR 1511 (January 14, 1992);
     Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation, Grant of Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 57 FR 1511 (January 14,
1992);
     Navistar International and Mack Trucks, Inc., Grant of
Petitions for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 56 FR
51440 (October 11, 1991);
     Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 83 FR 13002 (March 26,
2018);
     Ford Motor Co., Grant of Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 45 FR 29160 (May 1, 1980);
     Philatron Int'l, Grant of Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 57 FR 26687 (June 15, 1992); and
     FCA US, Denial of Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 87 FR 61432 (October 11, 2022).
    Finally, the Petitioners petitions included a review and analysis
of field data. The Petitioners concluded that the review revealed no
documented crashes or injuries attributable to the Petitioners' FMVSS
No. 106 noncompliances. The Petitioners searches included the following
types of records:
     NHTSA Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (``VOQ'') records;
     Legal claims and lawsuits;
     Warranty data; and
     Customer contacts to Harley-Davidson's Technical Service
Team's Call Center.
    The Petitioners conclude by stating their belief that the subject
noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle
safety and their petitions to be exempted from

providing notification of the noncompliances, as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118, and a remedy for the noncompliances, as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject motorcycles and brake hose
assemblies that the Petitioners no longer controlled at the time when
the Petitioners determined that the noncompliances existed. However,
any decision on these petitions does not relieve equipment and
motorcycle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant motorcycles and brake hose
assemblies under their control after the Petitioners notified
distributors and dealers that the subject noncompliances existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-07830 Filed 4-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79092-79093]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27166]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0112]

School Transportation Safety--Thinking Outside the Bus Meeting

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
announcing a meeting that will be held in Washington, DC on December 1,
2016 to explore the risk factors associated with pupil transportation
and potential solutions to prevent school transportation-related
crashes. The School Transportation Safety--Thinking Outside the Bus
meeting will include presentations and discussions on a number of
topics including trends in school transportation-related crashes;
updates on lap/shoulder belts in school buses; pedestrians around the
bus, illegal passing of school buses, school bus driver distraction;
research on camera enforcement of stop arm violations; school bus
vehicle technology and Moving Toward Zero--Reducing School
Transportation-related fatalities. Attendance at the meeting is limited
to invited participants because of space limitations of the DOT
Conference Center. However, the meeting will be available for live
public viewing on the NHTSA Web site (www.nhtsa.gov).

DATES: The meeting will be held on December 1, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to
3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Media Center of the U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian Chodrow, Telephone: 202-366-
9765; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA will host a meeting to focus on ways
to improve the safety of pupil transportation. The School
Transportation Safety--Thinking Outside the Bus Meeting will begin with
an introduction by NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind, followed

by a discussion of the trends in pupil transportation crashes; updates
on lap/shoulder seat belts in school buses, a risk panel concerning
pedestrians around the school bus, and a discussion on school bus
vehicle technology from school bus manufacturers. The meeting will
conclude with a discussion on Moving Toward Zero--Reducing School
Transportation-related fatalities.
    Invited participants will include representatives from a number of
fields including the behavioral and engineering sciences, traffic and
highway safety, and public health, as well as from diverse
organizations including advocacy groups, industry, state government,
and other Federal Agencies.
    NHTSA will facilitate sharing of important information regarding
programs to improve the safety of pupil transportation. Saving lives by
preventing traffic deaths is a top priority of this Administration.
    Workshop Procedures. NHTSA will conduct the meeting informally.
Thus, technical rules of evidence will not apply. The meeting will
consist of presentations and panels. Each panel will have two or three
short presentations, a roundtable discussion among the panel members,
and participant questions to be discussed by the panel members and
other meeting participants.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30182.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 7, 2016.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2016-27166 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


DRF Work Practice Specific Items:
1. What components will FHR monitor when a PSL is generated? Will the monitoring focus only on traditional LDAR components first to identify a leak source? Question to EPA Team: Is more specificity needed from the request to reflect this?
p. 14: FHR will monitor the following components when a PSL is generated:
 Agitator - FF
 Agitator - VV
 Agitator  -  HON
 Compressor  -  HON
 Compressor  -  non HON
 Compressor in Hydrogen Service
 Connector
 Pump  -  with permit specifying 500 ppm
 Pump  -  HON
 Pump  -  VV
 Relief Device
 Valve
 NDE Component
 Agitator hydrocarbon (HC) but non LDAR
 Compressor  -  HC but non LDAR
 Connector  -  HC but non LDAR
 Pump  -  HC but non LDAR
 Relief Device  -  HC but non LDAR
 Valve  -  HC but non LDAR
The monitoring will focus on both LDAR and non-LDAR component leaks.
2. Of the components monitored in the DRF, what monitoring instrument will be used to determine the source of the leak? Question to EPA Team: I believe we would want to specifically know what they are using, or at a minimum to know that they will always use Method 21. From a compliance perspective, is more specificity needed?
p. 13: Handheld portable equipment such as VOC analyzers, OGI, and other appropriate detectors will be used to determine the source of the leak. Once identified, the source is measured with calibrated M21-capable equipment to document the leak's maximum concentration value and initiate repair procedures.

3. What defines a leak under the DRF?
4. Can FHR provide a listing by component type (valves, pumps, etc.) with the number of components subject to each specific leak definition in each applicable subpart separately for both the Meta-Xylene and Mid-Crude Units?

5. If using a combination of detection instruments, such as OGI and Method 21 instrument, will a visible leak with OGI be repaired regardless of the Method 21 ppm reading?
6. Will all leaks (as defined) that are found in the PSL be repaired? If not, what leaks would not be repaired?
7. Are categories of leaks defined within specific quantified ranges? If so, what are those ranges?
8. What leak identification commitments are FHR making for each category? For example, deploy the technicians within 24 hours of PSL generation for Category 1, and within 3 calendar days for Category 2 and 3.
      p. 12
      Category 1: Direct alarms for operators, for example phone notifications, and/or email notification to appropriate personnel. Facility personnel promptly take appropriate action to evaluate.
      Category 2 & 3: Notifications are accompanied by Potential Source Location (PSL). Facility personnel initiate investigation within 3 business days.

9. What is required by the DRF connected with timing creating enforceability concerns?  Is it one technician with an OGI first?  How many components within the PSL need to be monitored and by when?  With what equipment? There is some clarity as to when a leak is assumed to have been found, but what happens if that assumption is incorrect and the leak continues day after day?  What happens if the leak is not found?  Is there a point in time when all components must be monitored within the PSL?  What if all components are monitored and the leak continues? What is the obligation for repair if non-LDAR component or piece of equipment to which no leak standard applies is found to be the cause of the triggered DRF?  Provide a more clear proposal that addresses these enforceability concerns.

10. What is the maximum number of days FHR will investigate a PSL before assuming a leak has resolved if not found?
11. When does the 5/15 repair clock begin? Is it at PSL generation or at component-level identification?
12. What specific information will FHR keep in the record related to the DRF?
      p. 16-17
             Fugitive Emission Management Plan
             Sensor Selection
             Sensor Node Placement
             Sensor Initial Calibration and Quarterly Bump Tests
             Sensor Data
             Meteorological Data
             PSL Notifications and PSL Investigations

13. What specific information will FHR include in the semiannual reports related to the DRF?
      p. 13: FHR will continue to follow the currently applicable LDAR reporting requirements of 40 CFR 60 Subparts VV, VVa, GGG, GGGa, QQQ; 61 Subpart FF; 63 Subparts H and CC; 30 TAC 115 and 28VHP permit conditions. Where these rules specify reporting the number of each equipment type or the number of components monitored, a reasonable estimate may be used for areas covered by LDSN-DRF practices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LDSN Specific Items:
1. How will FHR clearly identify which components are not monitored by the LDSN, and thus continue to be subject to the Method 21 or AVO inspections?
      p. 6: FHR will maintain records to clearly demonstrate which portions of the facility are complying with M21 CWP, OGI AWP, and which are utilizing the LDSN-DRF AMEL. Each component covered by the LDSN-DRF is not required to be individually identified or listed.
2. How many sensors will FHR install in each of the 2 units included in the request? Question to EPA Team: Should they provide a count of sensors for the unit, or minimum number of sensors, before approval?
      p. 8-10: Figure 5 and Figure 6
3. The "black" box aspect of sensor location and density is problematic because we cannot determine if it is sufficient (Context: FHR has added sensors following output of "black box" algorithms). Related to #1, at best, it only is sufficient to the effectiveness of their current program, which is unknown.
      a. OECA staff would be interested in understanding what the limitations are to provide more sensors, such that discrete component monitoring, at the regulatory leak thresholds, can be enabled.
            i. Alternative to discrete component monitoring, can the baseline be lowered such that the LDSN can detect/locate leaks at lower detection thresholds. This could be middle ground between FHR's baseline and individual component monitoring since it can account for continuous monitoring.
      b. OECA staff also is interested in periodic "dosing" tests to ensure the monitors are picking up know standards.
      c. Information Needed: Inputs to "black box"
4. What specific information will FHR keep in the record related to the LDSN?
5. What specific information will FHR include in the semiannual reports related to the LDSN? Question to EPA Team: Should specific information related to the LDSN be included in the report?
      p. 16: FHR will continue to follow the currently applicable LDAR reporting requirements of 40 CFR 60 Subparts VV, VVa, GGG, GGGa, QQQ; 61 Subpart FF; 63 Subparts H and CC; 30 TAC 115 and 28VHP permit conditions. Where these rules specify reporting the number of each equipment type or the number of components monitored, a reasonable estimate may be used for areas covered by LDSN-DRF practices.

6. What is the timeframe for recalibrating or replacing a sensor that fails the responsivity test? What is the procedure for recalibration?
      p. 15: Repairs will be made as soon as practicable.
      p. 15: Continuous Sensor Check. The health of each sensor is continuously monitored for power outage, loss of data transmission, and sensor baseline levels. The current status of each sensor is available on mSyte. Historical data is also logged in the database. Any failure or significant deviation from preset threshold values will result in a notification being sent to appropriate facility personnel. Failed sensors will be reset, repaired, or replaced.

      p. 15: Periodic Responsivity Test. The sensitivity of each installed sensor will be measured and recorded at least quarterly by conducting a "bump test" using an isobutylene standard or other appropriate standard. A successful bump test is shown by a "Pass" message from the mobile app, which indicates the response of the sensor exceeds 50% of the nominal value of the standard. A bump test may be repeated up to two additional times if the first test is not successful. If the sensor continues to fail, it will be recalibrated or replaced with a pre-calibrated sensor.

7 Can FHR provide the manufacturer and model number with more details on principal of measurement, sensitivity, response factors, and more specific initial calibration and ongoing QA/QC requirements along with specific acceptability criteria for initial and ongoing calibration checks for the specific sensors proposed for use.

8. Is 10% downtime an average across sensors or is it an average per sensor? If it is an average across sensor, is there a maximum annual downtime per sensor?
      p. 15: The annual average of LDSN system operational downtime will be 10% or less.
9. How does DOR affect PSL generation and the ability to see additional leaks while a component is on DOR?
      p. 13: The DOR allowances of these rules still apply to leaks detected via LDSN-DRF.

10. The description of sensor selection/placement is very generic. This is a site-specific request and the information should be specific to the site (process unit). This reads more like a method or regulation aimed at a wide audience.
11. Is there a need to review the sensor selection and node placement on some recurring basis based on process changes?
12. Can the baseline be lowered such that the LDSN can detect/locate leaks at lower detection thresholds?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equivalence Demonstration Specific Items:
1. Will FHR provide the LeakDAS database to OAQPS for verification of model results prior to release of the CRADA report?
2. What is the actual DT band and DTU identified during the pilot testing? How does this compare to the model inputs and results?
      p. A22: Cluster repair threshold  -  3000 ppm
      p. B10: Although the nominal leak average detection threshold (DTA) is 5000 ppm, several smaller leaks (500-5000 ppm) are predicted to be detected by the Molex LDSN due to peculiarities of leak-to-sensor distance distribution in an operating plant environment. All those "to be detected" leaks have significant impact on emission equivalency calculations.
3. What is the preset threshold criteria for the units in this request? At what level will they get an alert? How easily is this level adjusted or can it be fixed or monitored in order to record of how/if adjusted over time? The simulation is based on present threshold criteria; however, the request doesn't explain what this is or what will be used in practice if approved.
4. How will FHR prevent background creep  -  where the sensor baseline by which peaks are compared increases over time? Figure A-6 shows continued climb in emissions over time. Does this mean there is a point where the LDSN no longer performs equivalent or better? If so, what is the backstop?
5. What sensor density was modeled in the simulations? How does it compare to the sensor density that will be used in the actual process units?
6. For each future unit, will FHR be doing a similar simulation of historic data and sensor density to determine equivalence and DT band within the specific unit? How will we handle this? Will these need to be new AMEL requests for each individual unit?
7. The equivalency appears to be based on the effectiveness of FHR's program. How do we measure the effectiveness of that program? Provide full LDAR backup file (beginning where FHR established M21 program effectiveness through overlap of LDSN pilot).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Other Items:
 Will FHR continue to document and investigate AVO that are identified during general operations, or will these be ignored unless the LDSN detects something in that area?

            p. A11: It is not uncommon for audio visual olfactory (AVO) leaks on LDAR components to be entered into databases such as LeakDAS. This approach allows the facility to follow the normal leak repair protocols and maintain records to show compliance with applicable regulations. When an AVO leak is found in the field by operations personnel, an initial repair attempt is conducted. If this corrects the AVO indications, the component is considered repaired. If the repair does not seem effective, then a monitoring technician is dispatched to conduct a M21 inspection to provide a M21 result for comparison with applicable leak definitions.

 Can FHR do periodic "dosing" tests to ensure the monitors are picking up the standards?

 If the program were designed for DTUs of 10,000 ppm, 2000 ppm, 1000 ppm and 500 ppm, provide the total installation cost of the system, estimated annual operating costs, and the projected emission reduction benefit at each DTU level separately for the Meta-Xylene Unit and Mid-Crude Unit.

 Provide a total installed cost and operating costs per sensor node for the specific sensor nodes proposed for use in the program.

 For the Meta-Xylene Unit and Mid-Crude Unit provide the annual average operating costs using traditional LDAR.

 On page 8 of the AMEL, the following statement appears: "In practice, the DRF process often identifies actionable leaks that are well below the DTU (> 500 ppm but less than the DTU)."  Please clarify what is intended by the parenthetical.  Do leaks below 500 ppm above baseline trigger a PSL investigation response or are they ignored?  Is a PSL triggered for any leak above baseline or is there a threshold (e. g. 500 ppm)?  How is the leak ppm level above baseline calculated?

 On Page 11 of the AMEL, the following statement appears: "Based on that analysis and the use of complex proprietary algorithms, target areas of interest are generated."  EPA cannot approve an AMEL that is based on what is essentially an undefined black box algorithm.  EPA must be provided with a better explanation of how the algorithm draws the PSL box based on the inputs in order to review and approve this AMEL.

 Please address the ongoing monitoring plan adjustments and calculations of the cumulative daily emissions for identified leaking components subject to delay of repair until next turnaround.

_____________________________________________________________________________________


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 213 (Friday, November 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 55192]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23926]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3406-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Georgia; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Georgia (FEMA-3406-EM), dated October 10,
2018, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued October 10, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 10, 2018, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of Georgia resulting from Hurricane Michael beginning
on October 9, 2018, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (``the Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the State
of Georgia.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for debris removal and emergency
protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program in selected areas
and emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program in selected
areas.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to Section 428 of the Stafford
Act. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and
administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Manny J.
Toro, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Georgia have been designated as
adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Baker, Bleckley, Burke, Calhoun, Colquitt, Crisp, Decatur,
Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Emanuel, Grady, Houston, Jefferson,
Jenkins, Johnson, Laurens, Lee, Macon, Miller, Mitchell, Pulaski,
Seminole, Sumter, Terrell, Thomas, Treutlen, Turner, Wilcox, and
Worth Counties for debris removal and emergency protective measures
(Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program.
    Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Baldwin, Ben Hill, Berrien, Bibb,
Brantley, Brooks, Bryan, Bulloch, Butts, Camden, Candler, Charlton,
Chatham, Chattahoochee, Clarke, Clay, Clinch, Coffee, Columbia,
Cook, Crawford, Echols, Effingham, Elbert, Evans, Glascock, Glynn,
Greene, Hancock, Irwin, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Jones, Lamar, Lanier,
Liberty, Lincoln, Long, Lowndes, Marion, McDuffie, McIntosh, Monroe,
Montgomery, Morgan, Muscogee, Oconee, Oglethorpe, Peach, Pierce,
Putnam, Quitman, Randolph, Richmond, Schley, Screven, Stewart,
Talbot, Taliaferro, Tattnall, Taylor, Telfair, Tift, Toombs, Twiggs,
Upson, Ware, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Webster, Wheeler, Wilkes,
and Wilkinson Counties for emergency protective measures (Category
B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-23926 Filed 11-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64960-64963]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20313]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98396; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2023-057]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fees Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees

September 14, 2023.
    Pursuant to 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 September 1, 2023, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``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 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX Equities'')
proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 amend its fee schedule relating to
physical connectivity fees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
July 3, 2023 (SR-CboeEDGX-2023-044). On September 1, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, a physical port is utilized by a Member or
non-Member to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the
Exchange's servers are located. The Exchange currently assesses the
following physical connectivity fees for Members and non-Members on a
monthly basis: $2,500 per physical port for a 1 gigabit (``Gb'')
circuit and $7,500 per physical port for a 10 Gb circuit. The Exchange
proposes to increase the monthly fee for 10 Gb physical ports from
$7,500 to $8,500 per port. The Exchange notes the proposed fee change
better enables it to continue to maintain and improve its market
technology and services and also notes that the proposed fee amount,
even as amended, continues to be in line with, or even lower than,
amounts assessed by other exchanges for similar connections.\4\ The
physical ports may also be used to access the Systems for the following
affiliate exchanges and only one monthly fee currently (and will
continue) to apply per port: the Exchange's options platform (EDGX
Options), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (options and equities platforms),
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., and Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc. (``Affiliate Exchanges'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), General
8, Connectivity to the Exchange. Nasdaq and its affiliated exchanges
charge a monthly fee of $15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra fiber connection
to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the Exchange's
10Gb physical port. See also New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE National,
Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10 Gb LX LCN
Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gb physical port)
are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.
    \5\ The Affiliate Exchanges are also submitting contemporaneous
identical rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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 regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) \9\ of the Act, which
requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable as it
reflects a moderate increase in physical connectivity fees for 10 Gb
physical ports. Further, the current 10 Gb physical port fee has
remained unchanged since June 2018.\10\ Since its last increase 5 years
ago however, there has been notable inflation. Particularly, the dollar
has had an average inflation rate of 3.9% per year between 2018 and
today, producing a cumulative price increase of approximately 21.1%
inflation since the fee for the 10 Gb physical port was last
modified.\11\

Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed fee is reasonable as it
represents only an approximate 13% increase from the rates adopted five
years ago, notwithstanding the cumulative rate of 21.1%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 83450 (June 15,
2018), 83 FR 28884 (June 21, 2018) (SR-CboeEDGX-2018-016).
    \11\ See https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed fee is reasonable as it is
still in line with, or even lower than, amounts assessed by other
exchanges for similar connections.\12\ As noted above, the proposed fee
is also the same as is concurrently being proposed for its Affiliate
Exchanges. Further, Members are able to utilize a single port to
connect to any of the Affiliate Exchanges with no additional fee
assessed for that same physical port. Particularly, the Exchange
believes the proposed monthly per port fee is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed only once, even if it
connects with another affiliate exchange since only one port is being
used and the Exchange does not wish to charge multiple fees for the
same port. Indeed, the Exchange notes that several ports are in fact
purchased and utilized across one or more of the Exchange's affiliated
Exchanges (and charged only once).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), General
8, Connectivity to the Exchange. Nasdaq and its affiliated exchanges
charge a monthly fee of $15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra fiber connection
to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the Exchange's
10Gb physical port. See also New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE National,
Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10 Gb LX LCN
Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gb physical port)
are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change is not
unfairly discriminatory because it would be assessed uniformly across
all market participants that purchase the physical ports. The Exchange
believes increasing the fee for 10 Gb physical ports and charging a
higher fee as compared to the 1 Gb physical port is equitable as the 1
Gb physical port is 1/10th the size of the 10 Gb physical port and
therefore does not offer access to many of the products and services
offered by the Exchange (e.g., ability to receive certain market data
products). Thus, the value of the 1 Gb alternative is lower than the
value of the 10 Gb alternative, when measured based on the type of
Exchange access it offers. Moreover, market participants that purchase
10 Gb physical ports utilize the most bandwidth and therefore consume
the most resources from the network. As such, the Exchange believes the
proposed fee change for 10 Gb physical ports is reasonably and
appropriately allocated.
    The Exchange also notes Members and non-Members will continue to
choose the method of connectivity based on their specific needs and no
broker-dealer is required to become a Member of, let alone connect
directly to, the Exchange. There is also no regulatory requirement that
any market participant connect to any one particular exchange.
Moreover, direct connectivity is not a requirement to participate on
the Exchange. The Exchange also believes substitutable products and
services are available to market participants, including, among other
things, other equities exchanges that a market participant may connect
to in lieu of the Exchange, indirect connectivity to the Exchange via a
third-party reseller of connectivity, and/or trading of any equities
product, such as within the Over-the-Counter (OTC) markets. Indeed,
there are currently 16 registered equities exchanges that trade
equities (12 of which are not affiliated with Cboe), some of which have
similar or lower connectivity fees.\13\ Based on publicly available
information, no single equities exchange has more than approximately
16% of the market share.\14\ Further, low barriers to entry mean that
new exchanges may rapidly enter the market and offer additional
substitute platforms to further compete with the Exchange and the
products it offers. For example, in 2020 alone, three new exchanges
entered the market: Long Term Stock Exchange (LTSE), Members Exchange
(MEMX), and Miami International Holdings (MIAX Pearl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (June 29 2023), available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, there is no regulatory requirement that any market
participant connect to any one equities exchange, nor that any market
participant connect at a particular connection speed or act in a
particular capacity on the Exchange, or trade any particular product
offered on an exchange. Moreover, membership is not a requirement to
participate on the Exchange. Indeed, the Exchange is unaware of any one
equities exchange whose membership includes every registered broker-
dealer. By way of example, while the Exchange currently has 124 members
that trade equities, Cboe BZX has 132 members that trade equities, Cboe
EDGA has103 members and Cboe BYX has 110 members. There is also no firm
that is a Member of EDGX Equities only. Further, based on publicly
available information regarding a sample of the Exchange's competitors,
NYSE has 143 members,\15\ IEX has 129 members,\16\ and MIAX Pearl has
51 members.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/membership.
    \16\ See https://www.iexexchange.io/membership.
    \17\ See https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/20230630_MIAX_Pearl_Equities_Exchange_Members_June_2023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A market participant may also submit orders to the Exchange via a
Member broker or a third-party reseller of connectivity. The Exchange
notes that third-party non-Members also resell exchange connectivity.
This indirect connectivity is another viable alternative for market
participants to trade on the Exchange without connecting directly to
the Exchange (and thus not pay the Exchange's connectivity fees), which
alternative is already being used by non-Members and further constrains
the price that the Exchange is able to charge for connectivity to its
Exchange. The Exchange notes that it could, but chooses not to,
preclude market participants from reselling its connectivity. The
Exchange also chooses not to adopt fees that would be assessed to
third-party resellers on a per customer basis (i.e., fee based on
number of Members that connect to the Exchange indirectly via the
third-party). Particularly, these third-party resellers may purchase
the Exchange's physical ports and resell access to such ports either
alone or as part of a package of services. The Exchange notes that
multiple Members are able to share a single physical port (and
corresponding bandwidth) with other non-affiliated Members if purchased
through a third-party re-seller.\18\ This allows resellers to mutualize
the costs of the ports for market participants and provide such ports
at a price that may be lower than the Exchange charges due to this
mutualized connectivity. These third-party sellers may also provide an
additional value to market participants as they may also manage and
monitor these connections, and clients of these third-parties may also
be able connect from the same colocation facility either from their own
racks or using the third-party's managed racks and infrastructure which
may provide further cost-savings. Further, the Exchange does not
receive any connectivity revenue when connectivity is resold by a
third-party, which often is resold to multiple customers, some of whom
are agency broker-dealers that

have numerous customers of their own. Given the availability of third-
party providers that also offer connectivity solutions, the Exchange
believes participation on the Exchange remains affordable
(notwithstanding the proposed fee change) for all market participants,
including smaller trading firms that may be able to take advantage of
lower costs that result from mutualized connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For example, a third-party reseller may purchase one 10 Gb
physical port from the Exchange and resell that connectivity to
three different market participants who may only need 3 Gb each and
leverage the same single port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the vigorous competition among national securities
exchanges provides many alternatives for firms to voluntarily decide
whether direct connectivity to the Exchange is appropriate and
worthwhile, and as noted above, no broker-dealer is required to become
a Member of the Exchange, let alone connect directly to it. In the
event that a market participant views the Exchange's proposed fee
change as more or less attractive than the competition, that market
participant can choose to connect to the Exchange indirectly or may
choose not to connect to that exchange and connect instead to one or
more of the other 12 non-Cboe affiliated equities markets. Moreover, if
the Exchange charges excessive fees, it may stand to lose not only
connectivity revenues but also revenues associated with the execution
of orders routed to it, and, to the extent applicable, market data
revenues. The Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes
powerful restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge
unreasonable fees for connectivity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Exchange still believes that the proposed fee increase is reasonable,
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory, even for market
participants that determine to connect directly to the Exchange for
business purposes, as those business reasons should presumably result
in revenue capable of covering the proposed fee.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fee change will
not impact intramarket competition because it will apply to all
similarly situated Members equally (i.e., all market participants that
choose to purchase the 10 Gb physical port). Additionally, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed pricing will impose a barrier to entry to
smaller participants and notes that its proposed connectivity pricing
is associated with relative usage of the various market participants.
For example, market participants with modest capacity needs can
continue to buy the less expensive 1 Gb physical port (which cost is
not changing) or may choose to obtain access via a third-party re-
seller. While pricing may be increased for the larger capacity physical
ports, such options provide far more capacity and are purchased by
those that consume more resources from the network. Accordingly, the
proposed connectivity fees do not favor certain categories of market
participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition;
rather, the allocation reflects the network resources consumed by the
various size of market participants--lowest bandwidth consuming members
pay the least, and highest bandwidth consuming members pays the most.
    The Exchange's proposed fee is also still lower than some fees for
similar connectivity on other exchanges and therefore may stimulate
intermarket competition by attracting additional firms to connect to
the Exchange or at least should not deter interested participants from
connecting directly to the Exchange. Further, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, the Exchange can, and
likely will, see a decline in connectivity via 10 Gb physical ports as
a result. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can determine whether or not to connect directly to
the Exchange based on the value received compared to the cost of doing
so.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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)(A) of the Act \19\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \20\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-057 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-057. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
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. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-057 and should
be submitted on or before October 11, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20313 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:
"STARKWEATHER, DIANA M."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:02:01
To:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Enclosure 1 Response Jewell ICR Questions 20 through 24 responses - due Nov 24, 2022

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

Thanks,

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

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

*Please excuse any formatting errors caused by the Office web app.

<<JCC 2020 1st Half Deviation Report.pdf>>
<<JCC 2021 1st Half Deviation Report.pdf>>
<<JCC 2021 2nd Half Deviation Report.pdf>>
<<JWO Minor NSR Permit 10200 May 18 2022.pdf>>
<<JWO Title V Permit 10200 May 5 2020.pdf>>
<<JCC 2020 2nd Half Deviation Report.pdf>>
<<SunCoke ICR Jewell Enclosure 1 Parts A-I and A-III Responses Non-Confidential.xlsx>>