[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 9737]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03652]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14564-000]

Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications;
FFP Project 1, LLC

    On November 13, 2013, FFP Project 1, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project to be
located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Columbia Lock &
Dam, on the Ouachita River near the town of Columbia in Caldwell
County, Louisiana. 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.
    The proposed project would consist of one of three alternatives:
    Alternative One: (1) Integration of two to four modular generation
units in each of the four existing gate bays for a total capacity of 12
megawatts (2) a 40-foot-long, 60-foot-wide control building located on
the west side of the river (3) a 12,000-foot-long, 34kV transmission
line.
    Alternative Two: (1) An intake structure and associated tailrace
opposite the lock structure on the west side of the river; (2) a 150-
foot-long, 150-foot-wide, 55-foot-high concrete power house containing
four generating units with a total capacity of 12 megawatts (3) a
12,000-foot-long, 34kV transmission line.
    Alternative Three: (1) An intake structure, intake channel and
associated tailrace at the existing closure dam to the south-east of
the lock structure on the east side of the river; (2) a 150-foot-long,
150-foot-wide, 55-foot-high concrete power house containing four
generating units with a total capacity of 12 megawatts, (3) a 12,000-
foot-long, 34kV transmission line.
    The project would have and average annual generation of 50,000
megawatt-hours and operate as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114. (978)
283-2822.
    FERC Contact: Christiane Casey<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-8577.
    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 at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and five 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
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14564) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 12, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03652 Filed 2-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58830-58831]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0076]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments;
Clearance of a New Information Collection(s): U.S. Department of
Transportation, Individual Complaint of Employment Discrimination Form

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) will
forward the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal of a previously
approved collection. The ICR describes the nature of the information
collection and its expected cost and burden hours. The OMB approved the
form in 2017 with its renewal required by January 31, 2020.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by December 31, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-
2015-0076] by any of the following methods:
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except on Federal holidays.
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name (Office
of the Secretary, DOT) and docket number for this rulemaking. You
should provide two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail
or hand delivery. Note that all comments received will be posted
without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, and will be available to internet users. You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For internet access to the docket to read background
documents and comments received, go to www.regulations.gov. Background
documents and comments received may also be viewed at DOT, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Docket Operations, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 25090, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Onwubere, Associate Director,
EEO Complaints and Investigations Division (S-34), U.S. Department of
Transportation, Departmental Office of Civil Rights, W78-316, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (office),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 2105-0556.
    Title: Individual Compliant of Employment Discrimination Form.
    Form Numbers: DOT-F 1050-8.
    Type of Review: Extension of a Previously Approved Collection.
    Abstract: The DOT will utilize the form to collect information
necessary to process EEO discrimination complaints filed by individuals
who are Federal employees, former employees or applicants for
employment with the Department. These complaints are processed in
accordance with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
regulations, Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1614, as
amended. The DOT will use the form to: (a) Request requisite
information from the applicant for processing his/her EEO
discrimination complaint; and (b) obtain information to identify an
individual or his or her attorney or other representative, if
appropriate. An applicant's filing of an EEO discrimination complaint
is solely voluntary. The DOT estimates that it takes an applicant
approximately one hour to complete the form.
    Respondents: Federal employees, former employees or applicants for
employment with the Department.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100 per year.
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 100 hours per year.
    Comments Are Invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is reasonable for the proper performance of the EEO
functions of the Department, and (b) the accuracy of the Department's
estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection. All
responses to the notice will be summarized and included in the request
for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public
record.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 23, 2019.
Beverly Onwubere,
Associate Director, EEO Complaints and Investigations Division
Departmental Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2019-23882 Filed 10-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


6  _  . .. ,..,   . ..,... , .... . ... . ~ ... . .. .. ~~ . , . ., . . % Removal  7.3590 1 The results show that, overall, no removal of molybdenum occurs in the PACT system. does not or has very little nt system, and should not ample point were collected on 3/ 13,3/ 19, and to contain substantial molybdenum in the landfill gory wastewater stream.

Other EPA Data Indicating Poor Performance of Biological Treatment Systems for Molybdenum Removal \

In addition to data s facilities, EPA has ed by NORA from the Clean Harbors Deer Park and CIPF that indicates poor performance by biological systems in The EPA Treatab " in the influent were 7,

Removals were 3 12,50,50,50,50,0,47, > 41, > 38,41 and 0%. At Additional Treatment Beyond BAT Technology Introduction A survey of the current literature on molybdenum removal from wastewater indicates that of physicalkhemical treatment procedures, only ferric co precipitation is effective. This costly process goes far beyond the BAT technology and was not included in the assessment of the cost impact analysis of the CWT industry. Lime or lime alum systems do not significantly remove molybdenum. Molybdenum, usually present as a negatively charged ion m aqueous solution, is actually adsorbed onto precipitates of ferric hydroxides at a pH of 6.0 or lower. Adsorption of molybdenum is less effective than  __ II__

S! 2003WOFL4Wolybdenum Removal in the Organic Subcategory. doc t Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation Development Dbcument for the CWT Point Source Category Table 7 4. CWT Pass Through Analysis Generic P O W Percent Removals Pollutant ` CAS NO. % Removal Source Group A: Metals Barium 7440 39 3 55.15 50 POTW  2 XML  41 7 61.23  43 9 90.05  47 3 80.33  48 4 10.19 Mercury  02 0 51.44  22 4 88.28  24 6 14.83 Thallium Tin 7440 3 1 5 42.63 Titanium 7440 32 6 91.82 ValladiUIn 7440 62 2 8.28 Yttrium 7440 65 5 21.04 zinc 7440 66 6 79.14 Average Group Removal 55.95 Zirconium 7440 1 7 7 Pollutant CAS NO. % Removal Source Group J: Anilines Aniline 62 53 3 93.41 RREL5( ALLww) Carbazole 86 74 8 Average Group Removal Average Group Removal 93.41 Group CC: n Paraffins n Decane 124 1 8 5 9.00 RREL 5  ( ALL ww) n Docosane 629 97 0 88.00 RREL 5  ( ALL wwj n Dodecane 112 40 3 95.05 RREL 5  ( ALL ww) n Eicosane 112 95 8 92.40 RREL 5  ( ALL ww) n Hexacosane 630 0 1 3 Average Group Removal n Hexadecane 544 76 3 Average Group Removal n Octacosane 630 02 4 Average Group Removal n Octadecane 593 45 3 Average Group Removal n Tetracosane 646 31 1 Average Group Removal n Tetradecane 629 59 4 Average Group Removal _ _ Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category Pass Through Analysis Resultsfor the Organics Subcategory <IP_ADDRESS> The results of the pass through analysis for the organics subcategory option 4 is presented in Table 7 8. Several metals and organic pollutants passed through, and therefore may be regulated under PSES Table 7 8. Final Pass Through Results For Organics Subcategory Option 4 Pollutant Parameter Option 4 Removal (%) Median FQTW Removal (%) Pass Through CLASSICALS

70.44 no Total Cyanide 33.46 METALS Antimony Cobalt Copper Silicon Strontium zinc + Molybdenum 33.27 66.78 no 17.3 1 38.04 84.20 no 57.10 88.28 no 4.71 59.51 79.14 no 60.51 10.19 Yes 18.93 Yes 14.83 Yes J ORGANICS 96.60 no 83.75 no 2 butanone 69.20 2 propanone 68.57 ' 2,3 dichloroaniline 80.45 2,4,6 trichIorophenol 45.16 Y2.44 Acetophenone Aniline 92.88 Benzoic Acid 94.29 n, n Dimethyl formamide 89.26 0 Cresol 98.39 p Cresol 85.38 Pentachlorophenol 23.19 Phenol 87.08 Pyridine 61.69 41.00 Yes 28.00 Yes 80.50 Yes 84.75 Yes 52.50 Yes 71.67 Yes 95.34 no 93.4 1 no 35.92 no 95.25 no 95.40 no ,. ... r__ ....~.....   ,  . . , . ..,. . ..  ... , ,

7 24 Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category XIST OF POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR REGULA TION 7.7 Direct Dischargers 7.7.1 BODS Molybdenum BOD, BOD, Cobalt Molybdenum Nickel Nickel Pentachlorophenol pylldine Selenium Selenium Benzoic Acid Benzoic Acid p Creso14 o Cresol Pyridine p Cresol 2 butanone Phenol Pyridine 2 butanone EPA also eliminated those pollutants for which the treatment technology forming the basis of the option is not a standard method of treatment. For example, chemical precipitation systems are not designed to remove BOD,. Table 7 10 lists these pollutants for each subcategory and option.

* Analyses for these pollutants werenot subject to the quality assurance/ quality control ( QNQC) procedures required by analytical Method 1620.

3Toxic weighting factors are derived fkorn chronic aquatic life criteria and human health criteria established for the consumption of fish. Toxic weighting factors can, be used to compare the toxicity of one pollutant relative to another and are normalized based on the toxicity of copper. TWFs are discussed in detail in the Cost Effectiveness Analysis Document. ~  ollutant for option 8 were greater than 50%. However, since removals for this pollutant d option) were less than 50%, for consistency, they were similarly eliminated for option 8. m ? N rl *

0 m m rl m n n n 000 Y o ? m r l s o w m r l * m P P P 000 m N rl m m m W cy 0 N ?

0 * m m 01 0 0 0 * 0 * N C r * 0 0 I ' E m 0 0 N 0 m co, i nnn 8 P grin 0 000 y o 0 N ~ r o u) mcym UI r m m . .

W l4nl4 8 000 0 9 9 9 9 0 000 0 o o c o o o o w o m r o m o o N m r u r r m w N rlrlr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c . ... m o m rlrlrl PEP F 000 0 F FFP F FPg nnnnn nnnnb 0 000 0 o o c P l9PP 0 000 gnnnl4 00000 00000 . I . . .

r l m m w o m c o m r l * m m m m m 0000 00000 0000 00000 B u 1L W I rrr rrrr r r rrr e ' r r r r ria m m m m mmmmoar m m m m m m m m m a 0000 00000 00000 o o o o c I 38;; d d d d d d d d d d d o d o l n m m m u ;  4 F I CH 2222 22322 22223 2222: I I 0000 00000 00000 o o o o c I @ I '

I rid\ 0000 m m m m v ) 00000 rlrldrlr c)

 4 I3 u I o m m rlrlrlrl rlrlrlrlrl . . . . P'rrrr m m m m m m m m m m rlrlrlrlrl > o o o o > o o o o 0 0 0 9 j d d d d 00 I * * * * 0 0 00 rlrl .. 00000 00000 rlrlrlrlrl d d d d d \ Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category Option 4 Option 3 ( NSPS) Option 9 Option 4 Titanium Vanadium Butylbenzyl phthalate Carbazole Fluoranthene N decane Indirect Dischargers 7.7.2 Consideration of Indicator Parameters for the Oils Subcategory As detailed in the 1999 proposal, EPA looked at various ways to reduce the costs of this rule ( particularly the costs to small businesses) while ensuring proper treatment of off site wastes. One of the options considered by EPA and discussed in the 1999 proposal was providing an alternative compliance monitoring regime for indirect discharging facilities in the oils subcategory. Under this alternative monitoring approach, facilities couid choose to ( 1) monitor for all regulated pollutants, or ( 2) monitor for the conventional parameters, metal parameters, and monitor for the regulated organic pollutants in silica gel treated hexane extractable material ( SGT HEM). The 1999 proposal further noted that EPA was conducting a study to determine which organic pollutants are measured by SGT HEM and HEM and solicited comment on the use of indicator parameters. Many commenters responded to EPA's request with essentially an equivalent number opposing and favoring the use of indicator parameters. The commenters that supported its use cited the decreased analytical costs and the wide range of organic compounds that can be measured with these analyses. Commenters that did not support the use of SGT HEM or HEM as indicator pollutants raised a number of concerns including the following:

these measurements are non specific and highly subject to interferences;

ever been developed between HEM ( or e no dfrect ma qu m~ if$~ a Z6rj= ela& jn @

7 3 1 T 3 Y SGT HEM) and specific organic pollutants;

been made that measured by either HEM or SGT HEM; and SGT HEM does not measure all of the regulated pollutants, particularly polyaromatic hydrocarbons ( PAHs).

None of the commenters suggested possible alternative indicator parameters. During its development of proposed effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for the industrial laundries point source category, EPA evaluated the sqitability of SGT HEM and HEM as indicator parameters for that rulemaking. EPA presented the results of its study in a Notice of Data Availability on study, EPA attempted to identify compounds present in HEWSGT HEM extracts from lndustnal la undry wastewaters usmg gas 1 chromatography/ mass spectroscopy ( GCMS) in order to determine which pollutants of concern might be components of, andtherefore measured by, HEM or SGT HEM. However, EPA was I December 23, 1998 ( 63 FR 71054). In the HEM. EPA's data show general trends of increasing concentrations of HEM and SGT HEM with increasing concentrations of orgahic pollutants. However, the data demonstrate demonstrate that for SGT HEM or HEM cost savings that can be achieved in some instances by using indicator parameters, EPA has rejected this alternative monitoring approach for CWT wastewaters.

_ .

Final List of Regulatory Parameters for Indirect Discharging CWT Facilities As detailed in Section 7.6, a l l pollutants through well operated POTWs are regulated for indirect dischargers. Table 7 15 shows the final list of regulated pollutants for indirect dischargers selected by EPA.

only able to identify approximately two percent of the constituents present in the waste stream. Most of these constituents identified were alkanes. In general, the data from this study also do not support the use of SGT HEM as an appropriate indicator parameter for the organic pollutants present in CWT wastewaters since few of these pollutants were identified in the HEWSGT HEM extract. As part of its consideration of the use of an indicator parameter for this rule, EPA again reviewed the data from the industrial laundries study as well as  the data col lected here,  E statistically analyzed the relationship between seven organic pollutants and SGT HEM or _

7 32 Table 7 15. Final List of Regulated Pollutants for Indirect Discharging CWT Facilities Metals Subcategory Oils Subcategory Organics Subcategory Titanium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Molybdenum Tin zinc Bis( 2 ethylhexy1) phthalate Carbazole Fluoranthene N decane N octadecane Comments by NORA, An Association of Responsible ecyclers, On the Centralized Waste Treatment Effluent imitation Guidelines for All the CWT Subcategories Are Not T Technologies CIPF, Williamsport, Maryland The molybdenum limit for the oily and organic wastewater subcategories and mixed wastewater subcategories containing either oily or organic wastewater in the Centralized Waste Treatment ( CWT) Effluent Limitation Guideline ( ELG) cannot be achieved using ies. NOR4 requests that EPA eliminate the molybdenum limit from subcategories. To confirm the ineffectiveness of BAT technology , information CIPF CWT facility in Williamsport, Maryland is presented.

Process Description At the CIPF facility, oily wastewater is initially treated by gravity separation, chemical emulsion breaking with heat, secondary gravity separation, and dissolved air flotation ( DAF). This treatment technologv is Best Available Technolorn ( BAT) selected by EPA for oily Wastewater. A block diagram of the CIPF treatment system is attached.

At the time the samples summarized below were collected, CIPF was not treating any fnetals subcategory wastewater. The treatment system designed for metals removal includes two stage pH adjustment, chemical precipitation and a lamella separator. BAT treatment would require two passes through the pH adjustment and clarifier ( primary and secondary metals removal). The technology employed at CIPF is BAT, except for the lack of a sand filter. Since this treatment is followed by biological treatment, the capabilities of this system are considered to be equivalent or better than BAT. .

When metals wastewaters are received, the introduction point varies depending on the oil content in the metals wastewater. Metals wastewater with considerable oil may be introduced with the oily wastes for oil removal before neutralization and generation of precipitates that would make oil recovery more difficult. Most metals wastewaters are added at the first stage of the 2 stage pH adjustment system. 1 During the data collection period reported below ( Jan 2002 through February 2003), no sludge is generated. >

te treatment system is removing all but a trace of oil, ich is its design function. This is a well operated system.

Molybdenum Removal  Metals Wastewater Treatment No metals waste and the metals load in oily wastewater was low enough was sufficient to meet permit conditions. The pH ion, however no clarification or filtration was done case, there is no limit established for molybdenum in the Molybdenum Removal in BAT Organic Wastewater Treatment The SBR discharge ( Table 1) did not meet CWT ELG limits for molybdenum in organic wastewater ( 1.01 mgL daily maximum and 0.965 mg/ L monthly average) or for the mixture of oily and organic wastewater that was being processed during the test period est result was 2.24 mgL, the average was 6.5 m a , and the Any removal of molybdenum in the SBR system is probably accomplished by adsorption into the biological sludge solids. The CWT limit for mixed organic and oils wastewater is 0.965 mgL and cannot be achieved by the BAT technology for mixed oily and organic wastewaters or for oily wastewaters only.

Based on the overall data in Table 1, the SBR may be removing as much as approximately 58% of the molybdenum in the SBR influent. '& is estimate is based on molybdenum in treated oily wastes before mixture with any organic wastes.

To demonstrate the effectiveness of the SBR treatment system, laboratory data summaries for December 2002 through February 2003 are attached ( Table 3). In December, the average influent BOD was 3,454 mg/ L, while the average effluent was 204 mg/ L. This system was designed for BOD, TSS and Oil and Grease removal and is very effective in its design function. The laboratory data summaries indicate good incidental removal of other pollutants, including metals. This SBR system is well operated.

Mixed W astestreams The mixed subcategories of the CWT ELG are designed by EPA to encourage that the wastestreams receive full BAT treatment or equivalent treatment if mixtures of wastes are treated. EPA's requirement of the lowest limit in any subcategory included in the mix is designed to help prevent simple dilution of one waste with another to meet limits. EPA's adoption of BAT technology equal to the combination of BAT technologies for each priat _ at S:\ 2003WORA\ CIPFCommentsRevised. doo I rganic wastewaters, specifically municipal landfill leachate, septic tank and chemical oilet wastewater, and the treated oily wastewater are mixed in an equalization tank and category and organic subcategory wastes. The oils, waste fuel oils, tank bottoms, coolants, . No metals subcategory wastes are currently wastes frequently require pH adj metals removal to meet existing Molybdenum Removal

Compliance and quality control samples are collected by CIPF from the DAF effluent. The results of molybd through December 2002 influent) was 15.4 m a . maximum and 2.09 seldom met these li The average molybdenum concentration in the influent has not been measured. One caustic cleaner, an oily w has been sampled and analyzed for molybdenum several times. The average enum in this caustic cleaner is 38.7 mg/ L and other oily streams contribute This system was designed to remove oil. The attached Table 2 contains data for the DAF ily Wastewater Treatment these routine samples collected fiom January Table 1). The average DAF effluent ( or SBR LGlimits for oily wastes are 3.5 mg/ L daily age. The BAT treatment system for oily wastes y oily wastes.

~ c rohibited the treatment of mixed wastes, has selected BAT technologies for ategories, and the BAT technology selected by EPA should be capable of meeting the proposed limits for the mixed waste subcategories.

Separating streams by subcategory would be difficult, inefficient, and could actually create more discharge of pollutants at this site. If this facility elected to discharge oily and an increased rganic subcategory wastewater is be discharged into the e Summary and Conclusion Although this facility has the BAT technology for organic wastes, and for oily waste, it is unable to remove molybdenum to meet the proposed limits for the oils or for mixtures of oils and organics. Separate treatment of the oils and organic subcategory wastewaters using BAT technology would actually increase pollutant loading to the environment. NORA requests that EPA eliminate the molybdenum limit from all of the CWT ELG subcategories. A Survey of Molybdenum Removal Methods: CWT Organic Waste Subcategory mum remova Biological Tread NORA is submitting additional data on a facility with advanced biological treatment that exceeds BAT technolo contains substantial am0 technology is unable to co organic subcategory. ng solely organic subcategory wastewater that achieve the CWT limits for molybdenum in the lybdenum. This advanced biological treatment Description of Clean Harbors, Deer Park Treatment System The Clean Harbors Deer Park Texas landfill facility operates a biological and powdered activated carbon wastewater treatment system. This system uses powdered activated carbon in an aeration tank to treat landfill leachate from the on site landfills, and to treat groundwater, storm water, and iandfill run on. The PACT system is designed to handle , ' 150 gpm of combined leachate, groundwater, and storm water flow. Clean Harbors also operates an incinerator at D ark. The PACT system does not receive wastewater from the incineration scrubb stem. Scrubber waster is treated in a separate two step metals treatment system.

Wastewater treated in the PACT system consists solely of organic subcategory wastewaters. Dilution with storm water may occur in the event of rain and accumulation of surface runoff from the landfill. The landfill leachate is defined as an organic subcategory waste in the CWT ELG.

The landfill leachate from the two landfills on site is pumped from the leachate collection system to intermediate holding tanks at the landfill locations. The leachate is then pumped from the ediate tank( s) to the main holding tanks that feed the PACT sy3e removes groundwater contaminated with organics. The groundwater is extracted by well pumps, placed in intermediate tanks, and then transferred by pump to the PACT / collected and pumped directly to the holding tanks. The mixture of leachate,

tewater contaminate treatment system that exceeds the BAT technology. In ose with mixtures of slowly degraded ( refractory) and the PACT system is superior to SBR. PACT is used in Sample Collection. and Analysis In the past, the biological system has had effluent limitations based on organic constituents and so r the PACT and applied the Centralized Wastewater ines to this system, based on the biological treatment guidelines. These ines include a standard for molybdenum. The facility er to determine if there is molybdenum in the system and es contain molybdenum. Molybdenum is very difficult in biological systems. In order to demonstrate that this C, TSS, various organics). However, the State of Texas has ~

is the case, samples of th The samples collected were grab samples of the influent to the system as it flows from the holding tank to the aeration tank, and of the effluent as the treated water exited the clarifier ( after solids separation). There was no attempt to account for the several hours of ent and effluent from the PACT system were collected.

 ~

previous tank. Tanks are only switched every 3 6 days, so this is normally not an issue. ected directly into new polyethylene containers and transported . There are two days of data ( June 11 and 12) when the molybdenum a tank with a lower concentration of molybdenum. Thus, the influent uent grab sample went down. The effluent concentration was higher as the d not been in the system long enough to lower the reactor ame situation in reverse can be seen in the June 7 and 8 data when d from 1.08 mg/ L to 4.34 m g L The feed tank source was ,

PACT Influent and Effluent Molybdenum ( mg/ L) Clean Harbors Deer Park Date Influent Effluent 6/ 6/ 03 1.38 6/ 7/ 03 1 . I4 6/ 8/ 03 4.34 6/ 9/ 03 4.35 611 0103 5.51 6/ 1 I IO3 I .48 611 2/ 03 2.06 6/ 23/ 03 0.2 6/ 24/ 03 0.16 6/ 25/ 03 1.72 6/ 26/ 03 1.35 6/ 27/ 03 1.08 6/ 28/ 03 2.16 1.13 1.08 2.85 4.53 4.92 5.39 5.24 0.27 0.21 0.24 1.03 1.13 1.52  6/ 29/ 03 2.15 t. 68 Average 2.077143 2.23 J % Removal  7.3590 I The results show that, overall, no removal of molybdenum occurs in the PACT system.

m one sample point were collected on 3/ 13,3/ 19, and found to contain substantial molybdenum in the landfill ory wastewater stream.

dicating Poor Performance of Biological Treatment Systems for In addition to data s facilities, EPA has molybdenum removal. ed by NORA from the Clean Harbors Deer Park and CIPF that indicates poor performance by biological systems in The EPA Treatability Data Base, Version 6.0 ( 1998) has data for 13 activated sludge treatment plants. M removals at facilities receiving 0 100 ug/ L molybdenum in the influent ,12,50,50,50,50,0,47, > 41, > 38,41 ando%. At influent conce  1000 ug/ L, the performance deteriorated substantially. Removals were 33,0,0, and 0%. Apparently at very low concentration, some incidental removal occurs in some but not all facilities. At higher concentration, the incidental removal mechanisms are overwhelmed and little or no removal occurs.

Physical Chemical Techniques for Molybdenum Removal Require Additional Treatment Beyond BAT Technology Introductioh A survey of the current literature on molybdenum removal from wastewater indicates that of physical/ chemical treatment procedures, only ferric co precipitation is effective. This costly process goes far beyond the BAT technology and was not included in the assessment of the cost impact analysis of the CWT industry. Lime or lime alum systems do not significantly remove molybdenum. Molybdenum, usually present as a negatively charged ion in aqueous solution, is actually adsorbed onto precipitates of ferric hydroxides at a pH of 6.0 or lower. Adsorption of molybdenum is less effective than adsorption of many other metals and reversible at higher pH. Other metals, particularly cationic species in aqueous solution, are less effectively removed at the optimum pH for molybdenum removal. A precipitation, clarification, iron addition, precipitation at higher p E and clarification metals and mixed ca additional andor lower regulatory parameters for metals, specially at . facilities that. are treatin , and are therefore subject to & M Wastewater common unit operations and typical concentrations of pollutants in those organic subcategory wastewater if UP32 UP33 UP39 UP40 UP32R UP33R UP39R UP40R Painting Spray or Brush Painting Immersion Solvent Degreasing Stripping Paint Painting Spray or Brush Rinse Stripping Paint Rinse 0,02 0.17 16.7 3.69 0.16 0.16 46.75 0.02


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 249 (Monday, December 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67759-67760]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28384]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84940; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-076]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
to the Penny Pilot Program

December 21, 2018.
    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 December 20, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of Penny Pilot
Program through June 30, 2019. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided below.

(additions are in italics; deletions are [bracketed])

* * * * *

Rules of Cboe Exchange, Inc.

* * * * *

Rule 6.42. Minimum Increments for Bids and Offers

    (a)-(b) No change.

. . . Interpretations and Policies:

    .01-.03 No change.
    .04 The Exchange may replace any option class participating in
the Penny Pilot Program that has been delisted with the next most
actively traded, multiply listed option class, based on national
average daily volume in the preceding six calendar months, that is
not yet included in the Pilot Program. Any replacement class would
be added on the second trading day following [July 1, 2018]January
1, 2019. The Penny Pilot will expire on [December 31, 2018]June 30,
2019.
* * * * *

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), 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 Penny Pilot Program (the ``Pilot Program'') is scheduled to
expire on December 31, 2018. The Exchange proposes to extend the Pilot
Program until June 30, 2019. The Exchange believes that extending the
Pilot Program will allow for further analysis of the Pilot Program and
a determination of how the Pilot Program should be structured in the
future.
    During this extension of the Pilot Program, the Exchange proposes
that it may replace any option class that is currently included in the
Pilot Program and that has been delisted with the next most actively
traded, multiply listed option class that is not yet participating in
the Pilot Program (``replacement class''). Any replacement class would
be determined based on national average daily volume in the preceding
six months,\5\ and would be added on the second trading day following
January 1, 2019. The Exchange will employ the same parameters to
prospective replacement classes as approved and applicable in
determining the existing classes in the Pilot Program, including
excluding high-priced underlying securities.\6\ The Exchange will
announce to its Trading Permit Holders by circular any replacement
classes in the Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The month immediately preceding a replacement class's
addition to the Pilot Program (i.e., December) would not be used for
purposes of the six-month analysis. Thus, a replacement class to be
added on the second trading day following January 1, 2019 would be
identified based on The Option Clearing Corporation's trading volume
data from June 1, 2018 through November 30, 2018.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60864 (October 22,
2009), 74 FR 55876 (October 29, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is specifically authorized to act jointly with the
other options exchanges participating in the Pilot Program in
identifying any replacement class. The Exchange lastly represents that
the Exchange has the necessary system capacity to continue to support
operation of the Penny Pilot.
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.\7\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ 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 facilitation
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) \9\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. In particular, the proposed rule change allows for
an extension of the Pilot Program for the benefit of market
participants. The Exchange notes that this proposal does not propose
any new policies or provisions that are unique or unproven, but instead
relates to the continuation of an existing program that operates on a
pilot basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the
expiration of the Pilot Program, the proposed rule change will allow
for further analysis of the Pilot Program and a determination of how
the Program should be structured in the future. In doing so, the
proposed rule change will also serve to promote regulatory clarity and
consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and
facilitating investor protection. In addition, the Exchange has been
authorized to act jointly in extending the Pilot Program and believes
the other exchanges will be filing similar extensions.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ thereunder.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\13\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because doing so will
allow the Pilot Program to continue without interruption in a manner
that is consistent with the Commission's prior approval of the
extension and expansion of the Pilot Program.\16\ Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing
with the Commission.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 61061 (November 24,
2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-44).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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-CBOE-2018-076 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-CBOE-2018-076. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-1090 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m.
and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-076 and should be
submitted on or before January 22, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-28384 Filed 12-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8516-8519]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02689]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0522; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-087-AD;
Amendment 39-18100; AD 2015-03-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B,
747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and
747SP series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fuselage
skin cracks at the lower forward corner of the main entry door (MED) 1
cutout. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the fuselage skin of
the MED 1 cutout for cracking, and repair if necessary; and also
provides an optional terminating modification, including post-repair or
post-modification fuselage skin inspections for cracking, and
corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct skin cracking, which can become large and could adversely
affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective March 25, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 25,
2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0522.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0522; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F,
747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 5, 2014
(79 FR 45385). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fuselage skin cracks
at the lower forward corner of the MED 1 cutout. The NPRM proposed to
require repetitive inspections of the fuselage skin of the MED 1 cutout
for cracking, and repair if necessary. The NPRM also provided optional
terminating modification, including post-repair or post-modification
inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin, and corrective actions
if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct skin
cracking, which can become large and could adversely affect the
structural integrity of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 45385, August 5, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014)

    UPS stated that it agrees with the intent of the NPRM (79 FR 45385,
August 5, 2014).

Request To Withdraw the NPRM (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014)

    Mr. Jerry Adams requested that we withdraw the NPRM (79 FR 45385,
August 5, 2014). Mr. Adams stated that the manufacturer's analysis and
subsequent action referred to in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, should be sufficient. Mr. Adams stated
that the cost of compliance does not include the increased cost of
airframes that the customer must pay for, and that will subsequently be
passed along to the traveling consumer. Mr. Adams asserted that this AD
action would be counterproductive to business and the cost of
transportation to the general public.
    We agree with the comment that the actions described in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, are
sufficient to correct the identified unsafe condition. However, we do
not agree with the commenter's request to withdraw the NPRM (79 FR
45385, August 5, 2014). We have identified an unsafe condition that is
likely to exist or develop in other products. Therefore, we must issue
an airworthiness directive to correct the identified unsafe condition,
as required by section 39.5 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
39.5). We accomplish this by mandating specified actions described in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, by AD
action. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
    We also note that although the commenter stated that the cost of
airframes was not included in the NPRM (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014),
this AD does not require replacing airframes. The costs of
accomplishing the actions required by this AD, as specified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014 (inspection,
repair if necessary, and optional modification), are included in the
Costs of Compliance section of this AD.

Request To Revise the Description of the Location Where Cracking Was
Identified

    Boeing requested that we revise the SUMMARY and Discussion sections
of the preamble, and paragraphs (e), (g), and (i) in the proposed AD
(79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014) to clarify that the cracking occurs in
the fuselage skin, which would match the title of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014.
    We agree with the commenter's request because this change will help
clarify the cracking location. We have revised this AD accordingly.

Request To Revise Service Information and Cost Estimate

    UPS requested that we revise the service information used in this
AD. UPS stated that the power panels and other equipment outboard of
the main equipment center (MEC) must be removed in order to access the
repair or modification area specified in the NPRM (79 FR 45385, August
5, 2014). UPS stated that these removals are currently not included in
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, and will require significantly greater
manpower than specified in the NPRM.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. We have determined it is
not appropriate to delay this AD to incorporate revised service
information that might be published sometime in the future. Note 10, in
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, states:

    If it is necessary to remove more parts for access, you can
remove those parts. If you can get access without removing
identified parts, it is not necessary to remove all of the
identified parts. Jacking and shoring limitations must be observed.

    Therefore, operators are already permitted to alter the way they
gain access to the required areas for inspections/repairs/modifications
specified in this AD. We have received no definitive data that would
enable us to provide cost estimates for the MEC removal. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March
11, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspection,
repair, and modification at the lower forward corner of the fuselage
main entry door 1. This service information is reasonably available;
see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 165 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost    Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection (per door)............  11 work-hours x $85            $0  $935 per inspection   $154,275 per
                                    per hour = $935 per                cycle.                inspection cycle.
                                    inspection cycle.
Optional modification (per door).  Up to 66                        0  Up to $5,610........  Up to $925,650.
                                    work[dash]hours x
                                    $85 per hour =
                                    $5,610.
Post-repair or -modification       11 work-hours x $85             0  $935 per inspection   $154,275 per
 inspection (per door).             per hour = $935 per                cycle.                inspection cycle.
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repair that
would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no
way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this repair:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                    Labor cost           Parts cost                Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair (per door)...............  66 work-hours x $85  $7,380 or $9,360...  $12,990 or $14,970.
                                   per hour = $5,610.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2015-03-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18100 ; Docket No. FAA-
2014-0522; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-087-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 25, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in
any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2863, dated March 11, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fuselage skin cracks at the
lower forward corner of the main entry door (MED) 1 cutout. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct skin cracking, which can
become large and could adversely affect the structural integrity of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Except as specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014: Do
a detailed inspection and a surface high frequency eddy current
inspection for cracking of the fuselage skin at the applicable MED 1
cutout, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014. Do all applicable corrective
actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections of the
applicable MED 1 cutout thereafter at the applicable intervals
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014. Accomplishing the
corrective actions required by this paragraph terminates the
repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Optional Terminating Action

    For airplanes on which no crack is found during the initial
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Installing the
preventive modification in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated
March 11, 2014, terminates the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Post-Repair or Post-Modification Repetitive Inspections and
Corrective Actions

    For airplanes on which the corrective actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD have been done, or airplanes that have
installed the preventive modification specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated
March 11, 2014, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the
fuselage skin at the applicable MED 1 cutout, and do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated
March 11, 2014, except as specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat
the inspection of the fuselage skin at the applicable MED 1 cutout
thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated
March 11, 2014.

(j) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, specifies a
compliance time ``after the Original issue date of this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March
11, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before
further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

 (l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11,
2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 2, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-02689 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 39695-39696]
[DOCID:fr10jy08-56]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8690-2; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0983]

2007 Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research
Program Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air
Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on
O3

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 45-day public comment period for the draft
document titled, ``2007 Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change
Research Program Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional
U.S. Air Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on
O3'' (EPA/600/R-07/094). The document was prepared by the
National Center for Environmental Assessment within EPA's Office of
Research and Development.
    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination. EPA will consider any public comments
submitted in accordance with this notice when revising the document.

DATES: The 45-day public comment period begins July 10, 2008, and ends
August 25, 2008. Technical comments should be in writing and must be
received by EPA by August 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The draft ``2007 Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global
Change Research Program Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on
Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis of Climate Change
Impacts on O3'' is available primarily via the Internet on
the National Center for Environmental Assessment's home page under the
Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at http://
www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies are available from
NCEA's Information Management Team; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:
703-347-8691. If you are requesting a paper copy, please provide your
name, mailing address, and the document title ``2007 Interim Report of
the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program Assessment of the Impacts
of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis
of Climate Change Impacts on O3.''
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://
www.regulations.gov, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/
courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information, contact Brooke L. Hemming, PhD, National
Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA); telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Information About the Project/Document

    The ``2007 Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research
Program Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air
Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on
O3'' is intended to provide air quality managers and
scientists a summary and synthesis of the scientific results that have
emerged from the EPA ORD Global Change Research Program (ORD GCRP)
assessment of the impact of global change on U.S. regional air quality.
The report discusses the studies that have focused on the sensitivity
of U.S. air quality to meteorological changes associated with a warming
climate in large regions within the continental U.S.
    The EPA recognizes that climate-air quality interactions occur at
multiple scales (both spatial and temporal), and that an understanding
of these interactions demands contributions from several scientific
disciplines. The EPA ORD GCRP developed a research and assessment
program that combines the resources and expertise of the ORD labs and
centers toward the goal of developing the necessary scientific
underpinnings. The ultimate goal of the Program is to provide air
quality managers with the scientific information and tools needed to
evaluate the implications of global change and to enhance their ability
to consider global change in their decisions. The ``2007 Interim Report
of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program Assessment of the
Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Preliminary
Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on O3'' is a preliminary
step in that direction.
    This report provides an update of the progress that has been made
in applying climate and atmospheric chemistry models to investigate
potential future meteorological effects on air quality. It does not
include changes in air pollutant emissions other than those that are
explicitly linked to meteorological variables and incorporated within
the models (e.g., biogenic VOC emissions). In addition, it provides a
preliminary interpretation of what this improved scientific
understanding means for air quality management. Future assessment
reports will cover the combined impacts of changing climate and air
pollutant emissions on air quality. The program also plans to develop
additional reports that focus on additional pollutants, including PM
and mercury.
    NCEA worked collaboratively with the EPA Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR), and ORD's National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL), National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) and National
Center for Environmental Research (NCER) on this report.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://
www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
0983, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, Room 3334 EPA West Building, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit
three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number
pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original
and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2007-0983. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: June 24, 2008.
Rebecca Clark,
Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E8-15727 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P