[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 221 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71745-71747]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28882]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 2015 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-4812; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-034-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report that certain center and outboard stowage bin
modules were incorrectly installed. This proposed AD would require an
inspection of the center and outboard stowage bin modules for missing
parts, quick release pins that are not fully engaged, and parts that
are installed in incorrect locations; and corrective actions if
necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly
installed center and outboard stowage bin modules that might not remain
intact during an emergency landing, resulting in injuries to occupants
and interference with airplane evacuation.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: 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 to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed 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-2015-
4812.

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-2015-
4812; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone: 425-917- 6585; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-4812;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-034-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report that certain center and outboard stowage bin
modules were incorrectly installed on Model 787-8 airplanes. The
affected stowage bin modules had parts that were missing or incorrectly
installed and quick release pins that were not fully engaged. The
missing and incorrectly installed parts included quick release pins,
load transfer bars, tie rods, quick release pin retainers, radial
struts, and splice fittings. Missing or incorrectly installed parts
affect the load capability of a stowage bin, and during an emergency
landing that stowage bin might not remain intact. We are proposing this
AD to detect and correct incorrectly installed center and outboard
stowage bin modules that might not remain intact during an emergency
landing, resulting in injuries to occupants and interference with
airplane evacuation.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Boeing service information. This service
information describes procedures for inspecting the installation of the
center and outboard stowage bin modules and doing corrective actions.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250036-00,
Issue 001, dated September 10, 2013.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250039-00,
Issue 001, dated October 8, 2013.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250040-00,
Issue 001, dated October 14, 2013.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250041-00,
Issue 001, dated October 18, 2013.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250042-00,
Issue 001, dated October 28, 2013.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250043-00,
Issue 001, dated November 4, 2013.

     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250044-00,
Issue 001, dated November 8, 2013.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250045-00,
Issue 001, dated November 15, 2013.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously. Refer to this service
information for details on the procedures and compliance times.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' might be used in this proposed
AD. ``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or address any
condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for
example, repairs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 6 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection........................  222 work-hours x $85 per               $0          $18,870         $113,220
                                     hour = $18,870.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                       Labor cost                Parts cost             Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement......................  20 work-hours x $85 per    Up to $21,191...........  Up to $22,891.
                                    hour = $1,700.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-4812; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-034-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 4, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8
airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in the service
information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this
AD.
    (1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250036-00, Issue
001, dated September 10, 2013.
    (2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250039-00, Issue
001, dated October 8, 2013.

    (3) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250040-00, Issue
001, dated October 14, 2013.
    (4) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250041-00, Issue
001, dated October 18, 2013.
    (5) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250042-00, Issue
001, dated October 28, 2013.
    (6) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250043-00, Issue
001, dated November 4, 2013.
    (7) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250044-00, Issue
001, dated November 8, 2013.
    (8) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250045-00, Issue
001, dated November 15, 2013.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that certain center and
outboard stowage bin modules were incorrectly installed. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly installed center
and outboard stowage bin modules that might not remain intact during
an emergency landing, resulting in injuries to occupants and
interference with airplane evacuation.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable time specified in paragraph 5., ``Compliance,'' of the
applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(8) of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the
installations of the center and outboard stowage bin modules to
determine if any part is missing, if any part is installed at an
incorrect location, or if any quick release pin is not fully
engaged; and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(8) of this
AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
    (1) For airplanes having variable numbers (V/Ns) ZA177 through
ZA183 inclusive: Use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-
SB250036-00, Issue 001, dated September 10, 2013.
    (2) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA100 through ZA105 inclusive, V/
Ns ZA116 through ZA119 inclusive, V/N ZA135, and V/NsZA506 through
ZA511 inclusive: Use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-
SB250039-00, Issue 001, dated October 8, 2013.
    (3) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA460 through ZA464 inclusive: Use
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250040-00, Issue 001,
dated October 14, 2013.
    (4) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA233 and V/Ns ZA236 through ZA240
inclusive: Use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250041-00,
Issue 001, dated October 18, 2013.
    (5) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA285 through ZA290 inclusive: Use
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250042-00, Issue 001,
dated October 28, 2013.
    (6) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA270 through ZA271 inclusive: Use
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250043-00, Issue 001,
dated November 4, 2013.
    (7) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA261 through ZA264 inclusive: Use
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250044-00, Issue 001,
dated November 8, 2013.
    (8) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA536 through ZA538 inclusive: Use
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250045-00, Issue 001,
dated November 15, 2013.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    Where the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(8) of this AD 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.

(i) 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 (j)(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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Stanley Chen,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 4, 2015.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-28882 Filed 11-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3796-3797]
[DOCID:fr24ja06-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2005-CO-0002; FRL-8010-1]

Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plan Revision for Colorado; Long-Term Strategy of State
Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Governor of Colorado with a letter dated
March 24, 2005. This revision updates the Long-Term Strategy of the
Visibility SIP to establish strategies, activities, and monitoring
plans that constitute reasonable progress toward the National
visibility goal. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct
final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the
direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not
take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse
comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions

of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 23,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. R08-OAR-
2005-CO-0002, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/.

On November 28, 2005, Regional Material in EDOCKET (RME), EPA's
electronic public docket and comment system, was replaced by an
enhanced Federal-wide electronic docket management and comment system
located at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, you will be

redirected to that site to access the docket EPA-R08-OAR-2005-CO-0002
and submit comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
     Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and
Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.
to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
Section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Platt, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 8, 999 18th St., Suite 200, Denver, Colorado, 80202,
303-312-6449<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct
Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 7, 2005.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 06-631 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53522-53524]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23038]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84442; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related
to Fees for Use on Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.

October 17, 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 October

3, 2018, 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 Exchange has designated
the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a member due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the
Commission. 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-Members of the Exchange pursuant to Exchange
Rules 15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is defined as ``any registered broker or dealer
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See Exchange
Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to adopt new fee
code DM, effective October 3, 2018. Such flag will be yielded when
Members add liquidity in the discretionary range using a MidPoint
Discretionary Order type (``MDO''), which order type was recently
adopted by the Exchange. In sum, an MDO is a Limit Order that is
executable at the National Best Bid (``NBB'') for an order to buy or
the National Best Offer (``NBO'') for an order to sell while resting on
the EDGX Book, with discretion to execute at prices to and including
the midpoint of the National Best Bid and Offer (the ``NBBO'').\6\ MDO
orders can be displayed or hidden. The MDO has two discrete
components--the displayed portion that is pegged to the NBB or NBO, and
a non-displayed portion which gives discretion to execute to the mid-
point of the NBBO, subject to certain limits. The Exchange believes the
proposed pricing is reflective of this concept. Particularly, the
Exchange notes that displayed MDO orders that add liquidity at the bid
or offer will receive one of the existing applicable fee codes, B, V,
Y, 3, or 4 and receive the standard rebate for adding liquidity. The
standard rebate for adding liquidity in securities priced at or above
$1.00 is $0.0020 per share and $0.00003 per share for securities priced
below $1.00. Non-displayed MDO orders that add liquidity at the bid or
offer will receive the existing non-displayed add fee code, HA. The
rebate for orders yielding fee code HA is $0.00150 per share for
securities priced at or above $1.00 and $0.00003 for securities priced
below $1.00. The Exchange lastly proposes that Members that add
liquidity in the discretionary range using a MDO order will receive a
rebate of $0.0015 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 and
provide a rebate of $0.00003 per share for securities priced below
$1.00. The Exchange notes that the proposed pricing for orders that add
liquidity using MDO orders within the discretionary range is the same
as the pricing for non-displayed MDO orders that add liquidity at the
bid or offer (i.e., orders yielding fee code HA). The Exchange notes
that pursuant to Footnote 11 of the Fees Schedule, orders that add non-
displayed liquidity (e.g., orders yielding fee code HA) may not receive
a rebate if the order has a Discretionary Range instruction. As such,
the Exchange proposes to adopt a new fee code, DM, to be appended to
all MDO orders that add liquidity within the discretionary range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84327 (October 1,
2018) (SR-CboeEDGX-2018-041) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of proposed rule change to adopt MDOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\8\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rebates for orders yielding fee
code DM are reasonable because the amount of the rebates are the same
as the respective rebates applied to other non-displayed orders.\9\ The
Exchange believes the proposed rebates for orders yielding DM is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies uniformly
to all members. The Exchange also notes that it believes it is
equitable and reasonable to provide a rebate to MDOs because MDOs add
liquidity at the NBBO while offering price improvement opportunities to
incoming contra-side orders that execute within its discretionary
range. The Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to provide a lower rebate to non-displayed add MDO
orders (i.e., orders yielding fee codes HA and DM) compared to
displayed add MDO orders (i.e., orders yielding fee codes, B, V, Y, 3,
or 4) because such pricing incentivizes the entry of displayed
liquidity on the Exchange, which is consistent with the Exchange's
pricing generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g., Cboe EDGX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule, Fee
Code and Associated Fees, Fee Code HA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe that this change represents a
significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or
from pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. The proposed
rebates would apply uniformly to all Members, and Members may opt to
disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer
them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
Further, excessive fees would serve to impair an exchange's ability to
compete for order flow and members rather than burdening competition.
The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket
competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all
Members.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-047 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-2018-047. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of this filing will also 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-CboeEDGX-2018-047 and should be
submitted on or before November 13, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-23038 Filed 10-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28930-28933]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Waivers of Ship Protection Probability of Impact Requirement

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of waivers.

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

SUMMARY: This notice concerns two petitions for waiver submitted to the
FAA by Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX): A petition to
waive the requirement that a waiver request be submitted at least 60
days before the effective date of the waiver unless good cause for
later submission is shown in the petition; and a petition to waive the
requirements that exclude persons in waterborne vessels from the
collective risk criteria and limit the probability of impact on
waterborne vessels to 1 x 10-5.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this waiver, contact Paul D. Wilde, Deputy Chief Engineer, Commercial
Space Transportation, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal
questions concerning this waiver, contact Laura Montgomery, Office of
the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 1, 2016, SpaceX submitted a petition to the Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Office of Commercial Space
Transportation (AST) requesting relief from a regulatory requirement
for a launch license for flight of a Falcon 9 launch vehicle carrying
SpaceX's Dragon capsule. Specifically, SpaceX requested relief from 14
CFR 417.107(b), which excludes persons in waterborne vessels from the
collective risk limit of 30 x 10-6 expected casualties
(EC) and limits the probability of impact with waterborne

vessels to 1 x 10-5. \1\ The FAA is treating the request for
a waiver to also apply to Appendix B to part 417, paragraph 417.5(a),
which requires evacuation and monitoring of hazard areas. The launch
operator does not initiate flight until the hazard area clears when the
area cannot be evacuated. Because the scheduled launch was planned to
occur in less than sixty days, SpaceX also requested a waiver to Sec.
404.3(b)(5), which requires that a petition for waiver be submitted at
least sixty days before the proposed effective date of the waiver,
which in this case would be the date of the planned launch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2014, the FAA proposed to clarify the requirements of
part 417 concerning hazard areas for ships and aircraft. Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, Changing the Collective Risk Limits for
Launches and Reentries and Clarifying the Risk Limit Used to
Establish Hazard Areas for Ships and Aircraft, 79 FR 42241 (July 21,
2014). The proposed clarification provided in the 2014 NPRM was that
``A launch operator must establish any water borne vessel hazard
areas necessary to ensure the probability of impact (Pi) with debris
capable of causing a casualty for water borne vessels does not
exceed 0.00001 (1 x 10-\5\).'' Id. at 42253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA licenses the launch of a launch vehicle and reentry of a
reentry vehicle under authority granted to the Secretary of
Transportation in the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended
and re-codified by 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, chapter 509 (Chapter 509), and
delegated to the FAA Administrator and the Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation, who exercises licensing authority
under Chapter 509.
    SpaceX is a private commercial space flight company. The petition
addresses an upcoming flight that SpaceX plans to undertake to deliver
the cargo inside the Dragon capsule to the International Space Station
(ISS) as its eighth Commercial Resupply Service mission (CRS-8). SpaceX
plans for its Falcon 9 launch vehicle to launch from Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station (CCAFS) and fly back the first stage to a barge for
landing. During a previous launch of the Falcon 9 from CCAFS to deliver
the SES-9 payload to orbit, SpaceX was delayed by the presence of a tug
boat towing a large barge inside the ship hazard area in compliance
with the FAA's requirement in Sec.  417.107(b) to limit the probability
of impact for waterborne vessels to 1 x 10-5.
    Waiver Criteria:
    Chapter 509 allows the FAA to waive a license requirement if the
waiver (1) will not jeopardize public health and safety, safety of
property; (2) will not jeopardize national security and foreign policy
interests of the United States; and (3) will be in the public interest.
51 U.S.C. 50905(b)(3) (2011); 14 CFR 404.5(b) (2011).

Section 404.3(b)(5) Waiver Petition

    Section 404.3(b)(5) requires that a petition for waiver be
submitted at least sixty days before the proposed effective date of the
waiver. This section also provides that a petition may be submitted
late if the petitioner shows good cause.
    Here, SpaceX submitted its waiver petition on April 1, 2016, for
the F9 CRS-8 mission, which was less than sixty days from its planned
April 8, 2016 launch date. However, SpaceX initially submitted a
request on January 19, 2016, for its Falcon 9 launches, which included
the CRS and geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) missions. In response
to the January 19 waiver petition, the FAA informed SpaceX that it was
unable to grant that request for relief because the FAA did not have
adequate time to complete its evaluation of the petition, but would
keep SpaceX abreast of its findings once the evaluation was completed.
The FAA has been considering the issues raised since January and is now
able to address them, and advised SpaceX of that. Accordingly, the FAA
is able to find good cause because SpaceX's January 19 waiver petition
covered the F9 CRS missions, including CRS-8.

Section 417.107(b) Waiver Petition

    Section 417.107(b) allows a launch operator to initiate flight only
if the risk associated with the total flight to all members of the
public, excluding persons in waterborne vessels and aircraft, does not
exceed an expected average number of 0.00003 casualties (EC
<= 30 x 10-6) from impacting inert and impacting explosive
debris, (EC <= 30 x 10-6) for toxic release,
(EC <= 30 x 10-6) and for far field blast
overpressure.
    Additionally, a launch operator must implement water borne vessel
hazard areas that provide an equivalent level of safety to that
provided by water borne vessel hazard areas implemented for launch from
a Federal launch range.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In 2014, the FAA proposed a clarification of this
requirement. ``Under proposed section 417.107(b)(3), a hazard area
for water borne vessels would satisfy part 417 if the probability of
impact with debris capable of causing a casualty on any given water
borne vessel did not exceed 0.00001 (1 x 10-5).'' Id. at
42244. The FAA explained that Sec.  417.107(b)(3) permits a launch
operator to set a hazard-area level of safety that is equivalent to
the one used by federal launch ranges with the least burdensome
hazard area limit. While each federal launch range has its own
safety criteria for hazard areas, the federal launch range with the
least burdensome limit for hazard areas imposes a probability of
impact (Pi) limit of 1 x 10-5 for water-borne-vessel
hazard areas. Id. at 42249-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Launch of the Falcon 9 Vehicle

    The FAA does not need to address SpaceX's request to waive the
exclusion of people in waterborne vessels from the risk limits of Sec.
417.107(b). That exclusion is not a requirement that can be waived, but
merely a statement that the collective risk requirement does not apply
to persons in waterborne vessels. Accordingly, this waiver only
addresses the requirement that a launch operator must ensure the
probability of impact (Pi) with debris capable of causing a casualty
for water borne vessels does not exceed 1 x 10-5. The FAA
grants SpaceX's request for a waiver for the Falcon 9 CRS-8 launch
because it is in the public interest and will not jeopardize public
health and safety, safety of property, or national security or foreign
policy interests of the United States.

i. Public Health and Safety and Safety of Property

    The Falcon 9 CRS-8 launch is the ninth launch of an expendable
launch vehicle with a Dragon capsule bound for the ISS. SpaceX has
attempted three landings of its Falcon 9 first stage on a barge on the
ocean off CCAFS. The stages reached their intended landing spot, but
did not survive the landings. In no case was public health or safety or
safety of third party property jeopardized. The USAF conducted an
assessment of the collective risk to people on land due to debris from
the CRS-8 launch and has determined that the risks are about half the
FAA's current \3\ regulatory limit of 30 x 10-6
EC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 2014, the FAA proposed to update this requirement as
explained in Changing the Collective Risk Limits for Launches and
Reentries and Clarifying the Risk Limit Used to Establish Hazard
Areas for Ships and Aircraft, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR
42241 (July 21, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2006, the FAA issued part 417 to amend its
commercial space transportation regulations governing the launch of
expendable launch vehicles. The FAA requirements in part 417 have their
genesis in USAF range safety requirements.
    In addition to the public risk criteria provided in Sec.
417.107(b), flight hazard areas were a key element of the performance
level requirements in subpart C of 417 to ensure the safety of people
on waterborne vessels. Specifically, Sec.  417.223(a) states that ``a
flight safety analysis must include a flight hazard area analysis that
identifies any regions of land, sea, or air that must be surveyed,
publicized, controlled, or evacuated in order to control the risk to
the public from debris

impact hazards. The risk management requirements of Sec.  417.205(a)
apply.'' In addition to the performance level requirements of subpart C
of part 417, the FAA included several appendices on flight safety
analysis methods. Specifically, Appendix B to part 417, paragraph
417.5(a) states that ``a launch operator must perform a launch site
hazard area analysis that protects the public, aircraft, and ships from
the hazardous activities in the vicinity of the launch site. The launch
operator must evacuate and monitor each launch site hazard area to
ensure compliance with Sec. Sec.  417.107(b)(2) and (b)(3).'' The
methodology in Appendix B was designed to be consistent with USAF range
safety requirements in 2006, and to ensure that the cumulative
probability of impact to any ship would not exceed 1 x 10-5
for any debris expected to exceed the kinetic energy or overpressure
thresholds established by Sec.  417.107(c).
    At the time that part 417 was promulgated, safety experts at NASA
\4\ believed that it would be desirable to apply collective risk \5\
management principles to ship safety by including persons in waterborne
vessels in the EC calculation. However, the computational
tools and input data available at that time made it impractical, and
posed significant risks to launch operators,\6\ to quantify the
EC contribution from people in waterborne vessels.
Specifically, the means to survey ship traffic areas potentially
threatened by launch debris were much more limited in the 2006
timeframe as explained below. Accordingly, the Federal launch ranges
and the FAA adopted the cumulative probability of impact as a surrogate
for collective risk and relied on a relatively simplistic approach
involving ship hazard areas. Thus, the FAA's current requirements allow
launches to proceed with unquantified residual collective risks to
people in waterborne vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, the NASA Range Safety Policy requirements
(NPR8715.5 dated July 8, 2005 in paragraph <IP_ADDRESS>) stated that ``an
assessment of risk to the public and workforce due to debris shall
account for . . . all potential debris, generated intentionally or
not, that could cause a casualty, including debris that could affect
someone on the ground or on a waterborne vessel, or cause an
aircraft accident (Requirement).''(emphasis added).
    \5\ Risk metrics account for both the probability and
consequence of foreseeable events. In contrast to the relatively
sophisticated casualty consequence models that must be used to
compute individual and collective risks according to Sec.
417.107(d), the FAA's current requirements restrict only the
probability of impact on waterborne vessels with only simple
threshold values to define what constitutes an ``impact.''
    \6\ The only known deaths related to launch operations at Cape
Canaveral were five occupants of a helicopter that crashed at sea
``shortly after 2 a.m., Saturday, April 7, [1984] while flying
surface surveillance for the scheduled launch of a Trident 1 missile
from the USS Georgia.'' See Air Force News Print Today (Apr. 8,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 2006, when the part 417 requirements were promulgated, the
capability to compute launch risks to people on waterborne vessels has
improved greatly. The U.S. Coast Guard now requires in 33 CFR 164.46
that waterborne vessels above a certain size operate a properly
installed and approved Automatic Identification System (AIS), a ship
and shore based broadcast system. The AIS, combined with other
technological advances, now makes real-time ship information readily
available, including the position, course, speed, ship size, identity,
and cargo data. The real-time data on waterborne vessels provided by
AIS and other advanced surveillance techniques, combined with advanced
computer models, now enable valid estimates of the individual and
collective risks to people on waterborne vessels to be made during a
launch countdown.
    The FAA has assessed the input data and probabilistic casualty
models that the U.S. Air Force at the 45th Space Wing (45th SW) will
use to quantify individual and collective risks to people on waterborne
vessels during the launch countdown for the CRS-8 mission. The FAA
found that the 45th SW's public risk analyses use accurate data and
scientific methods that are mathematically valid, with reasonably
conservative assumptions applied in areas where significant uncertainty
exists. For example, the 45th SW uses conservative estimates of the
number of occupants on waterborne vessels by assuming that the number
of persons on board equals the vessel's maximum capacity and that all
occupants are on-deck, and thus exposed to debris impacts that might
not otherwise pose a threat to people below deck. Additionally, the FAA
performed independent analyses using alternative methods to estimate
the casualty risks for multiple foreseeable scenarios involving debris
impacts on various types of waterborne vessels in the vicinity of Cape
Canaveral. The FAA found that large passenger vessels anywhere between
the launch point and the first stage disposal zone can contribute
significantly to the estimated EC from the CRS-8 launch. The
FAA found that small boats (too small to have AIS required) located
close to the launch point should not produce significant individual
risks, given conditions expected in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral.
Specifically, sufficient surveillance with other means (e.g., radar,
and/or using Coast Guard ships or aerial assets) will be used to ensure
individual risks comply with the FAA requirement in Sec.
417.107(b)(2). In addition, Notices to Mariners will continue to be
issued for the areas where the probability of impact on a ship would
exceed 1 x 10-5, which is current practice at the ER, and
required by Sec. Sec.  B417.3 and B417.11. Since the FAA's current
requirements allow launches to proceed with unquantified residual
collective risks to people in waterborne vessels, as long as the
collective risk for people on land from each source of hazard (i.e.,
debris, toxics, or distant focusing overpressure) does not exceed 30 x
10-6 EC, and because the launch will not exceed
the 30 x 10-6 EC with the inclusion of persons on
water borne vessels, the FAA finds that the Falcon 9 CRS-8 launch will
not jeopardize public health and safety or safety of property, and
waives 14 CFR 417.107(b)(3) and Appendix B to part 417, paragraph
417.5(a)'s requirement not to initiate flight absent evacuation.
National Security and Foreign Policy Implications
    The USAF conducted an assessment of the risk to property on CCAFS,
including assets used for national security space missions, and did not
identify national security concerns. The FAA has identified no national
security or foreign policy implications associated with granting this
waiver.

ii. Public Interest

    The waiver is consistent with the public interest goals of Chapter
509 and the 2013 National Space Transportation Policy. Three of the
public policy goals of Chapter 509 are: (1) To promote economic growth
and entrepreneurial activity through use of the space environment; (2)
to encourage the United States private sector to provide launch and
reentry vehicles and associated services; and (3) to facilitate the
strengthening and expansion of the United States space transportation
infrastructure to support the full range of United States space-related
activities. See 51 U.S.C. 50901(b)(1), (2), (4). Commercial Space
Transportation Licensing Regulations, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 62
FR 13230 (Mar. 19, 1997). A successful application of public risk
management for the protection of people in waterborne vessels has the
potential for reducing launch costs. As it is a major procurer of
launch services, reduced launch costs will be of direct benefit to the
U.S. Government. It will also help to make the U.S. launch industry
more competitive internationally. The 2013

National Space Transportation Policy clearly identifies how
strengthening U.S. competitiveness in the international launch market
and improving the cost effectiveness of U.S. space transportation
services are in the public interest: ``Maintaining an assured
capability to meet United States Government needs, while also taking
the necessary steps to strengthen U.S. competitiveness in the
international commercial launch market, is important to ensuring that
U.S. space transportation capabilities will be reliable, robust, safe,
and affordable in the future. Among other steps, improving the cost
effectiveness of U.S. space transportation services could help achieve
this goal by allowing the United States Government to invest a greater
share of its resources in other needs such as facilities modernization,
technology advancement, scientific discovery, and national security.
Further, a healthier, more competitive U.S. space transportation
industry would facilitate new markets, encourage new industries, create
high technology jobs, lead to greater economic growth and security, and
would further the Nation's leadership role in space.'' SpaceX's
proposal to apply collective risk management to people in waterborne
vessels is in the public interest.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2016.
Kenneth Wong,
Commercial Space Transportation, Licensing and Evaluation Division
Manager.
[FR Doc. 2016-09685 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76701-76702]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30077]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air
Carrier Permits

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending December 7,

2013. The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2013-0204.
    Date Filed: December 2, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: December 23, 2013.
    Description: Application of Norwegian Air International Limited
(``Norwegian International'') requesting exemption authority and a
foreign air carrier permit to enable it to conduct foreign scheduled
and charter air transportation of persons, property and mail to the
full extent permitted under the open skies U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air
Transport Agreement; Norwegian International requests authority to
engage in: a. Foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of
persons, property and mail from any point or points behind any Member
State(s) of the European Union, via any point or points in any Member
State and via intermediate points, to any point(s) in the United States
and beyond; b. foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of
persons, property, and mail between any point or points in the United
States and any point or points in any member of the European Common
Aviation Area; c. foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of
persons property and mail between any point or points in Norway, via
intermediate points, and any point or points in the United States; d.
foreign scheduled and charter cargo air transportation between any
point or points in the United States and any other point or points; e.
other charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements; and f.
scheduled and charter transportation consistent with any future,
additional rights that may be granted to European Union carriers under
the U.S.-E.U. Open Skies Agreement.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2013-30077 Filed 12-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44768]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20519]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2507-000]

RE Gaskell West LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
RE Gaskell West LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 10, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 20, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20519 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR COKE OVEN BATTERIES: FINAL AMENDMENTS PART A 1. Identification of the Information Collection ( a) Title of the Information Collection.

" National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries ( Renewal)." This is a revision to the existing approved information collection request ( ICR). The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements in the existing rule ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060 0253. The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) tracking number for this request is ICR number 1362.06.

( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract.

Respondents are owners or operators of coke oven batteries subject to National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L) promulgated on October 27,

1993. Two compliance approaches are available under the rule: the " MACT ( Maximum Achievable Control Technology) track" and the " LAER ( Lowest Achievable Emission Rate)

extension track." Amendments to the 1993 rule were promulgated on April 15, 2005 and established more stringent visible emission limitations for doors and topside leaks on existing byproduct coke oven batteries on the MACT track to address health risk remaining after implementation of the 1993 rule. Based on our 8 year review requirements under section 112( d)( 6)

of the CAA, we also promulgated emission limits and work practice requirements for the improved control of charging emissions from new or reconstructed non recovery batteries. These 2 requirements include an opacity limit for charging operations, emission and opacity limits for the charging emission control device, and work practice standards. Other final amendments establish work practice requirements designed for improved door leak control; these requirements apply to all non recovery batteries on the MACT track.

No new or revised information collection requirements are included for existing by product coke oven batteries because the existing rule already includes appropriate monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting provisions. Respondents that own or operate any new or existing non recovery battery on the MACT track will be required to observe coke oven doors for leaks each day. Respondents that own or operate any new non recovery battery will be required to develop a site specific test plan and conduct performance tests; make opacity observations; add information to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; submit one time notifications and semiannual compliance reports; and maintain records of specific information to ensure that the final requirements are being achieved. These requirements are listed in Attachment 1.

This revised ICR also updates the population of affected facilities associated with the existing approved ICR, which was based on 25 respondents. Subsequently, seven by product recovery coke plants have permanently closed, and one new non recovery coke plant began operation. As of March 2005, 19 respondents were owners or operators of new or existing byproduct or non recovery coke oven batteries subject to the regulation. The respondents consist of two sectors within the coke industry, iron and steel integrated plants that produce coke for their operations ( 9 plants) and merchant plants that produce furnace and foundry coke for sale on the open market ( 10 plants). These 19 coke plants operate 55 coke oven batteries ( affected facilities);

44 are by product batteries operated at 16 plants, and 11 are non recovery batteries operated at 3 three plants. No additional respondents ( new sources) are expected to become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

In general, all National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP)

require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/ operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are required of all affected facilities subject to the standard. The owner/ operator must also maintain a file of these measurements and retain the file for at least five years. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. The requirements are summarized in Attachment 2.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection.

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, EPA must establish MACT standards for new or existing major or area sources according to the requirements in section 112( d). Under section 112( d)( 6), EPA must review these technology based standards, and,

if appropriate, revise them every 8 years. In the second stage, section 112( f) requires EPA to determine whether the MACT standards protect the public health with an ample margin of safety.

Certain records and reports are necessary for the Administrator to: ( 1) confirm the compliance status of major sources, identify any non major sources not subject to the standards, 4 and identify new or reconstructed sources subject to the standards; and ( 2) ensure that the MACT ( and residual risk) standards are being achieved on a continuous basis. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the Clean Air Act ( 42 U. S. C.

7414) and set out in the General Provisions for national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A.

( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data.

The information will be used by Agency enforcement personnel to ensure that the emission limitations are being achieved. Based on review of the recorded information at the site and the reported information, EPA can identify facilities that may not be in compliance and decide which plants, records, or processes should be inspected.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria ( a) Nonduplication.

A computer search of the Federal Information Locator System indicated that, with the exception of the existing rule, there are no similar information requests being carried out by the Federal government. A similar search of EPA's ongoing ICR's revealed no duplication of information gathering efforts. Certain reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information required by the proposed amendments. In such cases, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be provided to the Administrator in lieu of the information that would be required in the semi annual compliance report.

( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB.

This section is not applicable because this is a rule related ICR. 5 ( c) Consultations.

The final amendments were developed in consultation with State and local agencies, EPA Regional Office experts, individual coke plants, and their trade associations. For example, several meetings and telephone consultations were held with representatives from the affected plants, their trade associations, and the American Iron and Steel ( AISI)/ American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute ( ACCCI) Coke Oven Environmental Task Force ( COETF). In addition, discussions were held with the non recovery plant ( Indiana Harbor Coke). The non EPA persons consulted on the information collection activities are identified in Table 1.

TABLE 1. PERSONS CONSULTED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES Contact Organization Telephone Number George Bradley, Jr. Indiana Harbor Coke Co. ( 219) 397 2180 David Ailor ACCCI ( 202) 452 1140 ( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

If the relevant information were collected less frequently, EPA would not be reasonably assured that a plant is in compliance with the standards.

( e) General Guidelines.

None of the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6 are being exceeded.

( f) Confidentiality.

All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B

Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23,

1979). 6 ( g) Sensitive Questions.

This section is not applicable because this ICR does not involve matters of a sensitive nature.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested ( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes.

In the existing rule, respondents are owners or operators of new or existing byproduct or non recovery coke oven batteries. Potential respondents under the final amendments are owners or operators of non recovery batteries that are on the MACT track. There are two non recovery coke oven facilities subject to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the final amendments; no new non recovery batteries are expected during the 3 year clearance period for this ICR. Owners or operators of by product coke oven batteries are not potential respondents under the amendments because they are currently meeting the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the existing rule. The Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code for this industry is SIC 3312, " Steel Works, Blast Furnaces ( including coke ovens) and Rolling Mills",

which under the new North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes are 331111,

" Iron and Steel Mills", and 324199, " All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing" ( i. e.,

coke ovens not integrated with steel mills).

( b) Information Requested.

( i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements. Attachments 1 and 2 summarize the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the final rule amendments and the 1993 rule,

respectively.

( ii) Respondent Activities. The respondent activities required by the final amendments are identified in Table 2 and introduced in section 6( a).

5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management ( a) Agency Activities.

A list of Agency activities is provided in Table 3 and introduced in section 6( c). 7 ( b) Collection Methodology and Management.

Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual compliance reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the Air Facility System ( AFS), which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection,

maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters.

EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility.

A small entity for this industry is defined by the Small Business Administration as a firm having no more than 1,000 employees. Of the three companies that will be subject to the final amendments, one company ( operating a total of three batteries at two plants) is considered a small entity. However, the final amendments will not impose any significant additional regulatory costs on that small entity because it is already meeting the stricter emission limitations for existing byproduct coke oven batteries included in the final amendments, as well as the monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the 1993 rule. Although the final amendments will not have a significant economic impact on this small entity, we nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the final amendments on small facilities. We held several meetings with industry trade associations and company representatives to discuss the amendments and their concerns.

( d) Collection Schedule.

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 2.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden.

The annual burden estimates for the additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the final amendments and the updated estimates for the original rule are shown in Table 2. These numbers were derived from estimates based on EPA's experience with other standards. 8 ( b) Estimating Respondent Costs.

The information collection activities for the final amendments are presented in Table 2.

Because most of the data is already collected by respondents as required by the existing rule,

minimal respondent development costs are associated with the information collection activities.

( i) Estimating Labor Costs. Labor rates and associated costs are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) data. Technical, management, and clerical average hourly rates for private industry workers were taken from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2005, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group" available at http:// www. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t02. htm. Wages for occupational groups are used as the basis for the labor rates with a total compensation of $ 40.41/ hour for technical, $ 47.90/ hour for managerial, and $ 20.61/ hour for clerical. These rates represent salaries plus fringe benefits and do not include the cost of overhead. An overhead rate of 110 percent is used to account for these costs. The fully burdened hourly wage rates used to represent respondent labor costs are:

technical at $ 84.86, management at $ 100.59, and clerical at $ 43.28.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs. As shown in Table 2, no ( zero) capital/ startup or O& M costs are associated with the final amendments or with the existing rule over the 3 year period of this ICR.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. O& M Costs. The estimate of capital/ startup costs vs. O& M costs is shown in Table 2. No ( zero) O& M costs are associated with the final amendments or with the existing rule over the 3 year period of this ICR.

( iv) Annualizing Capital Costs. As shown in Table 2, no ( zero) annualized costs are associated with the final amendments or with the existing rule during the 3 year period of this ICR.

( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

Because the information collection requirements were developed as an incidental part of standards development, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection requirements. Because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents are required under the NESHAP General Provisions, no operational costs will be incurred by the Federal Government. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the Compliance Data System, with the result that no Federal costs can be directly attributed to the ICR. 9 Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program,

and, therefore, is not attributable to the ICR. The only costs that the Federal government will incur are user costs associated with the analysis of the reported information, as presented in Table 3.

The Agency labor rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) 2005 General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay. These rates can be obtained from Salary Table 2005 GS available on the OPM website, http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 05tables/ pdf/ gs_ h. pdf. The government employee labor rates are $ 14.06/ hour for clerical ( GS 6, Step 3), $ 25.98 for technical ( GS 12, Step 1), and $ 35.01/ hr for management ( GS 13, Step 5). These rates were increased by 60 percent to include fringe benefits and overhead. The fully burdened wage rates used to represent Agency labor costs are: clerical at $ 22.50, technical at $ 41.57, and management at $ 56.02.

( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs.

There are 19 existing sources that are currently subject to the regulation. No new sources are expected to become subject to the standard in the next three years. Consequently, the average number of respondents over the three year period of this ICR is 19. The primary component of the total annual responses is the semiannual compliance report, which is required for all 19 respondents. As shown below, we estimate that one respondent may reconstruct a battery and one may close a battery over the 3 year period ( 0.33 respondents per year), two respondents per year may report a malfunction, and 10 percent of the 16 respondents with by product recovery batteries may report a venting episode. The number of total annual responses is estimated as 42.3. Details on the number of respondents affected by each individual burden item are provided in the footnotes of Table 2. 10 ( A)

Information Collection Activity ( B) Number of Respondents ( C) Number of Responses ( D) Total Annual Responses D=( B* C)

Semiannual Compliance Report 19 2 38 Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 0.33 1 0.33 Notification of Malfunction and Report 2 1 2 Notification of Battery Closure 0.33 1 0.33 Report of Venting Coke Oven Gas Episode at a Stack Flare 1.6 1 1.6 Total 42.3 ( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables.

( i) Respondent tally. The bottom line respondent burden hours and costs, presented in Table 2, are calculated by adding person hours per year down each column for technical,

managerial, and clerical staff, and by adding down the cost column. The average annual burden for the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the existing rule and amendments is 80,119 person hours with an annual average cost of $ 6,564,046 with no annual capital and O& M costs.

( ii) The Agency tally. The average annual Federal Government cost is $ 4,686 for 116 total annual hours. The bottom line Agency burden hours and costs presented in Table 3 are calculated by adding person hours per year down each column for technical, managerial, and clerical staff, and by adding down the cost column.

( iii) Variations in the annual bottom line. This section does not apply since no significant variation is anticipated.

( f) Reasons for Change in Burden.

The burden estimate decreased by 24,988 hours ( from 105,107 hours to 80,119 hours).

The change was due to an adjustment to the number of respondents from 25 to 19 to account for permanent plant closures and the start up of one new plant. 11 ( g) Burden Statement The average annual respondent burden is 4,217 hours. Burden means the total time, effort,

or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;

develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,

validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggestions for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA HQ OAR 2003 0051, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B 102,

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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available for online viewing at www. regulations. gov. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at www. regulations. gov to submit or view public comments and to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select Docket Search under Advanced Search, then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA HQ OAR 2003 0051 in any correspondence. 12 PART B This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in data collection associated with the final amendments. 13 TABLE 2. ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST: NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L)

Burden item ( A) Personhours per occurrence ( B) No. of occurrences per respondent ( C) Person hours per respondent ( C= A* B) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E= C* D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( E* 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hours per year ( E* 0.1) ( H) Cost b, $

1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Acquisition, Installation, and Utilization of Technology and Systems N/ A 4. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions 8 1 8 19 152 7.6 15.2 $ 14,321 B. Required activities ALL PLANTS:

Daily performance tests/ visible observations c 8.25 365 3,011 19 57,214 2,861 5,721 $ 5,390,536 Certification Program d 24 1 24 19 456 22.8 45.6 $ 42,963 Implement work practice plan 40 1 40 19 760 38 76 $ 71,605 Implement startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 40 1 40 19 760 38 76 $ 71,605 NON RECOVERY PLANTS:

Coke oven doors: daily pressure monitoring e 0.5 365 182.5 3 547.5 27.4 54.75 $ 51,584 Coke oven doors: leak detection procedures f 1 365 365 2 730 36.5 73 $ 68,779 Charging operations: work practices on the control equipment g 0.5 365 182.5 3 547.5 27.4 54.75 $ 51,584 BY PRODUCT PLANTS:

Daily inspection of the collecting main for leaks 0.5 365 182.5 17 3,103 155.1 310.3 $ 292,310 Inspect bypass/ bleeder stack/ flare system h 0.5 365 182.5 17 3,103 155.1 310.3 $ 292,310 Coke oven doors with sheds complying with the alternative standard:

initial and regular performance test and monitoring of opacity i N/ A C. Create information See 4B D. Gather existing information See 4B E. Write report Notification requirements include:

 Election of compliance track j 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0  Construct/ reconstruct a new battery, a brownfield battery, or a padup rebuild battery k 2 1 2 0.33 0.66 0.033 0.066 $ 62 Malfunction notification and report l 26 1 26 2 52 2.6 5.2 $ 4,899 Report of plant or battery closure m 2 1 2 0.33 0.66 0.033 0.066 $ 62 Report of venting of coke oven gas through a bypass/ bleeder stack n 25 1 25 1.6 40 2 4 $ 3,769 Initial compliance certification o 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Semiannual compliance certifications 2 2 4 19 76 3.8 7.6 $ 7,161 5. Recordkeeping Requirements 14 Burden item ( A) Personhours per occurrence ( B) No. of occurrences per respondent ( C) Person hours per respondent ( C= A* B) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E= C* D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( E* 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hours per year ( E* 0.1) ( H) Cost b, $

A. Read instructions See 4A B. Plan activities See 4A C. Implement activities See 4A D. Record information: all data required by rule 1.5 52 78 19 1,482 74.1 148.2 $ 139,630 E. Time to transmit or disclose information 1 2 2 19 38 1.9 3.8 $ 3,580 F. Time to train personnel 32 1 32 19 608 30.4 60.8 $ 57,284 G. Time for audits N/ A Subtotal 69,669 3,483 6,967 $ 6,564,046 TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST 80,119 hours $ 6,564,046 Annualized cost of capital p $ 0 Operation and maintenance p $ 0 Footnotes:

a There are 19 respondents that are currently owners or operators of new or existing byproduct or non recovery coke oven batteries subject to 40 CFR Part 63,

subpart L. As of March 2005, these 19 coke plants were operating 55 coke oven batteries ( affected facilities); 44 are by product batteries operated at 16 plants,

and 11 are non recovery batteries operated at three plants. No additional respondents ( new sources) are expected over the next three years.

b This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 100.59 for managerial labor, $ 84.86 for technical labor, and $ 43.28 for clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2005, A Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group.@ The rates are from column 1, A Total compensation.@ The rates reflect an increase of 110% to account for overhead costs.

c Daily performance tests are conducted by a certified observer provided by the State enforcement agency for each emission point on each battery. Respondents reimburse States through permit fees. Based on an average of 3 coke ovens batteries per plant, the total person hours for inspections is estimated at 8.25 hours using the cost formula for calculating reimbursement costs included in the rule.

d This burden includes the indirect costs to respondents to provide certification to the observer provided by the State enforcement agency or its contractor including a 3 day EPA certification course.

e The owners or operators of three existing non recovery plants are required to either conduct leak detection procedures or monitor oven pressure each day. The plants have elected to monitor pressure.

f The promulgated rule amendments ( 70 FR 19992, April 15, 2005) require visible emission observations of doors for two non recovery plants that are not on the LAER extension track.

g The owners or operators of three existing non recovery plants are required to implement specified work practices for the control of emissions from charging operations and to document the performance of each procedure.

h All 17 of the by product coke plants must install and maintain flares.

i None of the plants with cokeside sheds have applied for the alternative door standard.

j All sources have submitted this notification ( the deadline was January 1, 1998).

k Assume that one plant would submit a notification to reconstruct a battery over the 3 year period. 15 l Assume that one plant per year may experience a malfunction requiring notification to inform the Agency and a written report.

m Assume that one plant over a three year period is expected to permanently close one or more batteries and submit the required notification.

n Ten percent of the 16 by product plants ( 1.6) are expected to experience a venting episode where emissions are released through bypass/ bleeder stacks without flaring requiring notification and a written report.

o All of the existing plants have already submitted initial compliance certifications.

p There are no capital costs or operation and maintenance costs associated with this ICR. 16 TABLE 3. ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST TO THE FEDERAL/ STATE GOVERNMENT:

NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L)

Burden Item ( A) Person hours per occurrence ( B) Occurrences per plant per year ( C) Plants per year a ( D) Technical hours/ year ( E= A* B* C) ( E) Management hours/ year ( F= 0.05* D) ( F) Clericalhours year ( G= 0.1* D) ( G) Cost b,

$

Report Review:

Site specific test plan N/ A NESHAP waiver application N/ A Compliance extension request N/ A Work practice plan c N/ A Startup, shutdown and malfunction plan c N/ A Construct/ reconstruct a new battery, a brownfield battery, or a padup rebuild battery d 2 1 0.33 0.66 0.033 0.066 $ 31 Request for startup of cold idle battery e N/ A Notification of election of compliance track f N/ A Request for alternative door standard g N/ A Notification of closure of batteries h 2 1 0.33 0.66 0.033 0.066 $ 31 Malfunction notification i 2 1 2 4 0.2 0.4 $ 186 Malfunction report i 8 1 2 16 0.8 1.6 $ 746 Report of venting of coke oven gas through a bypass/ bleeder stack flare j 2 1 1.6 3.2 0.16 0.32 $ 149 Initial compliance certification k N/ A Semiannual compliance certifications l 2 2 19 76 3.8 7.6 $ 3,543 Subtotal Burden and Cost 100.5 5.0 10.1 $ 4,686 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST 116 hours $ 4,686 17 Footnotes:

a There are 19 respondents that are currently owners or operators of new or existing byproduct or non recovery coke oven batteries subject to 40 CFR Part 63,

subpart L. As of March 2005, these 19 coke plants were operating 55 coke oven batteries ( affected facilities); 44 are by product batteries operated at 16 plants,

and 11 are non recovery batteries operated at three plants. No additional respondents ( new sources) are expected over the next three years.

b This ICR uses the following average hourly labor rates: 56.02 for Managerial ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 35.01 x 1.6), $ 41.57 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.98 x 1.6) for Technical and $ 22.50 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 14.06 x 1.6) for Clerical. These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) A 2005 General Schedule @ which excludes locality rates of pay.

c These plans have already been submitted.

d Assume that one plant over the 3 year period will reconstruct or rebuild a battery.

e There are no batteries on cold idle.

f All sources have submitted this notification ( the deadline was January 1, 1998).

g None of the plants with cokeside sheds have applied for the alternative door standard.

h Assume that one plant over a three year period is expected to permanently close batteries and submit the required notification.

i Assume that one plant per year may experience a malfunction requiring notification to inform the Agency and a written report.

j Ten percent of the 16 by product plants are expected to experience a venting episode where emissions are released through bypass/ bleeder stacks without flaring requiring notification and a written report.

k All sources have already submitted this initial notification.

l All plants are required to submit semiannual compliance certifications. 18 ATTACHMENT 1. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RULE AMENDMENTS Plans Citation Written work practice procedures for oven damper adjustment/ monitoring for non recovery batteries 63.303( c)

Operation and maintenance plan for bag leak detection systems for new non recovery batteries 63.309( m)

Revision to startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for nonrecovery coke oven batteries 63.6( e)( 3), 63.310( f)

Site specific test plan for new non recovery batteries 63.7( c), 63.309( k)

Reports Notification of performance test 63.7( b), 63.311( c)

Initial compliance certifications 63.9( h), 63.311( b)

Semiannual compliance report 63.311( d)

Records Performance tests and opacity observations 63.10( b)( 2)( viiii), 63.311( f)( 1)

Bag leak detection systems 63.10( b)( 2)( vi), 63.311( f)( 1)

Records required to demonstrate continuous compliance with work practices 63.10( b)( 2)( viii), 63.311( f)( 1) 19 ATTACHMENT 2. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1993 RULE Notifications Citation Intention to construct a new, brownfield, or padup rebuild coke oven battery 63.311( c)( 1), 63.5, 63.9( b)

Notification of compliance status when a source becomes subject to the standard 63.9( h), 63.311( c)( 2)

Notification that source is subject to special compliance requirements: obtaining an exemption from control requirements for bypass\ bleeder stacks by committing to permanent closure of a battery or using an equivalent alternative control system for the stacks; and obtaining an alternative standard for coke oven doors on a battery equipped with a shed 63.9( d)

Initial performance test 63.7( b), 63.9( e)

Rescheduled initial performance test 63.7( b)( 2)

Notification requirements for coke ovens with a shed using a continuous monitoring system for opacity of emissions discharged from the emission control equipment; and meeting the alternative standard 63.9( g), 63.305( f)( 4)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system 63.9( g)

Change in information already provided 63.9( j)

Request for an extension of compliance with relevant standard 63.9( c)

Reports Application for approval of the construction or reconstruction of a new major affected source, or reconstruction of a major affected source 63.5( 6)( d), 63.9( b)( 1)( iiii)

Performance test results 60.8 ( a), 61.13( f), 63.10( d)( 2), 63.309 Report of opacity and visible emission observations 63.9( f)

Emission control work practices plan for each coke oven battery 63.306( a)

Opacity or visible emissions 63.10( d)( 3)

Periodic startup, shutdown and malfunction reports 63.10( d)( 5)( I)

Initial compliance certification 63.9( h), 63.111( b)

Submit semiannual compliance certifications 63.9( h), 63.311( d)

Records Startup, shutdown and malfunction plan. 63.6( e)( 3), 63.1( b)( 2), 63.310, 63.311( f)( 6)

All reports and notifications. 63.10( b)( 1) 20 Any applicability determination that demonstrates why owner or operator believes source( s) is/ are unaffected. 63.10( b)( 3)

Copy of the coke oven emission control work practice plan and revisions, and records related to implementation of plan requirements. 63.306, 63.311( f)( 3 4)

For an approved alternative emission limitation: monitoring records of parameters that indicate the exhaust flow rate is maintained, records for the continuous opacity monitoring system, and quarterly visual inspection of the shed. 63.10( c), 63.311( f)( 2)

For the bypass/ bleeder stack flare system or an approved alternative control device: design of drawings and of engineering specifications. 63.311( f)( 5)

For non recovery coke oven batteries: records of daily operating parameters and design characteristics. 63.111( f)( 1)