[Federal Register: February 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 5090]
[DOCID:fr02fe07-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and
Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of
February 5, 2007:
    An Open Meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 10
a.m. in the Auditorium, Room LL-002, and Closed Meetings will be held
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 11 a.m. and Thursday, February 8,
2007 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meetings.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration
of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meetings.
    Commissioner Nazareth as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meetings in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
February 7, 2007 at 10 a.m. will be:
    The Commission will hear oral argument on an appeal by John A.
Carley, Eugene C. Geiger, Thomas A. Kaufmann, Edward H. Price, and
Christopher H. Zacharias from an initial decision of an administrative
law judge.
    Carley and Zacharias were officers and directors of Starnet
Communications International, Inc. Geiger and Kaufmann were associated
persons of Spencer Edwards, Inc., a registered broker-dealer. Price was
president, chief executive officer, and chief compliance officer of
Spencer Edwards and supervised Geiger and Kaufmann.
    The law judge found that Carley and Zacharias violated, and Geiger
and Kaufmann willfully violated, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the
Securities Act of 1933 by offering to sell, selling, and delivering to
members of the public shares of Starnet common stock when no
registration statement was filed or in effect with respect to those
securities and no exemption from registration was available. The law
judge found that Price failed reasonably to supervise Geiger and
Kaufmann. The law judge found further that Carley and Zacharias
violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws by filing with
the Commission false and misleading current and annual reports. The law
judge also found that Zacharias violated Section 16(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 16a-3 by failing
to file a required Form 4.
    The law judge imposed cease-and-desist orders on Carley, Zacharias,
Geiger, and Kaufmann, barred Geiger and Kaufmann from associating with
any broker or dealer, and barred Price from associating with any broker
or dealer in a supervisory capacity. The law judge ordered Carley and
Zacharias each to disgorge an amount representing payments made to them
in connection with their unregistered sale of shares of Starnet common
stock. The law judge also ordered Geiger and Kaufmann each to disgorge
fifty percent of the net commissions that they earned on all Starnet
trades attributable to their joint account number at Spencer Edwards
from January 1999 through February 2001. The law judge imposed
penalties of $400,000 against Geiger, $300,000 against Kaufmann, and
$150,000 against Price.
    Carley, Zacharias, Geiger, Kaufmann, and Price appeal the law
judge's findings of violation and the sanctions imposed by the law
judge.
    Among the issues likely to be considered are:
    (1) Whether respondents committed the alleged violations; and
    (2) If so, whether sanctions should be imposed in the public
interest.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
February 7, 2007 at 11 a.m. will be: post-argument discussion.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
February 8, 2007 will be: regulatory matter regarding financial
institution; formal orders of investigation; institution and settlement
of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of administrative
proceedings of an enforcement nature; resolution of litigation claims;
an adjudicatory matter; and other matters relating to enforcement
proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 31, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-474 Filed 1-31-07; 11:02 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32978-32980]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11605]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0387; Project Identifier AD-2021-01225-R;
Amendment 39-22069; AD 2022-11-19]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Textron Inc. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bell Textron Inc. Model 212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters.
This AD was prompted by a report of a cracked check valve. This AD
requires inspecting certain engine oil and fuel check valves, and
depending on the results, repetitively inspecting and removing the
check valve from service. This AD also prohibits installing affected
engine oil and fuel check valves on any helicopter. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bell Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101, United
States; phone 1-450-437-2862 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]; website: https://www.bellflight.com/support/. You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0387; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kuethe Harmon, Safety Management
Program Manager, Certification & Program Management Section, DSCO
Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Bell Textron Inc. Model
212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters with an engine oil check valve
part number (P/N) 209-062-520-001 or fuel check valve P/N 209-062-607-
001 manufactured by Circor Aerospace that is marked ``Circle Seal'' and
``CORONA CA,'' except not a check valve marked with ``TQL,'' and has a
manufacturing date code of, or prior to, ``9/11'' (September 2011), or
does not have a manufacturing date code, installed. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on March 31, 2022 (87 FR 18747). The NPRM was
prompted by report of a cracked check valve manufactured in 2009 by
Circor Aerospace. An incorrect torque value applied on the threaded
fitting at the check valve inlet end during the assembly process
resulted in the crack. Indication of this condition may also include an
enlarged outside diameter (O.D.) measurement of the check valve housing
at the inlet end where the threaded fitting is installed or a leak.
These check valves may be installed as engine oil check valve P/N 209-
062-520-001 and fuel check valve P/N 209-062-607-001 on Bell Textron
Inc. Model 212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters.
    The FAA previously issued AD 2019-09-02, Amendment 39-19636 (84 FR
22695, May 20, 2019), which applies to the same model helicopters with
the same part-numbered check valves installed, except it is only for
check valves marked ``Circle Seal'' and with a manufacturing date code
of ``10/11'' (October 2011) through ``03/15'' (March 2015).
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require measuring the O.D. of an
affected (engine oil or fuel) check valve housing at the center and at
the inlet end where the threaded fitting is installed. If the dimension
measured at the inlet end is greater than 0.003 inch (0.0762 mm)
compared to the measurement at the center, the NPRM proposed to require
repetitively inspecting the check valve for a crack and leak, and
depending on the results, removing the check valve from service. The
NPRM also proposed to require removing the check valve from service at
a longer compliance time, which would terminate the repetitive
inspections. Lastly, the NPRM proposed to prohibit installing affected
check valves on any helicopter.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for
minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 212-20-163,
Revision B, dated April 6, 2021 (ASB 212-20-163), Bell ASB 212-20-164,
Revision B, dated April 6, 2021 (ASB 212-20-164), Bell ASB 412-20-182,
Revision B, dated April 6, 2021 (ASB 412-20-182), and Bell ASB 412-20-
183, Revision C, dated April 6, 2021 (ASB 412-20-183). ASB 212-20-163
and ASB 412-20-182

specify procedures for inspecting and replacing engine oil check valve
P/N 209-062-520-001. ASB 212-20-164 and ASB 412-20-183 specify
procedures for inspecting and replacing fuel check valve P/N 209-062-
607-001.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 169 helicopters of U.S.
registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Measuring up to four check valves (two engine oil and two fuel)
takes about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of up to $85 per
helicopter and $14,365 for the U.S. fleet. Inspecting up to four check
valves (two engine oil and two fuel) takes about 2 work-hours for an
estimated cost of up to $170 per helicopter and $28,730 for the U.S.
fleet, per inspection cycle as applicable. Replacing up to four valves
(two engine oil and two fuel) takes about 4 work-hours and parts cost
up to about $340, for an estimated cost of up to $680 per helicopter
and $114,920 for the U.S. fleet.

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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) 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 Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2022-11-19 Bell Textron Inc.: Amendment 39-22069; Docket No. FAA-
2022-0387; Project Identifier AD-2021-01225-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 6, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Textron Inc. Model 212, 412, 412CF, and
412EP helicopters, certificated in any category, with an engine oil
check valve part number (P/N) 209-062-520-001 or fuel check valve P/
N 209-062-607-001 manufactured by Circor Aerospace that:
    (1) Is marked ``Circle Seal'' and ``CORONA CA,'' except not a
check valve marked with ``TQL,'' and
    (2) Has a manufacturing date code of, or prior to, ``9/11''
(September 2011), or does not have a manufacturing date code,
installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 2800 Aircraft Fuel
System and 7900 Engine Oil System (Airframe).

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a cracked check valve. The
FAA is issuing this AD to detect a cracked check valve. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of lubrication or
fuel to the engine, failure of the engine or a fire, and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 30 days, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD, using a caliper or
equivalent, measure the outside diameter (O.D.) of the check valve
housing at the center, and the O.D. of the check valve housing at
the inlet end where the threaded fitting is installed. If the
dimension measured at the inlet end is greater than 0.003 inch
(0.0762 mm) compared to the measurement at the center, do the
following:
    (i) Before further flight, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 25 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever occurs first, using a
flashlight, visually inspect the check valve for a crack and leak,
paying particular attention to the area at the inlet end where the
threaded fitting is installed. If there is a crack or leak, before
further flight, remove the check valve from service. Removing the
check valve from service terminates the repetitive inspections
required by this AD for that check valve.
    (ii) Within 600 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first,
remove the check valve from service. Removing the check valve from
service terminates the repetitive inspections required by this AD
for that check valve.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install an
engine oil or fuel check valve identified in paragraph (c) of this
AD on any helicopter.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, DSCO Branch, 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
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Information may be emailed
to: [email protected].
    (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.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kuethe Harmon,
Safety Management Program Manager, Certification & Program
Management Section, DSCO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
(817) 222-5198; email [email protected].

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on May 25, 2022.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-11605 Filed 5-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 85656]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4559-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4559-DR), dated August 28, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 16, 2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 28, 2020.

    Claiborne Parish for debris removal [Category A] (already
designated for emergency protective measures [Category B], including
direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
    La Salle and Ouachita Parishes for debris removal [Category A]
(already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for
emergency protective measures [Category B], including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

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

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-28741 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27228-27229]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11391]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA 2015-0007-N-10]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Requests (ICRs)
abstracted below are being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICRs describes the nature of
the information collections and their expected burdens. The Federal
Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the
following collections of information was published on March 3, 2015 (80
FR 11518).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of
Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public
comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve
paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.12. On March 3, 2015, FRA published a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register soliciting comment on ICR that the agency was seeking OMB
approval. See 80 FR 11518. FRA received no comments after issuing this
notice. Accordingly, these information collection activities have been
re-evaluated and certified under 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and are being
forwarded to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12(c).
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    Below is a brief summary of the information collection activities
that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
    Title: Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program
(RRIF).
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0548.
    Abstract: Title V of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory
Reform Act of 1976 (Act), 45 U.S.C. 821 et seq., authorized FRA to
provide railroads financial assistance through the purchase of
preference shares, and the issuance of loan guarantees. Section 7203 of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998, Public Law
105-178 (1998) (TEA 21), and subsequent amendments in the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users, Public Law 109-59 (2005) SAFETEA-LU and the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), Division A of Public Law 110-432 have
since replaced the previous Title V financing program. On July 6, 2000,
FRA published a final rule with procedures and requirements to cover
applications of financial assistance in the form of direct loans and
loan guarantees consistent with the changes made to Title V of the Act
by section 7203 of TEA 21. On September 29, 2010, FRA published a
Notice Regarding Consideration and Processing of Applications for
Financial Assistance Under the RRIF Program. The collection of
information is used by FRA staff to determine the legal and financial
eligibility of applicants for direct loans regarding eligible projects.
Eligible projects include: (1) Acquisition, improvement or
rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment or facilities (including
tracks, components of tracks, bridges, yards, buildings, and shops);
(2) Refinancing outstanding debt incurred for these purposes; or (3)
Development or establishment of new intermodal or railroad facilities.
The aggregate unpaid principal amounts of obligations cannot exceed
$35.0 billion at any one time, and not less than $7.0 billion is to be
available solely for projects benefitting freight railroads other than
Class I carriers. The Secretary of Transportation has delegated his
authority under the RRIF Program to the FRA Administrator in 1 CFR
1.89. On September 29, 2010, FRA published a Notice Regarding
Consideration and Processing of Applications for Financial Assistance
Under the RRIF Program. As explained in the notice, FRA's RRIF Buy
America policy furthers two of the RRIF program's eight priorities
described in 45 U.S.C. 822(c): (3) Promote economic development, and
(4) Enable U.S. companies to be more competitive in international
markets.
    Form Number(s): FRA Forms 217, 219 and 229.
    Affected Public: State and local governments, government sponsored
authorities and corporations, railroads, and joint ventures that
include at least one railroad.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 40,865 hours.
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and
1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not
conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-11391 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 14785-14786]
[DOCID:fr29mr07-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2698]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Authorization for Continued
Project Operation

March 23, 2007.
    On July 25, 2000, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, licensee for the East
Fork Hydroelectric Project, filed an application for a new or
subsequent license pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the
Commission's regulations thereunder. The West Fork Project is located
on the Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina.
    The license for Project No. 2698 was issued for a period ending
January 31, 2006. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2698 is issued to
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., for a period effective February 1, 2006
through January 31, 2007, or until the issuance of a new license for
the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.
If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place
on or before January 31, 2007, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to
18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the

Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., is authorized to
continue operation of the East Fork Project until such time as the
Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5770 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 53 (Thursday, March 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 14434]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2008-0010]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated November 10, 2014, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District
(SMART), owner of 77 miles of former Northwestern Pacific Railroad
Company, and Southern Pacific Transportation Company trackage in Marin,
Sonoma, and Napa Counties, CA, has petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for reconsideration of an approval condition,
granted on February 24, 2009, on the Brazos Drawbridge at Milepost
64.7, specifically, condition 4 of FRA-2008-0010, which states
``Approval is for freight movements only and shall be revisited prior
to any passenger operations.''
    SMART, Amtrak, and the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority are
formally asking for an exception to the condition cited above to permit
operation of two round-trip chartered Amtrak passenger trains, over the
Brazos Drawbridge, to Sonoma Raceway on Sunday, June 28, 2015, for
NASCAR Specials, on Sunday, August 2, 2015, for NHRA Specials, and on
Sunday, August 30, 2015, for Indy Car Specials.
    FRA has previously granted an exception to this condition to allow
a chartered Amtrak special train on June 23, 2013, which was a 1-day
passenger train movement over the Brazos Drawbridge operating between
Sacramento and Sonoma Raceway. That special was considered a great
success. FRA also granted an exception to the condition for the
operation of two special trains on June 22, 2014, as well as two
special trains on August 24, 2014.
    The intended operating route of these 2015 specials is from
Sacramento and San Jose on the Union Pacific Railroad to Suisun-
Fairfield, then via the California Northern Railroad from Suisun-
Fairfield to Brazos Junction, and over SMART trackage from Brazos
Junction over the Brazos Drawbridge to Sonoma Raceway and return via
the same route.
    As was the case in 2013, and 2014, a specific operating plan will
be in place to ensure correct operation of the Brazos Drawbridge, the
safety of train operations, equipment, passenger boarding/alighting,
staffing, and raceway access/egress.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by May 4, 2015 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2015.
Ron Hynes,
Director of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2015-06254 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


From:
SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:42 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: bypass hours

Hello!

If two bypass vent stacks are open for 1 hour, that would count as 2 venting hours.

Please note, the permit hours listed below are "per vent stack".  For example, Middletown's limit is 1,560 venting hours per year, which divided by 5 vent stacks equals 312 venting hours per each vent stack.

Let us know if you have more questions.

Kris

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:34 PM
To: SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: bypass hours

Hi. I have a question about bypass hours. I know you all have permitted maximum bypass hours. See below. My question is, if two bypass waste stacks are being used from let's say 2pm to 3pm, as an example, is that counted as one bypass hour or two bypass hours for permit purposes?

                                   Facility
    Maximum Hours per Year Bypass/Waste Stacks Can Be Used Based on Permit
SC-FranklinFurnace-OH
                                      192
SC-GraniteCity-IL
                                      312
SC-Middletown-OH
                                      312
SC-EastChicago-IN
                                     1,139
SC-Vansant-VA
                                     8,760

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 164 (Monday, August 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52171-52173]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18469]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89597; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating To Amend its Fees Schedule

August 18, 2020.
    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 August 10, 2020, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend the fee schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its
options trading platform (``EDGX Options'') to adopt another fee for
the equity leg of a stock-option order, which orders would yield fee
code ``EP'', effective August 10, 2020. The Exchange also proposes to
amend the description of the existing fee for the equity leg of a
stock-option order, which yields fee code ``EQ'', and to establish a
maximum fee per execution applicable to fee code EQ.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 17% of the market share.\3\
Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no
single options exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of option order flow. The Exchange believes that the ever-
shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month
demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or
discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the
Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can readily trade
on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. In response to competitive pricing, the Exchange,
like other options exchanges, offers rebates and assesses fees for
certain order types executed on or routed through the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
(August 7, 2020), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to rule filing SR-2019-CboeEDGX-039 [sic],\4\ the Exchange
implemented stock-option order functionality on August 16, 2019. Stock-
option orders are complex instruments that constitute the purchase or
sale of a stated number of units of an underlying stock or a security
convertible into the underlying stock coupled with the purchase or sale
of an option contract(s) on the opposite side of the market and execute
in the same manner as complex orders. Through this functionality, the
stock portions of stock-option strategy orders are electronically
communicated by the Exchange to a designated broker-dealer (i.e.,
Cowen), who then manages the execution of such stock portions. In
connection with the functionality, the Exchange adopted a stock
handling fee of $0.0010 per share for the processing and routing by the
Exchange of the stock portion of stock-option strategy orders executed
through those mechanisms.\5\ The purpose of the stock handling fee is
to cover the fees charges by the outside venue that prints the trade,
as well as assist in covering the Exchange's costs in matching these
stock-option orders against other stock option orders on the complex
book. Additionally, the Exchange also largely passes through to Members
the fees assessed to the Exchange by the designated broker (i.e.,
Cowen) that manages the execution of these stock portions of stock-
option strategy orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86353 (July 11,
2019), 84 FR 34230 (July 17, 2019) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Add Stock-Option Order
Functionality and Complex Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') Order
With Stock Functionality, and To Make Other Changes to its Rules)
(SR-CboeEDGX-2019-039).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86743 (August 23,
2019) 84 FR 45606 (August 29, 2020) [sic] (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-052).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now, the Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to reflect the
option of an additional designated broker-dealer, Penserra, to manage
the execution of the stock portion of a stock-option order.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt fee code EP, which would
be applicable to equity leg orders whose executions are managed by
Penserra. Unlike Cowen, Penserra will not assess the Exchange fees for
managing the stock-portion of a stock-option order, but rather will
assess and bill its customers directly. Therefore, the Exchange does
not wish to assess the current stock handling fee which was adopted in
part to recoup the fees assessed to the Exchange by the Exchange's
current designated broker-dealer, Cowen. As such, stock-portions of
stock-option strategy orders managed by Penserra and yielding fee code
EP will be free.
    The Exchange also proposes to modify existing fee code EQ to
specify that it is applicable to equity leg orders whose executions are
managed by Cowen. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to establish a
maximum fee of $50.00 per execution under fee code EQ. The Exchange
notes that Cowen currently applies the $50 cap on a per execution

basis. The Exchange therefore proposes to similarly cap the stock-
option fee on a per execution basis, which will more closely align to
how Cowen applies the cap. Additionally, the Exchange believes the
proposed cap ensures that market participants do not pay extremely
large fees, not more than the capped amount, for the processing and
routing by the Exchange of the stock portions of stock-option orders.
The Exchange notes that other exchanges, including its affiliate, Cboe
Exchange, Inc., have likewise implemented substantially similar fee
caps in response to their respective implementations of stock-option
strategy order functionality.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85909 (May 21,
2019), 84 FR 24587 (May 28, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-21); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 83788 (August 7, 2018), 83 FR 40110 (August
13, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-18); and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
67383 (July 10, 2012), 77 FR 41841 (July 16, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-
063).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the requirements
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 facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that its proposed change to adopt fee code
EP, which will assess no fee for stock portions of stock-option
strategy order executions managed by Penserra, is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that the proposal is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposal is reasonable as market participants will not be
subject to a fee for the execution of the stock-portion of a stock-
option order handled by one of the Exchange's designated broker-
dealers, Penserra. The Exchange believes it's appropriate to not assess
a fee for orders managed by Penserra as compared to those managed by
Cowen, as Penserra will directly charge is customers for the stock
portion of stock-option strategy orders and not charge the Exchange,
unlike Cowen who does not directly charge market participants, but
rather charges the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes the
proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
proposed change applies to all TPHs and all TPHs that execute stock-
option orders in the complex book will have the option to utilize
Penserra to manage the execution of the stock portion of its stock-
option strategy orders.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed description
modification to existing fee code EQ will clarify that such executions
are managed by Cowen. Furthermore, the Exchange believes its proposed
change relating to how it caps the stock-option order fee is reasonable
because the Exchange is capping the transactions the same way Cowen
caps (and bills the Exchange) for these orders. The Exchange believes
that its proposal to cap fee code EQ at $50.00 per execution is also
reasonable because it will limit the amount a market participant will
be assessed for the routing and processing by the Exchange of the stock
portion of stock-option strategy orders. As noted above, the proposed
fee cap is identical to fees assessed by other options exchanges for
stock legs executed as a part of stock-option strategy orders.\9\ As
such, stock-option strategy orders are available on other options
exchanges and participants can readily direct order flow to another
exchange if they deem other exchanges' fees to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that
the proposed change will impose any burden on intramarket competitions
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because the proposed change will apply uniformly to the stock
portions of all market participants' stock-option strategy orders.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges.
Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has
more than 17% of the market share.\10\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to
remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to
the Exchange. The proposed cap to fee code EQ is substantially similar
to fee caps offered by the Exchange's affiliate, Cboe Options, and
other competing exchanges,\11\ therefore, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change appropriately reflects this competitive
environment. Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their
orders to other exchange, and, additionally off-exchange venues, if
they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \12\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C.
Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for
order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S.
national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the
broker-dealers that act as their order-routing

agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers' . . .''.\13\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 5.
    \11\ See supra note 6.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \13\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \15\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 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_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2020-041 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-2020-041. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or
edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2020-
041 and should be submitted on or before September 14, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18469 Filed 8-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 19, 2004 SUBJECT: National Impacts Associated with the Final NESHAP for RICE FROM: Tanya Ali and Melanie Taylor, Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc.

TO: Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group The purpose of this memorandum is to estimate the national impacts associated with the final national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines ( RICE). The regulation applies to stationary RICE located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) emissions. It is estimated that 40 percent of stationary RICE will be located at major sources. Impacts discussed in this memorandum include HAP emissions reductions and total costs associated with regulatory requirements.

For existing stationary RICE, implementation of the final NESHAP is estimated to reduce nationwide HAP emissions by 284 tons per year at a total annual cost of $ 35 million. For new engines, the final regulation is projected to prevent national HAP emissions by 5,300 tons per year in the fifth year at a total annual cost of $ 213 million per year in the fifth year. The total national HAP emissions reductions are the sum of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and methanol emissions reductions.

A previous version of this memorandum based on the requirements for the proposed NESHAP was developed at the time of proposal and entered into the docket ( Document ID Number OAR 2002 0059 0071 or A 95 35 II B 48). The primary reasons for the difference in the estimated impacts of the final rule as compared to the proposed rule are the change in the monitoring requirements for large RICE and the updated HAP emission factors. The emissions reductions and costs for the final rule are not substantially different than those for the proposed rule.

The regulatory requirements of the final rule are presented in Table 1 for the following four RICE subcategories:

Two Stroke Lean Burn ( 2SLB) Stationary RICE

Four Stroke Lean Burn ( 4SLB) Stationary RICE

Four Stroke Rich Burn ( 4SRB) Stationary RICE 2

Compression Ignition ( CI) Stationary RICE.

Table 1. Summary of Regulatory Requirements for RICE Subcategories Subcategory Regulatory Requirementa Existing 4SRB Stationary RICE 76 percent CH 2 O efficiency or emission limitation of 350 ppbvd CH 2 O 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI Stationary RICE No emissions reduction New 2SLB Stationary RICE 58 percent CO efficiency or emission limitation of 12 ppmvd CH 2 O 4SLB Stationary RICE 93 percent CO efficiency or emission limitation of 14 ppmvd CH 2 O 4SRB Stationary RICE 76 percent CH 2 O efficiency or emission limitation of 350 ppbvd CH 2 O CI Stationary RICE 70 percent CO efficiency or emission limitation of 580 ppbvd CH 2 O a All concentrations must be corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis.

The nationwide air quality impacts for RICE reaching compliance were estimated relative to baseline emissions reflecting the emission levels in the absence of any regulation. Cost impacts are based on the application of the emission controls necessary to bring the engines into compliance with the final regulation. For engines where no emissions reduction is required, no impacts were estimated.

Emissions Reductions The final stationary RICE NESHAP will reduce HAP emissions by an estimated 5,600 tons per year in the fifth year after the rule is promulgated. Emissions of CO, NOx, and PM will also be reduced by the NESHAP. The calculation of the emissions reductions of HAP and criteria pollutants associated with the final RICE NESHAP is discussed in the following sections.

HAP Reduction For the purpose of estimating emissions reductions, baseline HAP emissions ( tons per year) are calculated using average emission factors from the Emissions Database. These emission factors are presented in the memorandum entitled " Revised Emission Factors for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines." The sum of the 3 HAP Emission Factor ( tons yr )

EF HAP ( lb hr )  6,500 ( hrs yr )

2,000 ( lb ton )

Baseline HAP Emissions ( tons yr )

[ EF HAP ( tons yr )  Y  1,829]  [ EF HAP ( tons yr )  Z  ( 100   ) 100  1,829] average emission factors for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and methanol represents the total HAP emission factor. A sample calculation of baseline HAP emissions for existing 4SRB stationary RICE is provided below:

where:  EF HAP is the uncontrolled emission factor for HAP in tons/ yr.  6,500 is the average number of operating hours per year for engines in the Population Database.  Y is the fraction of uncontrolled 4SRB stationary RICE.  Z is the fraction of controlled 4SRB stationary RICE.    is the percent reduction for formaldehyde achieved by the catalyst system. For 4SRB stationary RICE,  = 76.  1,829 is the number of existing 4SRB stationary RICE.

The population of existing RICE and the forecasted population of new RICE for the next five years is presented in Table 2. Table 3 is a summary of the HAP emissions reductions associated with the regulatory requirements for the RICE subcategories. The following information is included in Table 3:

Baseline HAP emissions ( tons/ year) which represent the current emission level for this subcategory in the absence of MACT regulation,

HAP emissions with MACT ( tons/ year) resulting after applying the regulatory requirement,

HAP emissions reductions ( tons/ year) achieved with each regulatory requirement, and

HAP percent reduction corresponding to each regulatory requirement. 4 Table 2. Population of RICEa Engine Subcategory HP Rangeb Existing Population of Engines Forecasted Population of New RICE Total increase of RICE over 5 years Annual increase RICE per year 2SLB Stationary RICE 500 1,000 565 200 40 1,000 5,000 1,090 None None 5,000 10,000 122 None None Total 1,777 200 40 4SLB Stationary RICEc 500 1,000 346 850 170 1,000 5,000 1,238 1,365 273 5,000 10,000 75 5 1 Total 1,660 2,219 444 4SRB Stationary RICEd 500 1,000 1,341 743 149 1,000 5,000 486 967 193 5,000 10,000 2 3 1 Total 1,829 1,713 343 CI Stationary RICE 500 1,000 2,125 2,395 479 1,000 5,000 1,416 1,596 319 5,000 10,000 None None None Total 3,541 3,991 798 a The presented population excludes stationary RICE that are used as emergency power units and stationary RICE located at area sources. b There are no existing stationary RICE greater than 10,000 HP and it is predicted that no stationary RICE greater than 10,000 HP will be sold during the next five years. c 3 percent of existing 4SLB stationary RICE are controlled with a CO oxidation catalyst and it is predicted that 3 percent of new 4SLB stationary RICE will be controlled with a CO oxidation catalyst in the absence of this regulation. d 27 percent of existing 4SRB stationary RICE are controlled with NSCR and it is predicted that 27 percent of new 4SRB stationary RICE will be controlled with NSCR in the absence of this regulation. 5 Table 3. Summary of HAP Emissions Reductions for RICE Engine Subcategory Baseline HAP Emissions ( tons/ yr) a, b, c HAP Emissions w/ MACT ( tons/ yr) HAP Emissions Reduction ( tons/ yr) HAP Percent Reduction (%) from Baselined Existing: 2SLB Stationary RICE 5,762 5,762 0 0.0 4SLB Stationary RICE 5,206 5,206 0 0.0 4SRB Stationary RICE 407 123 284 69.8 CI Stationary RICE 465 465 0 0.0 Total 11,840 11,556 284 2.4 New: 2SLB Stationary RICE 130 78 52 40.0 4SLB Stationary RICE 1,392 497 895 64.3 4SRB Stationary RICE 76 23 53 69.8 CI Stationary RICE 105 37 68 65.0 Total 1,703 634 1,068 62.7 a Baseline HAP emissions from new 4SLB stationary RICE are based on the assumption that 3 percent of new 4SLB stationary RICE would be using an oxidation catalyst achieving 65 percent formaldehyde efficiency in the absence of the MACT regulation. b Baseline HAP emissions from 4SRB existing and new stationary RICE are based on the assumption that 27 percent of these stationary RICE are using NSCR achieving 76 percent formaldehyde efficiency in the absence of the MACT regulation. A sample calculation of baseline emissions for 4SRB existing stationary RICE is provided in the next footnote. c Baseline HAP Emissions = EF HAP( tons/ yr) x [( 0.73 x 1,829 existing 4SRB engines) + ( 0.23 x 0.24 x 1,829 existing 4SRB engines)] d The impact of MACT is on 97 percent of the 4SLB stationary RICE and 73 percent of the 4SRB stationary RICE.

The MACT for existing engines is estimated to reduce HAP emissions by 284 tons/ year from a baseline level of 11,840 tons/ year. The emissions reductions for existing engines is a result of controlling 4SRB stationary RICE. This represents a 2 percent emissions reduction from the baseline emission level from all existing engines. This regulation will have a greater impact on new engines. The MACT floor is estimated to reduce HAP emissions from all new engines by 1,068 tons/ year in the first year from a baseline level of 1,703 tons/ year. This represents a 63 percent HAP emissions reduction from the baseline level. The baseline level for new engines is the emission level one would expect to see in the absence of any regulation. The largest reduction in HAP emissions from new engines is a result of controlling 4SLB stationary RICE, which have an emissions reduction of 895 tons/ year in the first year, representing 84 6 percent of the total HAP emissions reductions from new engines.

Criteria Pollutant Reduction A benefit of this regulation is that it is expected to reduce criteria emissions in addition to HAP emissions. A summary of the total reduction in criteria pollutants as a result of the MACT rule is given in Table 4. Oxidation catalysts ( used on either lean burn or rich burn engines) and NSCR ( used on rich burn engines) are capable of reducing CO by as much as 95 percent at ideal conditions. The regulation is projected to reduce CO emissions by 234,400 tons per year at the end of the fifth year following promulgation. Oxidation catalysts used on CI stationary RICE are also capable of reducing total particulate emissions by 25 to 50 percent. The total estimated PM emissions reduction in the fifth year is estimated to be 3,700 tons per year.

The application of NSCR controls to 4SRB engines will also reduce NOx emissions by 90 percent. Assuming that 60 percent of 4SRB ( new and existing) engines that are covered by the emission standards will use NSCR, the cumulative emissions reductions of NOx by the end of the fifth year after promulgation are calculated to be about 167,900 tons per year.

Control Costs It has been determined by EPA that oxidation catalysts, such as CO oxidation catalyst and NSCR, are applicable controls for the reduction of HAP from stationary RICE. The costs associated with these add on control devices were gathered by EPA and are summarized in the memorandum entitled " Control Costs for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines." In order to estimate national impacts associated with controlling RICE emissions, control cost estimates for engines were extrapolated to the actual population of engines in the United States, and national impacts were then determined. Cost impacts include the total capital investment of new control equipment, the cost of energy ( utilities) required to operate the control equipment, operation and maintenance costs, and the cost of monitoring.

Table 5 lists the capital control costs and annual control costs associated with each model engine in dollars per horsepower. Control costs per engine are then extrapolated to the existing population and forecasted number of new engines to obtain total control costs for the entire existing population and for the predicted number of new RICE. Total control costs and total annual control costs for existing RICE are presented in Table 6 and for new stationary RICE in Table 7. Costs of monitoring are presented in Table 8 for each of the engine subcategories. For 4SRB engines, the monitoring costs are different for different size engines due to larger engines having different monitoring requirements. The monitoring costs for 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI RICE are the same for all size engines. 7 Table 4. Summary of Criteria Pollutant Emissions Reductions in the First Year Engine Subcategory Pollutant Percent Reduction (%) Total Emission Reductiona ( tons/ yr)

Existing 4SRB Stationary RICE CO 90 98,040 NOx 90 69,862 New 2SLB Stationary RICE CO 58 391 New 4SLB Stationary RICE CO 93 7,248 New 4SRB Stationary RICE CO 90 18,364 NOx 90 98,023 New CI Stationary RICE CO 70 1,264 PM 25 3,746 a Total emissions reduction is based on the population of RICE obtained from Table 2. The reduction in this table is the reduction in the first year.

Cost Impacts A summary of total baseline HAP emissions, total HAP emissions reductions, total capital investment and total annual costs for all existing and new RICE in the first year is presented in Table 9. The total national capital cost for this rule for existing stationary RICE is estimated to be approximately $ 68 million, with a total national annual cost of $ 35 million. The total national capital cost for this rule for new stationary RICE by the 5th year is estimated to be approximately $ 371 million, with a total national annual cost of $ 213 million in the 5th year.

Energy Impacts Energy impacts associated with this regulation would be due to additional energy consumption that the regulation would require by installing and operating control equipment. The only energy requirement for the operation of the control technologies is due to a small increase in fuel consumption resulting from back pressure caused by the control system. This energy impact is however considered minimal in comparison to cost of other impacts, and is therefore considered negligible. 8 Table 5. Control Costs Associated with Model Engines Model Engines HP Rating Capital Control Cost per model engine ($) Annual Control Cost per model engine ($/ yr) Capital Control Cost per model engine ($ per HP) Annual Control Cost per model engine ($ per HP/ yr) Cost of Engine ($) a Clark RA6 600 13,299 7,339 22 12 115,626b Cooper Bessemer GMV10 1100 27,072 13,851 25 13 173,755b Cooper Bessemer GMV10TC 1350 30,777 16,527 23 12 365,359b Cooper Bessemer 10V250 3800 72,003 43,646 19 11 1,377,059c Worthington ML20 7500 121,112 82,202 16 11 2,904,933b 2SLB Average: 21 12 Caterpillar 3512 1000 14,344 10,730 14 11 192,710d Caterpillar 3512 1220 21,325 13,763 17 11 192,710d Waukesha 7042 GL 1478 28,497 17,135 19 12 400,000 Cooper Bessemer LSV16G 5200 84,352 57,098 16 11 2,014,087e 4SLB Average: 17 11 Waukesha F3521 GSI 738 27,833 11,094 38 15 246,454e Waukesha 7042 G 1024 32,012 14,144 31 14 300,000f Waukesha L7042 GSI 1478 40,690 19,532 28 13 385,000 4SRB Average: 32 14 Detroit 16V71 510 12,102 6,401 24 13 76,500g Caterpillar D399 750 11,399 8,193 15 11 112,500h Detroit 12V92 818 13,964 9,205 17 11 122,700g Cummins KTA50 1850 31,775 20,709 17 11 500,677b Detroit 16V149 1965 22,399 19,919 11 10 531,800b CI Average: 17 11 a Costs of engines are suggested retail costs, representing the costs for a standard engine not including any additional options an engine might require, and are therefore to be considered minimum. Also note that installation will add a significant amount to the capital cost depending on the use and size of the engine. b Cost estimated based on $/ HP for 4SLB engines for each HP rating segment. c Cost estimated by interpolation. d Cost estimate based on the cost of 4SLB engine 3512 G, with a horsepower rating of 800. e Cost estimated by extrapolation. f Cost estimate based on the cost of 4SRB engine L7042 GU, with a horsepower rating of 901. g Cost estimated based on $/ HP for CI engines for each HP rating segment. h Cost estimate is the average of the cost of CI engines RICE 3516 ( 1200 HP) and 3306 ( 375 HP). 9 Table 6. Total Control Costs Associated with Existing RICE Engine Subcategorya HP Rangeb Total # Engines Average HP Control Cost per enginec ($/ engine) Annual Control Cost per enginec ($/ yr) Total Control Costd ($ 1,000) Total Annual Control Costd ($ 1,000/ yr)

4SRB Stationary RICE 500 1,000 1,341 750 24,000 10,500 23,498 10,280 1,000 5,000 486 3,000 96,000 42,000 34,067 14,905 5,000 10,000 2 7,500 240,000 105,000 340 149 Total 57,906 25,334 a Existing 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI engines have no emissions reduction requirement and therefore no control cost associated with the regulation. b There are no existing stationary RICE greater than 10,000 HP, and the presented population excludes emergency power units, engines 500 HP or less, and engines at area sources. c Control costs are calculated using the average HP for the HP range in question, multiplied times the average control cost in $ per HP, obtained from Table 5. d Total control cost and total annual control cost were not included for 27 percent of the existing 4SRB stationary RICE, since these engines would be controlled in the absence of the regulation. 10 Table 7. Total Control Costs Associated with New RICE Engine Subcategory HP Rangea Engine increase per year Average HP Control Cost per engineb ($/ engine) Annual Control Cost per engineb ($/ yr) Total Control Cost ($ 1,000) Total Annual Control Cost ($ 1,000/ yr)

2SLB Stationary RICE 500 1,000 40 750 15,750 9,000 630 360 4SLB Stationary RICE 500 1,000 170 750 12,750 8,250 2,101 1,360 1,000 5,000 273 3000 51,000 33,000 13,503 8,737 5,000 10,000 1 7,500 127,500 82,500 119 77 Total 15,724 10,174 4SRB Stationary RICE 500 1,000 149 750 24,000 10,500 2,604 1,139 1,000 5,000 193 3,000 96,000 42,000 13,551 5,928 5,000 10,000 1 7,500 240,000 105,000 112 49 Total 16,267 7,117 CI Stationary RICE 500 1,000 479 750 12,750 8,250 6,107 3,951 1,000 5,000 319 3,000 51,000 33,000 16,284 10,537 5,000 10,000 0 7,500 127,500 82,500 0 0 Total 22,391 14,448 a No stationary RICE greater than 10,000 HP are expected to be sold during the next five years. b Control costs are calculated using the average HP for the HP range in question, multiplied times the average control cost in $ per HP, obtained from Table 5. 11 Table 8. Costs of Monitoring for RICE Subcategories Engine Subcategory HP Range Monitoring Capital Cost ($/ engine) Monitoring Annual Cost ($/ engine) Total Monitoring Capital Cost ($ 1,000) Total Monitoring Annual Cost ($ 1,000)

Existing 4SRB 500 5,000 5,699 4,487 10,414 8,199 5,000 10,000 5,699 13,383 11 26 4SRB Total 10,425 8,225 New 2SLB all 13,479 5,959 539 238 New 4SLB all 13,479 5,959 5,983 2,645 New 4SRB 500 5,000 5,699 4,487 1,949 1,535 5,000 10,000 5,699 13,383 4 9 4SRB Total 1,953 1,544 New CI all 13,479 5,959 10,760 4,757 12 Table 9. Summary of HAP Emissions Reductions and Cost Impacts Associated with the Regulation Engine Subcategory Existing Engines New Engines Baseline Emissions ( ton/ yr) HAP Emissions Reduction ( ton/ yr) Total Capital Investment ($ 1,000) a Total Annual Cost ($ 1,000) a Baseline Emissions ( ton/ yr) HAP Emissions Reduction ( ton/ yr) Total Capital Investment ($ 1,000) a Total Annual Cost ($ 1,000) a 2SLB Stationary RICE 5,762 0 0 0 130 52 1,169 629 4SLB Stationary RICE 5,206 0 0 0 1,392 895 21,706 13,145 4SRB Stationary RICE 407 284 68,331 34,566 76 53 18,220 8,911 CI Stationary RICE 465 0 0 0 105 68 33,150 19,847 Total: 11,840 284 68,331 34,566 1,703 1,068 74,245 42,532 a Total capital investment and total annual costs include the cost of control, monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting.

b In this table, the air and cost impact estimates for new engines are presented for the first year. 13 References:

1. Memorandum from Taylor, M., Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc., to Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group. January 20, 2004. Revised Emission Factors for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.

2. Memorandum from Snyder, J. and M. Taylor, Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc., to Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group. January 7, 2002. Control Costs for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.

3. Memorandum from Snyder, J., Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc., to Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group. November 28, 2001. Population of Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines: Summary.

4. Catalyst Manual, Installation, Operation, and Troubleshooting. Published by Miratech Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, October 1998.

5. The Impact of Sulfur in Diesel Fuel on Catalyst Emission Control Technology. Manufacturers of Emission Control Association, Washington, DC, March 15, 1999.

6. Personal Communication from Snyder, J., Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc. to Heater, B., Cooper Energy Services. January 31, 2000.

7. Facsimile transmission from Wheless, E., County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County, to Snyder, J., Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc. December 13, 1999. Draft of Landfill Gas Utilization Survey of United States Projects.

8. Personal Communication from Snyder, J., Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc. to Tripp, J., Gregory Poole Equipment. February 2, 2000.

9. Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies ( AMSA) Population Database. Sent by Torres, E., AMSA to Porter, F., U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 30, 1997.


June 4, 2019  -  WA HHC Proposal to Withdraw
Tribal Informational Call #1

Tribal Attendees:
Snoqualmie
CRITFC
Colville
Skokomish
Puyallup
Tulalip
Squaxin Island
Nez Perce
Quileute
Nisqually
Umatilla
Yakama
NWIFC
Stillaguamish
Lower Elwha Klallam
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe
Nooksack
Samish Indian Nation

EPA Attendees: Dan Opalski, Angela Chung, Erica Fleisig, Matt Szelag, Wenona Wilson, Hanh Shaw

Questions and Comments from Tribal Attendees

 Clarification: Chris Hladick the Regional Administrator is not present on the call?
 Similar to the last round of calls, will EPA take notes for the administrative record?
 Will the call be recorded in any way?
 Will the notes be part of the administrative record? The previous question was specifically about the administrative record.
 EPA letter asked for a response by this Friday. You expect a decision/response within a few days of the call? The quick turnaround is not consistent with protocol.
 Was there a proposed rule or FR notice prior to the May 10 reversal of the disapproval?
 You did not have any consultations with tribes prior to the reversal decision?
 I am confused about the words "further consultation;" if no consultations occur, how can it be further consultation?
 You are saying you used old consultation to apply it to a new decision?
 The thing that is odd is basically there is a 2-year period after the initial decision, then the reversal was made. Is there a timeline where decisions are cemented? You are saying that at any time, EPA can reverse a decision based on a petition?
 In your letter to Washington, you noted the basis as EPA's inherent authority to reverse a decision. Is that in the Clean Water Act or guidance somewhere?
 The statement regarding error in judgement....part of the previous rationale was to protect tribal consumption. Is EPA is now saying that was an error?
 Page 25 of the May 10 TSD states treaties do not limit EPA from otherwise taking a lawful action under the CWA...not that there isn't tension between CWA and treaties, but that doesn't make it unlawful. Is that how EPA interprets the interaction? If new protective standard conflicts with treaties then it would require something in CWA to override treaties?
 If EPA does not believe this impacts treaties, then why are you doing consultations? This seems to be a conflict about the relevance of treaties.
 Because decision makers in DC knew tribes wouldn't like the decision; that is why you didn't consult the last time on the reversal?
 Are there briefing memos and other documents that can be shared so we understand what went into the discussion regarding tribal perspectives? Seems like there may have been a mis-step if the region misrepresented tribal interests. Are the materials shareable?
 Is it now EPA's position that the disproportionate impacts to tribes are ok? Tribal consumers exercising their rights will now bear the burden because we eat more fish; this supersedes treaty rights?
 This is our cultural way of life.
 Where is the decision to withdraw made at EPA? Who at EPA HQ will be made available for the government-to-government? Will anyone from OGC be involved in the government-to-government?
 We have approved standards and TAS; where we have shared boundary waters with the state, how would that work where two different standards exist (what standards have to be met)?
 They have to meet downstream standard?
 From the state's comment, they want to keep the federal standards. Would that open a new rulemaking process?
 Is there a possibility that the federal withdrawal process would stop and the criteria would not be withdrawn?
 We are putting together recommendations to leadership on how to respond; there is a need for a detailed technical meeting to support our recommendations; we will not be able to respond by June 7. We have to do more work before it can be briefed up to leadership.
 I can't help but feel we are going through a façade of a consultation; this does not meet the intent or legal requirements of consultations; we are being hurried through a process that is not meaningful. Using old consultations is a disregard for treaties and tribes.
 Will you be transmitting our input upstairs?
 Echo what was said about the timing and the rushed nature; EPA's letter gave us a day to organize for the call and less than a month to inform leadership. It's difficult when the onus is put on tribes to point out where we EPA is not following its own policy.
 May 10 technical support document  -  section on treaty rights  -  action in 2016 went beyond the 2000 methodology (didn't address treaty reserved rights). Is there an update underway to the methodology to address treaty rights?
 Regarding tribes as the target population, was there any discussion of the culverts case which harmonized the CWA and treaty rights (U.S. government implementing federal laws)?
 The link to the May 10 decision does not work in the consultation invitation letter.
 How will today's conversation be taken into consideration on the proposed rule?
 Would we have the chance to review the record of this informational meeting that is being sent to DC on our behalf? Would it be possible to share the notes from the previous calls?


[Federal Register: January 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2207-2208]
[DOCID:fr13ja06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-161-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

January 5, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 29, 2005, that Northern Natural Gas
Company (Northern) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 154, to
become effective February 1, 2006.
    Northern states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each
of its customers and interested state commissions.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-269 Filed 1-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9224-9225]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03352]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0079]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act Cover Sheet

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the paperwork burden of animal
drug sponsors to fill out the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act (AGDUFA)
cover sheet.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by April 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Form FDA 3728, Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act Cover Sheet--21 U.S.C.
379j-21 (OMB Control Number 0910-0632)--Revision

    Section 741 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C
Act) (21 U.S.C. 379j-21) establishes three different kinds of user
fees: (1) Fees for certain types of abbreviated applications for
generic new animal drugs; (2) annual fees for certain generic new
animal drug products; and (3) annual fees for certain sponsors of
abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs and/or
investigational submissions for generic new animal drugs (21 U.S.C.
379j-21(a)). Because concurrent submission of user fees with
applications is required, the review of an application cannot begin
until the fee is submitted. Form FDA 3728 is the AGDUFA cover sheet,
which is designed to provide the minimum necessary information to
determine whether a fee is required for review of an application, to
determine the amount of the fee required, and to account for and track
user fees.
    The Animal Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2013, signed by the
President on June 13, 2013 (AGDUFA II) (Title II of Pub. L. 113-14),
amended the FD&C Act authorizing FDA to collect user fees for certain
abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs, for certain
generic new animal drug products, and for certain sponsors of such
abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs and/or
investigational submissions for generic new animal drugs. To implement
changes under the reauthorization by their effective date of October 1,
2013, FDA sought and received OMB approval to update its Form FDA 3728
as described here:
    On page 1 of the electronic questions under ``Select an Application
Type'' users must select ``Original'' and then choose either,
``Abbreviated New Animal Drug Application (ANADA)--under provisions of
512(b)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(b)(2))''; or ``Abbreviated
New Animal Drug Application--for certain combination pioneer products
approved under provisions of 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360b(d)(4)).'' If they select the first ANADA type, they will be
charged 100 percent of the application fee. If they select the second
ANADA type, then they will be charged at rate of 50 percent of the
original application fee. To facilitate the application process in this
regard, on Form FDA 3728 we have added a line in Section 3 that allows
applicants to select the option, ``3.2 Original Abbreviated New Animal
Drug Application--for certain combination pioneer products approved
under provisions of 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act.''
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Number of
   Form FDA No.        Number of        responses per       Total annual      Average burden      Total hours
                      respondents         respondent         responses         per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           3728                 20                  2                 40                .08                3.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Respondents to this collection of information are generic animal
drug applicants. Based on data for the past 3 years, FDA estimates
there are approximately 20 submissions annually and a total of 3.2
burden hours.

    Dated: February 10, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-03352 Filed 2-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P