[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44180-44182]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17595]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69997; File No. SR-MIAX-2013-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to Amend Exchange Rules 521 and 530 Regarding Its Obvious
Error Rules

Dated: July 17, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 3, 2013, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rules 521 and
530.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 521 to (i)
provide that opening purchase transactions that occur when the Exchange
has prohibited, restricted or limited such opening purchase
transactions are subject to nullification and (ii) allow the Exchange
to review transactions that are believed to be erroneous on motion of
the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange proposes mirroring the
proposed amendments to Rule 521 in section (j) of Rule 530. The
Exchange recently adopted section (j) of Rule 530 to provide how the
Exchange handles erroneous options transactions in response to the Plan
to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS.\3\ As the Exchange developed Rule 530(j) off the basis
of Rule 521, the Exchange believes it appropriate to make the
corresponding amendments to Rule 530 as proposed in Rule 521. Lastly,
the Exchange proposes a technical change to Rule 530(j)(1)(i) to

cite to the correct notification provisions of Rule 530(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69342 (April 8,
2013), 78 FR 22017 (April 12, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is substantially similar to other exchanges--
such as Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') for the nullification
of prohibited opening transactions and Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM''),
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''), and
NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX'') for review of erroneous transactions on
motion of the Exchange.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61576 (February 23,
2010), 75 FR 9990 (March 4, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-022). See also
CBOE Rule 6.25(a)(6); NOM Rules Chapter V Section 6(d)(i); NYSE Arca
Rule 6.87(b)(3); NYSE MKT Rule 975NY.(b)(3); and PHLX Rule
1092(e)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nullifying Prohibited Opening Transactions
    The Exchange proposes to add a provision to both Rule 521 and
530(j) allowing for the nullification of opening purchase transactions
in option classes or series subject to a prohibition, restriction or
limitation on the creation and increase in long positions. Pursuant to
Rule 403(a) the Exchange may determine to prohibit opening purchase
transactions if, for example, the security underlying an option fails
to meet the standards for continued listing and trading on the
Exchange, or an option series is listed on the Exchange in violation of
the provisions of Rule 404 and such series are unable to be immediately
delisted. Such prohibitions curtail the creation and increase in long
positions in the option class or series. The proposed rule change would
provide the Exchange the ability to nullify any opening transaction
prohibited pursuant to Rule 403. Thus, for example in the event that
the Exchange withdraws approval for an underlying security previously
approved by the Exchange for options transactions pursuant to Rule 403,
the Exchange may prohibit any opening purchase transaction in series of
options of that class previously listed and traded. Currently, a Member
who violates the prohibition on opening purchase transactions can be
pursued for such a violation through an appropriate regulatory action.
However, there is no rule mechanism in the Rules by which to nullify
the trade created by the prohibited opening transaction--thus a
violator of the Exchange mandated prohibition, even after being subject
to a regulatory action, could nonetheless benefit from the violation by
keeping the prohibited opening position.
    The Exchange believes that the ability to nullify trades resulting
in prohibited opening transactions would eliminate any possible
windfall from violating Exchange mandated prohibitions and thus
strengthen the Exchange's regulatory program. The proposed rule change
would provide the Exchange with an additional regulatory tool to
promote compliance with Exchange Rules and the maintenance of a fair
and orderly marketplace. Lastly, the Exchange notes that the ability to
nullify prohibited opening transactions currently exists at CBOE.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CBOE Rule 6.25(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewing Trades on Exchange Motion
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a provision which provides that in
the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market and for the
protection of investors, the Chief Regulatory Officer of MIAX or his/
her designee who is an officer (collectively ``Exchange Officer''),
may, on his or her own motion or upon request, determine to review any
transaction occurring on the Exchange that is believed to be
erroneous.\6\ A transaction reviewed pursuant to this provision may be
nullified or adjusted only if it is determined by the Exchange Officer
that the transaction is erroneous as provided in Rule 521 or 530(j). A
transaction would be adjusted or nullified, or just nullified if
reviewed under 530(j), in accordance with the provision under which it
is deemed an erroneous transaction. The Exchange Officer may be
assisted by an Exchange Official that is trained in the application of
this Rule for reviewing a transaction(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the event a party to a transaction requests that the
Exchange review a transaction, the Exchange Officer nonetheless
would need to determine, on his or her own motion, whether to review
the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the Exchange Officer shall act pursuant to this
paragraph as soon as possible after receiving notification of the
transaction, and ordinarily would be expected to act on the same day as
the transaction occurred. However, because a transaction under review
may have occurred near the close of trading or due to unusual
circumstances, the proposed Rule provides that the Exchange Officer
shall act no later than 9:30 a.m. (ET) on the next trading day
following the date of the transaction in question. A party affected by
a determination to nullify or adjust a transaction pursuant to this
provision may appeal such determination in accordance with Rule 521 or
530(j); however, a determination by an Exchange Officer not to review a
transaction, or a determination not to nullify or adjust a transaction
for which a review was requested or conducted, is not appealable. The
Exchange believes it is appropriate to limit review on appeal to only
those situations in which a transaction is actually nullified or
adjusted.
    This provision is not intended to replace a party's obligation to
request a review, within the required time periods under Rules 521 and
530(j) of any transaction that it believes meets the criteria for an
obvious error. And, if a transaction is reviewed and a determination
has been rendered pursuant to Rule 521 no additional relief may be
granted under this new provision. Moreover, the Exchange does not
anticipate exercising this new authority in every situation in which a
party fails to make a timely request for review of this transaction
pursuant to Rule 521 or 530(j). The Exchange believes this provision
should help to protect the integrity of its marketplace by vesting an
Exchange Officer with the authority to review a transaction that may be
erroneous, in those situations where a party failed to make a timely
request for a review.
    The Exchange believes that the provision would also be useful in
situations where some parties, but not all, to trades around the same
time have requested a review. Under the Rule, reviews are currently
request-based. Under the proposal, in this situation, the Exchange
would be able to invoke this provision to review a series of trades,
whether or not all parties requested it.
    Lastly, the Exchange notes that the ability to review erroneous
transactions on motion of the Exchange currently exists at NOM, NYSE
Arca, NYSE MKT, and PHLX.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NOM Rules Chapter V Section 6(d)(i); NYSE Arca Rule
6.87(b)(3); NYSE MKT Rule 975NY.(b)(3); and PHLX Rule 1092(e)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Correction to Rule 530(j)(1)(i)
    Rule 530(j)(1)(i) provides that any review pursuant to Rule 530(j)
occur within the time frame provided by the Rule. However, the Rule
currently incorrectly cites to a nonexistent provision--Rule
530(j)(5)(i). The Exchange proposes correcting the Rule citation so
that the time frame contained in proposed Rule 530(j)(2)(i)(A) is
properly cited instead.
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative

acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed addition regarding the nullification of opening
transactions in options classes or series in which the Exchange has
prohibited opening transactions promotes just and equitable principles
of trade by allowing for the nullification of opening transactions in
options overlying securities for which the Exchange has withdrawn
options trading eligibility. The nullification of such opening
transactions eliminates the possibility of unjust enrichment on the
part of one participant in the transaction at the expense of the contra
party, all to the benefit of the marketplace as a whole. Additionally,
the proposed rule change would provide the Exchange with an additional
regulatory tool to promote compliance with Exchange Rules and the
maintenance of a fair and orderly marketplace.
    Proposed Rule 521(e)(1)(ii), which would allow an Exchange Officer
to adjust or nullify a transaction on his or her motion in the interest
of maintaining a fair and orderly market, protects investors and the
public interest by authorizing such Exchange Officer to take
affirmative action when a transaction appears erroneous. Investors and
the public would have assurances that an Exchange Officer may nullify
their erroneous transaction without their own notification. This extra
layer of protection in Rule 521 would benefit options investors on the
Exchange and the marketplace in general. Additionally, a transaction
reviewed pursuant to this proposal may be nullified or adjusted only if
it is determined by the Exchange Officer that the transaction is
erroneous as provided in Rule 521 or 530(j).

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed changes will not impose any burden on intra-
market competition because it applies to all MIAX participants equally.
In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any
burden on inter-market competition as the proposal is intended to
protect investors by adopting an additional safeguard that is available
on several competing exchanges. The Exchange notes the proposed changes
to its Rules 521 and 530 do not go outside of the scope of the rules of
other competing options exchanges. Additionally, consistency among the
national securities exchanges regarding the handling of obvious errors
reduces the possibility of any regulatory arbitrage on the part of a
market participant seeking a forum with a lower regulatory requirement.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

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

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-MIAX-2013-33 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-MIAX-2013-33. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-MIAX-2013-33 and should be
submitted on or before August 13, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17595 Filed 7-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21917-21918]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08890]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9014-5]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 04/07/2014 through 04/11/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

 Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal gencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140113, Draft EIS, USFWS, MA, Monomoy National Wildlife
Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Comment Period Ends: 06/
09/2014, Contact: Libby Herland<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140114, Draft EIS, BLM, CA, Tylerhorse Wind Project Draft
Plan Amendment, Comment Period Ends: 07/17/2014, Contact: Cedric Perry
951-697-5388.
EIS No. 20140115, Draft EIS, USACE, TX, Dallas Floodway Project,
Comment Period Ends: 06/02/2014, Contact: Marcia Hackett<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140116, Draft EIS, USACE, PA, Upper Ohio Navigation Study,
Comment Period Ends: 06/02/2014, Contact: Conrad Weiser<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140117, Final EIS, BIA, CA, Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo
Indians Fee-To-Trust and Resort Casino Project, Review Period Ends: 05/
19/2014, Contact: John Rydzik<PHONE_NUMBER>.

EIS No. 20140118, Draft Supplement, USN, GU, Guam and Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands Military Relocation (2012 Roadmap
Adjustments), Comment Period Ends: 06/16/2014, Contact: CDR Curtis
Duncan<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140119, Final EIS, USCG, FL, Proposed New Bridge across the
Manatee River, Review Period Ends: 05/19/2014, Contact: Randall Overton
305-415-6736.
EIS No. 20140120, Draft EIS, USACE, CA, Delta Islands and Levees
Feasibility Study, Comment Period Ends: 06/02/2014, Contact: Brad
Johnson<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140121, Draft EIS, DOE, HI, PROGRAMMATIC--Hawaii Clean
Energy, Comment Period Ends: 07/17/2014, Contact: Dr. Jane Summerson
505-845-4091.
EIS No. 20140122, Draft EIS, USFS, MT, Greater Red Lodge Area
Vegetation and Habitat Management Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/02/
2014, Contact: Amy Waring<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140123, Final EIS, BIA, CA, Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and
Cupeno Indians Fee-To-Trust and Casino-Hotel Project, Review Period
Ends: 05/19/2014, Contact: John Rydzik<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140124, Final EIS, USACE, CA, Westbrook Project, Review
Period Ends: 05/19/2014, Contact: Kathy Norton<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20140069, Draft EIS, USFS, MT, Divide Travel Plan, Helena
National Forest, Comment Period Ends: 06/12/2014, Contact: Heather
DeGeest<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to the FR Notice Published 03/14/2014; Extending Comment
Period from 04/28/2014 to 06/12/2014.

    Dated: April 15, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-08890 Filed 4-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12761-12762]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04251]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2006-D-0409] (formerly 2006D-0169)

Guidance for Industry: Guidance on the Labeling of Certain Uses
of Lecithin Derived From Soy Under Section 403(w) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Withdrawal of Guidance

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
withdrawal of a guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Guidance on
the Labeling of Certain Uses of Lecithin Derived From Soy Under Section
403(w) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,'' dated April 2006,
that was announced in the Federal Register on May 2, 2006. The guidance
explained FDA's then current thinking on the labeling of certain uses
of lecithin derived from soy under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the FD&C Act) and was part of FDA's implementation of the Food
Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA). We are taking
this action because the policy stated in the guidance regarding FDA's
consideration of the exercise of enforcement discretion no longer
reflects our current thinking.

DATES: The withdrawal is effective February 25, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Steven M. Gendel, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-200), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of May 2, 2006 (71 FR 25844), we announced the availability of
a guidance entitled ``Guidance on the Labeling of Certain Uses of
Lecithin Derived From Soy Under Section 403(w) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' The guidance explained that, consistent with
the need to establish enforcement priorities, we would consider the
exercise of enforcement discretion for a food labeled on or after
January 1, 2006, in which lecithin derived from soy is used solely as a
component of a release agent and the label for such food does not
declare the presence of soy consistent with the requirements of section
403(w) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(w)). In that guidance, the

term ``release agent'' referred to an agent used to facilitate the
release of foods from food contact surfaces, where the agent has been
applied directly to the food contact surface, rather than incorporated
into the food. In that guidance, we also stated our intention to
reconsider our enforcement priorities with regard to the labeling of
lecithin derived from soy used as a component of a release agent
approximately 18 months after the issuance of the guidance. Further, we
stated our expectation that, during the period in which we considered
the exercise of our enforcement discretion, manufacturers of foods that
use lecithin derived from soy as a component of a release agent would
revise as necessary the labels of their relevant food products to
comply with FALCPA and begin to label their products using the FALCPA-
compliant labels by the end of the enforcement discretion period.
    We believe that there has been sufficient time for all
manufacturers of foods that use lecithin derived from soy as a
component of a release agent to revise the labels for such foods to be
consistent with the requirements of section 403(w) of the FD&C Act.
Therefore, we no longer believe it is appropriate to consider the
exercise of our enforcement discretion with regard to foods that use
lecithin derived from soy as a component of a release agent. For these
reasons, we are withdrawing the April 2006 guidance entitled ``Guidance
on the Labeling of Certain Uses of Lecithin Derived from Soy Under
Section 403(w) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.''

    Dated: February 19, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-04251 Filed 2-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77585-77586]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31993]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice to Manufacturers of Airport Lighting and Navigation Aid
Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), US DOT.

ACTION: Notice to manufacturers of airport lighting and navigation aid
equipment.

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

SUMMARY: Projects funded under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
must meet the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 50101, Buy American
Preferences. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering
issuing waivers to foreign manufacturers of certain airport lighting
and navigation aid equipment that is lit with Light Emitting Diode
(LED) lighting. This notice requests information from manufacturers of
systems meeting the technical requirements to determine whether a
waiver to the Buy American Preferences should be issued.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Nancy S. Williams, Airports
Financial Assistance, APP 501, Room 619, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
manages a federal grant program for airports called the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). AIP grant recipients must follow 49 U.S.C.
50101, Buy American Preferences.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 50101(b)(3), the Secretary of Transportation may
waive the Buy American Preference requirement if the goods are not
produced in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or are not of
a satisfactory quality.
    The purpose of this notice is to request manufacturers of L-850A,
L850B, L852K, and L852S LED airport lighting equipment, LED Runway End
Identified Lighting (REIL) equipment, and LED Precision Approach Path
Indicator (PAPI) equipment, both domestic and foreign, to advise FAA of
the system that they manufacture and whether it can meet the FAA
Advisory Circular technical requirements. The detailed instructions for
submitting the qualifications statement, including

forms, may be found on the FAA Web site at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/procurement/federal_contract_provisions/at the tab
entitled, Airport Lighting and Navigation Aid Equipment Request For
Qualifications. The FAA wants to determine if there is sufficient
quantity of domestic manufacturers capable of meeting the FAA technical
requirements. If the FAA cannot find that there are USA manufacturers,
it will issue a nationwide waiver to the foreign manufacturers
identified as being capable of meeting the technical requirements.
    Technical Requirements: FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5345-46D,
Specification for Runway and Taxiway Light Fixtures provides the
technical requirements for the L-850A, L-850B, L-852K and L-852S
lighting equipment. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5345-51B, Specifications
for Discharge-Type Flashing Light Equipment, provides the technical
requirements for the REILs. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5345-28G,
Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) Systems, provides the
technical requirements for the PAPI equipment.
    After review, the FAA may issue a nationwide waiver to Buy American
Preferences for foreign manufacturers or United States manufacturers
that do not meet the Buy American Preference requirements. Waivers will
not be issued for manufacturers that do not fully meet the technical
requirements. This ``nationwide waiver'' allows equipment to be used on
airport projects without having to receive separate project waivers.
Having a nationwide waiver allows projects to start quickly without
have to wait for the Buy American analysis to be completed for every
project, while still assuring the funds used for airport projects meet
the requirements of the Act.
    Items that have been granted a ``nationwide waiver'' can be found
on the FAA Web site at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/procurement/federal_contract_provisions/at the tab entitled, Equipment Meeting
Buy American Requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 7, 2011.
Frank J. San Martin,
Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-31993 Filed 12-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE;P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16223-16226]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07777]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0150]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Kailua Bay, Ironman World Championship,
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a recurring special
local regulation for certain waters of Kailua Bay, Hawaii. This action
is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable
waters located at Kailua-Kona, HI, during the swim portion of the
Ironman World Championship Triathlon and practice swim held on
consecutive Saturdays annually in October. This proposed rulemaking
would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area
each day of the event unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Honolulu. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 20, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0150 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Jason Olney, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu; telephone (808)
522-8265, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
SLR Special Local Regulation
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Ironman World Championship Triathlon is held annually on the
first two Saturdays in October and consists of two swim events, the
race itself, and a practice swim held the week before. This event is a
world famous triathlon with participants coming from around the world
to compete. The event occurs within the ocean waters of Kailua Bay, HI.
Each swim event consists of 2,500 participants swimming a 2.4 mile
(4,224 yard) marked race course located in navigable shallow ocean
waters. Each year, an increasing number of spectator pleasure craft are
drawn to support and view the Ironman swim event. Spectator vessels and
other vessel traffic pose a significant safety hazard due to the
limited maneuverability of swim participants and vessels navigating in
close proximity to the designated area.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants,
spectators, and transiting vessels on navigable waters of Kailua Bay
before, during, and after the scheduled event held annually. The
Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu has determined that potential
hazards associated with the swimmers are a safety concern for anyone
intending to operate near the event area.
    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 46
U.S.C. 70041 which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define
special local regulations.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Honolulu proposes to establish a recurring special local
regulation to be enforced from 5 a.m. to 11 a.m., on the first two
Saturdays in October annually. For both the race itself and the
practice swim event, six hours are required for all participants to
complete the swim course.
    The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of Kailua Bay
within 100 yards adjacent to the 2.4 mile (4,224 yards) swim course,
starting at the shoreline northeast of Kailua Pier at 19[deg]38.341' N,
155[deg]59.782' W; thence southeast to 19[deg]37.416' N,
155[deg]59.444' W; thence southwest to 19[deg]37.397' N,
155[deg]59.500' W; thence northwest to 19[deg]38.150' N,
155[deg]59.760' W, thence north and back to Kailua Pier at
19[deg]38.398' N, 155[deg]59.816' W, and returning along the pier to
the originating point on the shoreline at to 19[deg]38.341' N,
155[deg]59.782' W.
    This proposed rule provides additional information about areas with
the regulated area and the restrictions that apply to mariners. These
areas include a ``Course Area'', and ``Buffer Area''. The duration of
the rule and size of the regulated area are intended to ensure the
safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after the
event, scheduled from 5 a.m. until 11 a.m. on the first two Saturdays
in October annually. The COTP and Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM)
would have authority to forbid and control the movement of all vessels
and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When
hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the
regulated area would be required to immediately comply with the
directions given by the COTP or PATCOM. If a person or vessel fails to
follow such directions, the Coast Guard may expel them from the area,
issue them a citation for failure to comply, or both. Except for
Ironman participants and vessels already identified as part of the
event safety or security, a vessel or person would be required to get
permission from the COTP or PATCOM before entering the regulated area
while the rule is being enforced. Vessel operators could request
permission to enter and transit through the regulated area by
contacting the PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16. Vessel traffic would be
able to safely transit the regulated area once the PATCOM deems it safe
to do so. A person or vessel not registered with the event sponsor as a
participant or assigned as official patrols would be considered a
spectator. Official Patrols are any vessel assigned or approved by the
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Honolulu, with a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer on board.
    If permission is granted by the COTP or PATCOM, a person or vessel
would be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly through
the regulated area as instructed. Vessels would be required to operate
at a safe speed while within the regulated area. Official patrol
vessels will assist with the safety of the event and ensure spectator
vessels remain outside the regulated area. The designated swim area
will remain closed until races have concluded and the regulated area is
deemed safe for normal operations.
    The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this
document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, event history, time of day and time of year of the
regulated area which would impact a small designated area of Kailua
Bay. Accordingly, this NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
    The Coast Guard would promulgate a Notice of Enforcement and issue
a Local Notice to Mariners each year. In addition, the Coast Guard will
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners with information pertaining to the
regulated area via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the
regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessels to seek
permission to enter the regulated area, transit around the race area,
and vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area
once the COTP of Honolulu's PATCOM deems it safe to do so.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on vessel

owners or operators for the reasons stated in section IV.A above.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations
within 33 CFR 100 applicable to organized marine events on the
navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the
safety of waterway users. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1
of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. We seek any comments
or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.1402 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.1402  Special Local Regulation; Kailua Bay, Ironman World
Championship, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Buffer area is a neutral 100-yard area that surrounds the perimeter
of the course area's navigable waters as described by this section. The
purpose of a buffer area is to minimize potential collision conflicts
with marine event participants and spectator vessels or nearby
transiting vessels. This area provides separation between a course area
and spectator viewing areas.
    Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu means the Commander, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Honolulu or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.

    Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) means a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been
designated as PATCOM by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Honolulu.
    Course area is an area described by a line bound by coordinates
provided in latitude and longitude that outlines the boundary of the
event swim area within the overall regulated area defined by this
section.
    Enforcement vessels are designated vessels authorized by the COTP
Honolulu, the event PATCOM, or COTP Honolulu's designated
representatives to support the safety and security of the marine event.
    Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Honolulu with a commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer on board.
    Participant means any persons registered with the event sponsor as
participating in the Ironman Triathlon or practice swim.
    Regulated area is the combined course area and buffer area.
    Spectators are all persons and vessels not registered with the
sponsor as participants, support vessels, or enforcement vessels.
    (b) Location. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
    (1) Regulated area. All navigable waters within Kailua Bay and
encompasses the course area and surrounding 100-yard buffer area. This
course area and 100-yard buffer area extends from the surface of the
water to the ocean floor.
    (2) Course area. The 2.24 mile (4,224 yards) swim course is a
temporary marked swim course within the regulated area located in
Kailua Bay.
    (3) Buffer area. All navigable waters 100 yards outside of the
perimeter of the course area, described in paragraph (c)(4) of this
section.
    (c) Special local regulations: (1) The COTP Honolulu or PATCOM may
forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including
event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by
an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area shall
immediately comply with the directions given by the patrol. Failure to
do so may result in the Coast Guard expelling the person or vessel from
the area, issuing a citation for failure to comply, or both. The COTP
Honolulu or PATCOM may terminate the event at any time the COTP
Honolulu or PATCOM believes it necessary to do so for the protection of
life.
    (2) Except for participants and safety support vessels, a person or
vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this
section must immediately depart the regulated area.
    (3) Support and enforcement vessels consist of any local law
enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the
COTP Honolulu, the event PATCOM, or COTP Honolulu designated
representatives, to patrol the regulated area.
    (4) The regulated area consists of all navigable waters starting at
the shoreline northeast of Kailua Pier at 19[deg]38.341' N,
155[deg]59.782' W; thence southeast to 19[deg]37.416' N,
155[deg]59.444' W; thence southwest to 19[deg]37.397' N,
155[deg]59.500' W; thence northwest to 19[deg]38.150' N,
155[deg]59.760' W, thence north and back to Kailua Pier at
19[deg]38.398' N, 155[deg]59.816' W, and returning along the pier to
the originating point on the shoreline at to 19[deg]38.341' N,
155[deg]59.782' W.
    (5) Spectators shall not enter into, anchor, block, loiter, or
impede the transit of participants or support/enforcement vessels in
the regulated area during the enforcement of this regulation, unless
cleared for entry by the COTP Honolulu, the event PATCOM, or the COTP's
designated representatives.
    (6) Persons desiring to transit the regulated area identified may
contact the COTP Honolulu in advance at the Sector Honolulu Command
Center telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and<PHONE_NUMBER> or
immediately prior to or during the event to the COTP Honolulu's PATCOM
or designated representative on VHF-FM marine channel 16 (156.8 Mhz) to
seek permission to transit or remain in the area. If permission is
granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the COTP Honolulu, the event PATCOM or the COTP's designated
representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a
safe course while in the area.
    (7) If enforcement of the regulated area is no longer necessary,
the COTP Honolulu, event Patrol Commander, or COTP designated
representative will inform the public through radio broadcasts that the
regulated area is no longer being enforced.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast Guard may be assisted with
event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other Federal,
State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. The marine event and special local
regulation will be enforced from 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the first two
Saturdays in October annually. The Coast Guard will publish a notice in
the Fourteen Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners, a Notice of
the Enforcement in the Federal Register, and issue a marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio on channel 16 announcing specific
event date and times.

    Dated: April 12, 2019.
M.C. Long,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Honolulu.
[FR Doc. 2019-07777 Filed 4-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 3, 2023
TO: Phil Mulrine, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD
FROM: Jeremy Kaelin, Ricky Strott, Haley Key, and Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Point Source Data Summary for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart FFFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.0	INTRODUCTION
      This memorandum describes the data collected from Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing (II&S) facilities regarding emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and other related information from II&S facilities, pursuant to our authority under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. § 7414). These data were collected to inform the development of amendments of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for II&S facilities under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF to address unregulated pollutants emitted by this source category pursuant to the decision issued in Louisiana Environmental Action Network, et al., Petitioners v. EPA (2020), also known as the "LEAN Decision." These data supported the development of a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) floor, as required by CAA section 112, and the determination of beyond-the-floor (BTF) control options.
      The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the point source emissions and related data obtained from II&S facilities as compiled into the II&S Emissions Database (Appendix A).
2.0	INTEGRATED IRON & STEEL FACILITIES
	Emissions testing and submissions of other recent test reports was required as part of a collection request sent to integrated iron and steel facilities under the authority of section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). The section 114 requests were sent to two companies: Cleveland Cliffs and US Steel. Cleveland Cliffs had six facilities from which information was requested, and US Steel had three facilities from which information was requested. A summary of the companies, facilities, and locations included in the section 114 request is provided in Table 1.
            Table 1: II&S Facilities, Companies, and Locations
                                 Company Name
                                 Facility Name
                                 Abbreviation
                                     City
                                     State
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc.
Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor
CC-BurnsHarbor-IN
Burns Harbor
IN
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc
Cleveland-Cliffs Cleveland Works
CC-Cleveland-OH
Cleveland
OH
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc
Cleveland-Cliffs Dearborn Works
CC-Dearborn-MI
Dearborn
MI
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc.
Cleveland-Cliffs Indiana Harbor East
CC-IndianaHarbor-IN-E
East Chicago
IN
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc.
Cleveland-Cliffs Indiana Harbor West
CC-IndianaHarbor-IN-W
East Chicago
IN
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc.
Cleveland Cliffs Middletown
CC-Middletown-OH
Middletown
OH
US Steel Corporation
US Steel Braddock
USS-Braddock-PA
Braddock
PA
US Steel Corporation
US Steel Gary
USS-Gary-IN
Gary
IN
US Steel Corporation
US Steel Granite City
USS-GraniteCity-IL
Granite City
IL

      Table 2 lists the quantity of stack tests that were conducted in response to the section 114 request ("new" stack tests) and stack tests that were conducted between 2015 and the date the section 114 request was received ("previous" stack tests) and submitted by each facility.
Table 2: II&S Facilities Quantity of Submitted New and Previous Stack Tests
                                   Facility
                                  Stack Tests

                                      New
                                   Previous
CC-BurnsHarbor-IN
                                       4
                                       -
CC-Cleveland-OH
                                       1
                                      18
CC-Dearborn-MI
                                       -
                                      11
CC-IndianaHarbor-IN
                                       -
                                       -
CC-Middletown-OH
                                       -
                                       -
USS-Braddock-PA
                                       -
                                       -
USS-Gary-IN
                                       1
                                       1
USS-GraniteCity-IL
                                       2
                                       -

	Detail on specific stack test reports requested from each facility is provided in section 3.0 of this memo.
3.0	STACK TEST DATA
	Stack tests were requested to compile data on various hazardous air pollutant (HAP) from integrated iron and steel sources. EPA requested data for some sources regardless of when the last testing was done and for other sources only if the data submitted for the 2011 section 114 collection request were no longer representative of current facility emissions. An amendment to the section 114 request was sent out to Cleveland Cliffs and US Steel at a later date requiring additional stack tests using Method 26A, Method 25A, and Other Test Method 46 for the Cleveland Cliffs Burns Harbor (IN) facility. New stacks tests for Method 26A and Other Test Method 46 were requested for the US Steel Granite City (IL) facility at that time. A summary of the stack tests, sources, facilities, and pollutants which were requested as part of the 2022 section 114 collection request is provided in Table 3.
         Table 3: Summary of Stack Test Data Requested from Facilities
                                  Test Method
                                  Pollutants
                                    Sources
                                  Facilities
Method 26A
Hydrogen Fluoride;
Hydrochloric Acid
Sinter Plant Windboxes;
Basic Oxygen Process Furnace (BOPF) Primary Control Device;
Blast Furnace (BF) Stove;
BF Casthouse Baghouse
CC-BurnsHarbor-IN;
CC-IndianaHarbor-IN;
USS-Gary-IN;
USS-GraniteCity-IL
Method 29
Antimony;
Arsenic;
Beryllium;
Cadmium;
Chromium;
Cobalt;
Lead;
Manganese;
Mercury;
Nickel;
Selenium
BF Control Device[a];
BOPF Primary Control Device[a];
BOPF Secondary Control Device[a];
Sinter Plant Windboxes
CC-BurnsHarbor-IN;
CC-Cleveland-OH;
CC-Dearborn-MI;
CC-IndianaHarbor-IN;
CC-Middletown-OH;
USS-Braddock-PA;
USS-Gary-IN;
USS-GraniteCity-IL
Method 25A
Total Hydrocarbon
BF Stove;
BF Casthouse;
BOPF Primary Control Device
CC-BurnsHarbor-IN
Other Test Method 46
Total Equivalency of Dioxin/Furan
BF Stove
BOPF Primary Control Device
CC-BurnsHarbor-IN;
USS-GraniteCity-IL
[a]  Only requested for which data submitted in 2011 are no longer representative of current emissions.
	It should be noted that in response to the 2022 section 114 request for Method 29 testing for BF and BOPF control devices, CC-Cleveland-OH submitted new data for their BOPF primary control device, CC-Dearborn-MI submitted new data for their BF, BOPF primary, and BOPF secondary control devices, and USS-Gary-IN submitted data for their BF control device. This implies that the 2011 section 114 stack test data were still representative of current emissions from BF and BOPF control devices for a majority of the facilities. The 2011 section 114 stack test data is described in the memorandum Integrated Iron and Steel Risk and Technology Review: Point Source Data Summary. (EPA 2019).

 3.1	PROCESS DATA SUBMITTED WITH II&S ICR TEST DATA

From each II&S ICR test report submitted, from either II&S ICR tests or previous tests, the following testing information data and process parameters were compiled for each test run into the II&S Emissions Database:
       Testing Information
Test date, and if tested before or after MACT controls
Exhaust gas flow rate, in actual cubic feet per minute (acfm) and dry standard cfm (dscfm)
Sample volume, in dry standard cubic feet (dscf) and dry standard cubic meters (dscm)
Stack moisture, in percent (%)
Stack gas temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit (˚F)
Sampling velocity, in feet per second (fps)
Isokinetic sampling percent (%)
Oxygen content of stack gas, in percent (%)
Carbon dioxide content of stack gas, in percent (%)
Reported pollutant concentration, in parts per million (ppm), milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm), or grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf), etc.
Reported pollutant emission rate, lb/hr
Data quality classifications, e.g., above detection limit (ADL), below detection limit (BDL), or detection level limited (DLL)
Latitude and longitude of stack tested (decimal degrees, six decimal places)

       Process Parameters
Number of heats/process cycle(s) during each run
Production rate, e.g., steel, iron, or sinter, in tons per hour (tph)
         Total (raw) cast steel production from BOPF
         Type of steel produced during testing, e.g., carbon steel, stainless steel, high alloy, as percent
         By-products from BF, type and quantity/rate, e.g., slag, BF gas, in scfm
Charge rates (tph)
         Inputs to the BF, e.g., fluxing agents, sinter, iron ore, coke, coal
         Hot metal charged to BOPF
         Scrap used in BOPF during tests, e.g. auto scrap, No. 2 heavy melting steel (ISRI codes 204-206), shredded scrap (ISRI Code 210), as a percent of total charge
         Other inputs to BOPF, e.g., direct reduced iron, other ferrous materials, metallurgical coke, petroleum coke, coal, lime, alloys, tires, etc.
         Sinter feed
4.0	REFERENCES
Jones, D.L. 2019. Integrated Iron and Steel Risk and Technology Review: Point Source Data Summary. Memorandum from Donna Lee Jones, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD, to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0955. May 1, 2019.

                                  APPENDIX A:
                  II&S EMISSIONS DATABASE (POINT SOURCES)

The point source test data from the II&S ICR test requests are provided in the accompanying Microsoft Excel[TM] file. This file includes the parameters and emission data compiled from each test report and the calculations conducted on the data. Also in this file are surrogate emissions data derived from II&S ICR source test data for units or HAP not tested in the II&S ICR test program.