[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8148-8150]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04006]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85218; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Allow the Addition of New Series of Options on an Individual Stock
Until the Close of Trading on the Business Day Prior to Expiration in
Unusual Market Conditions

February 28, 2019.
    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 February 21, 2019, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') proposes to
allow the addition of new series of options on an individual stock
until the close of trading on the business day prior to expiration in
unusual market conditions. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided below and in Exhibit 1.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Rules of Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.

* * * * *
Rule 19.6. Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading
* * * * *
    (c) Additional series of options of the same class may be opened
for trading on BZX Options when the Exchange deems it necessary to
maintain an orderly market, to meet Customer demand or when the market
price of the underlying stock moves more than five strike prices from
the initial exercise price or prices. The opening of a new series of
options shall not affect the series of options of the same class
previously opened. New series of options on an individual stock may be
added until the beginning of the month in which the options contract
will expire. Due to unusual market conditions, the Exchange, in its
discretion, may add a new series of options on an individual stock
until the close of trading on the [five (5)] business day[s] prior to
expiration.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), 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 Rule 19.6(c) to allow for the
addition of new series of options on an individual stock until the
close of trading on the business day prior to expiration in unusual
market conditions. This is a competitive proposed rule change based on
filings submitted by the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'') and NASDAQ OMX BX (``BX'') to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 34-70900 (November 19,
2013), 78 FR 70382 (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Change the Expiration Date for Most Options
Contracts to the Third Friday of the Expiration Month Instead of the
Saturday Following the Third Friday) (SR-ISE-2013-58); Securities
Exchange Act Release 34-70746 (October 23, 2013), 78 FR 64563
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Implement Transition to Friday Expiration for Most Options
Contracts) (SR-BX-2013-055).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, under Rule 19.6(c), when faced with unusual market
conditions,

the Exchange may add new series of options on an individual stock until
five business days prior to expiration. In 2013, the Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') implemented a transition for standard option
monthly expiration processing from Saturday to Friday. At this time,
however, the Exchange did not list series of option contracts with
Saturday or non-business day expiration, and accordingly, did not need
to update its rules in line with the OCC initiative. Other exchanges
amended their rules to reflect the OCC change, differentiating between
Friday and Saturday or non-business day expirations during the
transitional period. Also at this time, other exchanges specified that
additional series of individual stock options may be added during
unusual market conditions until the close of trading on the business
day prior to expiration in the case of an option contract expiring on a
business day (i.e., Thursday for Friday expirations), or, in the case
of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day
until the close of trading on the second business day prior to
expiration (i.e., Thursday for Saturday expirations). The Exchange thus
proposes to amend Rule 19.6(c) to allow specifically for the addition
of new series of options on an individual stock until the close of
trading on the business day prior to expiration in unusual market
conditions in line with other exchanges' timing requirements for
listing series of options prior to expiration.
    The Exchange seeks to introduce this proposed change to Rule
19.6(c) to create a uniform expiration date across exchanges for
standard options on listed classes. The Exchange believes that keeping
its rules consistent with those of the industry will protect all
participants in the market by eliminating confusion, reducing the
likelihood of rule violations due to discrepant industry rules, and by
allowing for a more orderly market. In addition, the Exchange believes
that keeping the proposed rule consistent with other exchange rules
will foster better cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities by aligning a pivotal part
of the options processing to be consistent industry-wide
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes that keeping its rules
consistent with those of other exchanges and industry practices will
protect all participants in the market by eliminating confusion, thus,
preventing investor vulnerability to violating different exchange
rules. Additionally, the proposed change will foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities by aligning the timing of series of options listing
during unusual market conditions to be consistent industry-wide.
Further, as the industry-wide transition from Saturday (and non-
business day) expiration dates to Friday (or other business days)
expiration dates was successful, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change will remove a discrepant industry impediment and allow for
a more orderly market by permitting all options markets, including the
clearing agencies, to have the same expiration date for series of
options listed during periods of unusual market conditions. The
proposed rule change also perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market by allowing for the Exchange to list additional series of
options on an individual stock closer to expiration during unusual
market conditions thus better aligning the listed series of options
with prices near expiration. Finally, the proposed rule change does not
permit unfair discrimination between any Members as it is applied to
all Members equally.

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. In this regard and as
indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being
proposed as a competitive response to proposals previously filed by ISE
and BX with the Commission.\9\ The proposed rule change will allow for
the Exchange to list additional series of options on an individual
stock closer to expiration during unusual market conditions thus better
aligning the listed series of options with prices near expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \12\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because it is
substantially similar in all

material respects to prior filings submitted by ISE and BX,\14\ and
does not raise any new or novel issues. For this reason, the Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposal as operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ See supra note 5.
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-CboeBZX-2019-013 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-CboeBZX-2019-013. 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; 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 Number SR-CboeBZX-2019-013 and should
be submitted on or before March 27, 2019.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-04006 Filed 3-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 14725]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05727]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0049]

Recovery Policy RP9525.4, Emergency Medical Care and Medical
Evacuations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the availability of the final
Recovery Policy RP9525.4, Emergency Medical Care and Medical
Evacuations. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a
notice of availability and request for comment for the proposed policy
on August 13, 2010 at 75 FR 49507.

DATES: This policy is effective February 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: This final policy is available online at http://www.regulations.gov and under docket ID FEMA-2010-0049 and on FEMA's
Web site at http://www.fema.gov. The proposed and final policy, all
related Federal Register Notices, and all public comments received
during the comment period are available at http://www.regulations.gov
under docket ID FEMA-2010-0049. You may also view a hard copy of the
final policy at the Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Room 8NE, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-
3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Roche, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-
3834, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final policy identifies the
extraordinary emergency medical care expenses that are eligible for
reimbursement under the Category B, Emergency Protective Measures
provisions of the Public Assistance Program following an emergency or
major disaster declaration. This updated policy in section VIII.B(1)(c)
adds labor costs for personnel activated and deployed to support the
performance of eligible emergency work; in section VIII.B(1)(f)
additional language is included to clarify the intent of providing
post-disaster vaccinations; labor costs for permanent employees that
are activated and deployed to support patient evacuation is an eligible
expense in section VIII.C(1)(c); and section VIII.F addresses Mutual
Aid and removes reference to public or private nonprofit providers
working within their jurisdiction as ineligible mutual aid providers.
Section VII.C(2)(c) which stated increased operating costs are
ineligible and costs incurred in preparation for an increased patient
load from an emergency or disaster are ineligible in section VII.F were
removed from the previous version of the policy.
    FEMA received three comments on the proposed policy one of which
lead to a change to the final policy. The following sentence in Section
VIII.F. of the draft policy was removed: ``Public or private nonprofit
medical service providers working within their jurisdiction do not
qualify as mutual aid providers under DAP9523.6''.
    This final policy does not have the force or effect of law.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, and implementing regulations of
44 CFR part 206.

David J. Kaufman,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Analysis, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-05727 Filed 3-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27116-27118]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0357]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Potomac River, Newburg, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Potomac River. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during a
fireworks display in Charles County near Newburg, MD on June 17, 2017.
This action will prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. on June 17, 2017, until 10
p.m. on June 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0357 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On April 11, 2017, Gilligan's Pier of Newburg, MD, notified the
Coast Guard that it will conduct a fireworks display starting at 9 p.m.
on June 17, 2017. The fireworks display will be launched from a barge
located on the Potomac River, in Charles County near Newburg, MD. In
the event of inclement weather, the fireworks display will be
rescheduled for June 24, 2017. On May 5, 2017 the Coast Guard published
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Safety Zone; Potomac
River, Newburg, MD'' (82 FR 21153). There we stated why we issued the
NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to
this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended June 5,
2017, we received no comments.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective
date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because
immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards
associated with a fireworks display from a barge on navigable waters.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The COTP has determined that potential

hazards associated with the launching of fireworks over navigable
waters scheduled for June 17, 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone
within 200 yards of the firework barge. The purpose of this rulemaking
is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the
safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, the Coast Guard received no comments on its NPRM
published May 5, 2017. There are no changes in the regulatory text of
this rule from the proposed rule published in the Federal Register.
    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m.
on June 17, 2017, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 8:30
p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 24, 2017. The safety zone will cover the
navigable waters of the Potomac River, within 200 yards radius of a
fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38[deg]23'45.2'' N.,
longitude 076[deg]59'31.8'' W., located near Newburg, MD. The duration
of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and the
navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled twenty minute
fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the
safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will
impact a small designated area of the Potomac River for 1\1/2\ hours
during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the
Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone.

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 rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this 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.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will 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 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 rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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 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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 rule involves a safety zone lasting 1-1/2 hours that
will prohibit entry within 200 yards of a fireworks discharge barge. It
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A Record of
Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this

determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0357 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0357  Safety Zone; Potomac River, Charles County, MD.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region means the
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region to assist in enforcing the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all waters of
the Potomac River, within 200 yards radius of a fireworks barge in
approximate position latitude 38[deg]23'45.2'' N., longitude
076[deg]59'31.8'' W., located near Newburg, MD. All coordinates refer
to datum NAD 1983.
    (c) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in
subpart C of this part apply to the safety zone created by this
section.
    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations
governing safety zones found in Sec.  165.23.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the
time it is implemented are to depart the zone.
    (3) Persons desiring to enter or transit through the safety zone
must first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region or designated representative. To request
permission to enter or transit the area, the Captain of the Port
Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representatives can be
contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio VHF-
FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this
section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal,
State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or
other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If
permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital
Region or designated representative and proceed as directed while
within the zone.
    (4) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30
p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 17, 2017, and if necessary due to
inclement weather, from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 24, 2017.

    Dated: June 9, 2017.
L.P. Harrison, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2017-12285 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 200)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60951-60952]
[DOCID:fr15oc08-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 105

[Docket Nos. TSA-2006-24191; USCG-2006-24196]

Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement
for a Commercial Driver's License

AGENCY: United States Coast Guard; DHS.

ACTION: Notice of compliance date, Captain of the Port Zone New York.

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

SUMMARY: This document informs owners and operators of facilities
located within Captain of the Port Zone New York that they must
implement access control procedures utilizing TWIC no later than March
23, 2009.

DATES: The compliance date for the TWIC regulations found in 33 CFR
part 105 for Captain of the Port Zone New York is March 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this document as being available in the docket,
are part of dockets TSA-2006-24191 and USCG-2006-24196, and are
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You
may also find this docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call LCDR Jonathan Maiorine, telephone 1-877-687-2243. If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulatory History

    On May 22, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through
the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) and the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) published a joint notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled ``Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC) Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials
Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License'' in the Federal Register
(71 FR 29396). This was followed by a 45-day comment period and four
public meetings. The Coast Guard and TSA issued a joint final rule,
under the same title, on January 25, 2007 (72 FR 3492) (hereinafter
referred to as the original TWIC final rule). The preamble to that
final rule contains a discussion of all the comments received on the
NPRM, as well as a discussion of the provisions found in the original
TWIC final rule, which became effective on March 26, 2007.
    On May 7, 2008, the Coast Guard and TSA issued a final rule to
realign the compliance date for implementation of the Transportation
Worker Identification Credential. 73 FR 25562. The date by which
mariners need to obtain a TWIC, and by which owners and operators of
vessels and outer continental shelf facilities must implement access
control procedures utilizing TWIC, is now April 15, 2009 instead of
September 25, 2008. Owners and operators of facilities that must comply
with 33 CFR part 105 will still be subject to earlier, rolling
compliance dates, as set forth in 33 CFR 105.115(e).
    The Coast Guard will continue to announce rolling compliance dates,
as provided in 33 CFR 105.115(e), at least 90 days in advance via
notices published in the Federal Register. The final compliance date
for all COTP Zones will not be later than April 15, 2009.

II. Notice of Facility Compliance Date--COTP Zone New York

    Title 33 CFR 105.115(e) currently states that ``[f]acility owners
and operators must be operating in accordance with the TWIC provisions
in this part by the date set by the Coast Guard in a Notice to be
published in the Federal Register.'' Through this Notice, the Coast
Guard informs the owners and operators of facilities subject to 33 CFR
105.115(e) located within COTP Zone New York that the deadline for
their compliance with Coast Guard and TSA TWIC requirements is March
23, 2009.
    The TSA and Coast Guard have determined that this date provides
sufficient time for the estimated population required to obtain TWICs
for this COTP Zone to enroll and for TSA to complete the necessary
security threat assessments for those enrollment applications. We
strongly encourage persons requiring unescorted access to facilities
regulated by 33 CFR part 105 and located in this COTP Zone to enroll
for their TWIC as soon as possible, if they haven't already.
Additionally, we note that the TWIC Final Rule advises owners and
operators of MTSA regulated facilities of their responsibility to
notify employees of the TWIC requirements. Specifically, 33 CFR
105.200(b)(14) requires owners or operators of MTSA regulated
facilities to ``[i]nform facility personnel of their responsibility to
apply for and maintain a TWIC, including the deadlines and methods for
such applications.'' Information on enrollment procedures, as well as a
link to the pre-enrollment Web site (which will also enable an
applicant to make an appointment for enrollment), may be found at
https://twicprogram.tsa.dhs.gov/ TWICWebApp/.
    You may also visit our Web site at homeport.uscg.mil/twic for a
framework showing expected future compliance dates by COTP Zone. This
list is subject to change; changes in expected future compliance dates
will appear on that Web site. The exact compliance date for COTP Zones
will also be announced in the Federal Register at least 90 days in
advance.

    Dated: October 7, 2008.
David W. Murk,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Ports and Facilities
Activities.
[FR Doc. E8-24525 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46201-46203]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18664]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0523; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-050-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes
equipped with Pratt and Whitney engines. This proposed AD was prompted
by reports of blocked drain lines at the engine forward strut that
caused flammable fluid to accumulate in a flammable leakage zone. This
AD would require repetitive functional checks for blockage of the
forward strut drain line, and doing corrective actions (including
cleaning or replacing any blocked drain lines) if necessary; and a one-
time cleaning of certain forward strut drain lines. We are proposing
this AD to detect and correct blockage of forward strut drain lines,
which could cause flammable fluids to collect in the forward strut area
and potentially cause an uncontrolled fire or cause failure of engine
attachment structure and consequent airplane loss.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 22,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0523; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6501; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0523;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-050-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received more than five reports of the forward drain lines of
the engine struts being blocked with coked particles. Coked particles
form when hydraulic fluid is exposed to, and degraded by, the high
temperatures of the hot core zone of the engine and the hot pneumatic
bleed ducts. In two events, fluids backed up into the electrical (left)
side of the disconnect box assembly of the strut system, causing an
electrical fault that resulted in a false overheat detection engine
indicating and crew-alerting system (EICAS) message. Flammable fluids
collecting in the electrical side of the disconnect box assembly of the
strut system can cause an electrical fault for electrical components,
and create a potential ignition source for trapped flammable fluids
that can lead to fuel explosion.
    In the other three events, flammable fluids backed up and pooled in
the fluid (right) side of the disconnect box assembly of the strut
system. Flammable fluids collecting in the disconnect box assembly of
the strut system are a fire hazard because that area has no fire
detection, containment, or extinguishing capability and with an
ignition source can result in an uncontrolled fire in the strut. Also,
flammable fluids pooling in the disconnect box assembly of the strut
system can spill over onto the engine and initiate an engine fire in
the engine core cavity compartment.
    Hydraulic fluid collecting in the disconnect box assembly of the
strut system can cause contamination and hydrogen embrittlement of the
titanium structure resulting in cracks that can compromise the engine
firewall by allowing a fire in the engine area to enter the strut; or
by allowing flammable fluids to leak down and initiate an engine fire
in the engine core cavity compartment, and also compromise the engine
fire extinguishing system. Hydraulic fluid contamination, including
contamination

caused by hydraulic fluid in its liquid, vapor, and/or solid (i.e.,
coked) form, in the strut forward dry bay can lead to hydrogen
embrittlement of the titanium fittings of the forward engine mount
bulkhead and also the consequent inability of the fittings to carry
engine loads, resulting in the loss or separation of an engine.
Hydraulic embrittlement could also cause a through-crack formation
across the fittings through which an engine fire could breach into the
strut, resulting in an uncontained strut fire. We are proposing this AD
to detect and correct blockage of forward strut drain lines, which
could cause flammable fluids to collect in the forward strut area and
potentially cause an uncontrolled fire or cause failure of engine
attachment structure and consequent airplane loss.

Related Rulemaking

    On May 24, 2013, we issued AD 2013-11-14, Amendment 39-17474 (78 FR
35749, June 14, 2013), for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and
-300 series airplanes. AD 2013-11-14 currently requires repetitive
general visual inspections of the strut forward dry bay for hydraulic
fluid contamination, and related investigative and corrective actions
if necessary. AD 2013-11-14 was prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid
contamination found in the strut forward dry bay. The actions required
by AD 2013-11-14 are intended to detect and correct hydraulic fluid
contamination of the strut forward dry bay that could result in
hydrogen embrittlement of the titanium forward engine mount bulkhead
fittings, and the consequent inability of the fittings to carry engine
loads, resulting in engine separation.
    On April 12, 2011, we issued AD 2011-09-11, Amendment 39-16673 (76
FR 24354, May 2, 2011), for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200
and -300 series airplanes. AD 2011-09-11 requires repetitive
inspections for hydraulic fluid contamination of the interior of the
strut disconnect assembly; repetitive inspections for discrepancies of
the interior of the strut disconnect assembly, if necessary; repetitive
inspections of the exterior of the strut disconnect assembly for
cracks, if necessary; corrective action if necessary; and an optional
terminating action for the inspections. AD 2011-09-11 resulted from
reports of system disconnect boxes that have been contaminated with
hydraulic fluid and, in one incident, led to subsequent cracking of
titanium parts in the system disconnect assembly. We issued AD 2011-09-
11 to detect and correct hydraulic fluid contamination, which can cause
cracking of titanium parts in the system disconnect assembly, resulting
in compromise of the engine firewall.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0027,
Revision 1, dated September 12, 2013. For information on the procedures
and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0523.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This AD would require repetitive functional checks for blockage of
the forward strut drain line, doing corrective actions (including
cleaning or replacing any blocked drain lines) if necessary; and a one-
time cleaning of certain forward strut drain lines. This proposed AD
would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or address any
condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for
example, repairs.

Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD interim action. The manufacturer is
currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe
condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed,
approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 54 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive functional checks of 2  9 work-hours x $85               $0  $765 per inspection  $41,310 per
 struts per inspection cycle.       per hour = $765                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
One-time cleaning................  13 work-hours x $85               0  $1,105.............  $59,670.
                                    per hour = $1,105.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                       Labor cost                Parts cost             Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean and repair drain tube        Up to 5 work-hours x $85   $0......................  Up to $425.
 assemblies in up to 2 struts.      per hour = $425.
Replace drain tube assemblies in   Up to 5 work-hours x $85   Up to $4,484............  Up to $4,909.
 up to 2 struts.                    per hour = $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0523; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-050-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 22, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300
series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with Pratt
& Whitney engines, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-54-0027, Revision 1, dated September 12, 2013.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/
pylons.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of blocked drain lines at the
engine forward strut that caused flammable fluid to accumulate in a
flammable leakage zone. We are proposing this AD to detect and
correct blockage of forward strut drain lines, which could cause
flammable fluids to collect in the forward strut area and
potentially cause an uncontrolled fire or cause failure of engine
attachment structure and consequent airplane loss.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Functional Check, Cleaning, and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-
0027, Revision 1, dated September 12, 2013, except as provided by
paragraph (h) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-
0027, Revision 1, dated September 12, 2013. Repeat the functional
check required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, thereafter at the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0027, Revision 1,
dated September 12, 2013.
    (1) Do a functional check for blockage of the forward strut
drain line of the left and right strut, clean the forward strut
drain line, and do all applicable corrective actions (including
cleaning or replacing blocked drain tubes, repairing water leaks,
and cleaning the inlet drain screen on the right system disconnect
assembly inlet). Do all applicable corrective actions before further
flight.
    (2) Do a one-time cleaning of the smaller forward strut drain
lines connected to the left systems disconnect, the strut forward
lower spar, and the forward fire seal pan inlets.

(h) Exception to the Service Information

    Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0027,
Revision 1, dated September 12, 2013, refers to a compliance time
``after the Revision 1 date of this Service Bulletin,'' this AD
requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the
effective date of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Nguyen,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-18664 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 67337]
[DOCID:fr28no07-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Environmental Impact Statement: Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport,
Sitka, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration announces that it will be
including the assessment of the transfer of lands from federal to state
ownership for aviation uses within the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) currently being prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration.
Public and Agency Scoping comments are being sought by the Federal
Aviation Administration to receive input regarding the assessment of
this additional proposed project within the EIS.
    Responsible Official: Patricia A. Sullivan, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan Region,
Airports Division, 222 W. 7th Avenue, 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-
7587, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Sullivan, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan Region,
Airports Division, 222 W. 7th Avenue, 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-
7587, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Submit Written Comments, Send to: Patricia A. Sullivan,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration,
Alaskan Region, Airports Division, 222 W. 7th Avenue, 14,
Anchorage, AK 99513-7587, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The FAA is currently preparing an EIS for
the implementation of proposed projects at the Sitka Rocky Gutierrez
Airport. Major projects already included in the EIS include
improvements to the runway safety area; installation of an approach
light system; construction of a parallel taxiway; construction of a
seaplane pullout; and repairs and improvements to the airport seawall.
These projects, along with other projects proposed to improve safety
and efficiency and accommodate growing aviation demand, were identified
in the Sitka Airport Master Plan.
    It has been determined that portions of property believed to be
existing airport lands are not currently state owned, but instead are
federally owned, and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. If the
proposed airport improvements are approved through the EIS process,
portions of the federal lands, including those commonly referred to as
the Makhnati lands, would need to be transferred from federal to state
ownership before implementation of proposed airport improvements. As
such, the FAA is adding the transfer of the lands necessary for
implementation of the projects being assessed in the EIS as well as
lands necessary for other existing and future aviation uses, as a
proposed action that will be examined in the EIS. The federally owned
lands needed for aviation uses include segments of filled land on
Japonski Island, Charcoal Island, and portions of submerged land
surrounding the airport.
    To ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed
actions are addressed and that all significant issues are identified,
the FAA intends to coordinate and consult with the public; tribal
governments; and Federal, State, and local agencies that have
jurisdiction by law or have special expertise with respect to any
environmental impacts associated with the proposed projects.
    Agencies and the public may submit written comments via the address
under, ``To Submit Written Comments, Send to.'' Comments must be
submitted by December 31, 2007.

    Issued in Anchorage, Alaska, on November 19, 2007.
Byron K. Huffman,
Manager, Airports Division, AAL-600.
[FR Doc. 07-5850 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

AMENDMENTS TO NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

FOR

COAL PREPARATION AND PROCESSING PLANTS

September 2009

Part A of the Supporting Statement

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection.

	“Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Coal Preparation and
Processing Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Y).”  The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements for the existing rule.  OMB control number
2060-0122 has been assigned to the ICR revision.  The EPA ICR tracking
number is 1062.12, and this is a revision of the existing ICR based on
review of the NSPS.

(b)	Short Characterization.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Respondents who are required to perform this
information collection are the owners and operators of coal preparation
and processing plants that are subject to the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for coal preparation and processing plants in 40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart Y.  These amendments include revisions to the emission
limits for particulate matter (PM) and opacity standards for thermal
dryers, pneumatic coal cleaning equipment, and coal handling equipment
(coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and coal
transfer and loading systems) located at coal preparation and processing
plants which commence construction, modification, or reconstruction
after April 28, 2008.  The amendments also establish a sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emission limit and a combined nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions limit for thermal dryers located at coal
preparation and processing plants which commence construction,
modification, or reconstruction after May 27, 2009.

Affected owners and operators subject to the rule are required to
install and operate air emission controls and meet certain work practice
standards.  Work practices are implemented on a site-specific basis
according to a fugitive coal dust emissions control plan prepared by the
affected owners and operators.  To demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the rule requirements, affected owners and operators
need to collect information to meet specific monitoring, inspection,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

For affected facilities mechanically vented through a control device,
respondents are required to conduct initial and subsequent emissions
testing to show compliance with the applicable PM limits using EPA
Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4.  Thereafter, subsequent Method
5 performance tests must be conducted either annually or biannually as
determined by the results of the most recent Method 5 test.  Similar
emissions testing requirements are specified in the rule amendments
using the appropriate EPA test methods for new, reconstructed, or
modified thermal coal dryers subject to the SO2 and combined NOx/CO
emission limits.

For affected facilities subject to opacity emissions limits, respondents
are required to conduct initial emissions testing to show compliance
with the applicable opacity limits using EPA Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4.  Thereafter, subsequent Method 9 performance tests must be
conducted at intervals determined by the results of the most recent
Method 9 test.  As an alternative to subsequent Method 9 performance
testing, the rule amendments allow affected owners and operators to
elect to conduct monitoring as follows: (1) monthly visual observations
of process and control equipment and, if any deficiencies are observed,
the necessary maintenance must be performed as expeditiously as
possible; and (2) daily walkthrough observations consisting of a single
15-second observation (i.e., visible emissions or no visible emissions)
of each affected facility and, if any visible emissions are observed,
within 24 hours corrective actions must be conducted and the owner or
operator must demonstrate that there are no visible emissions.
Additional monitoring options to subsequent Method 9 performance testing
available under the rule amendments that owners and operators can choose
to use for an affected facility, when applicable, are installation and
operation of a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) or a digital
opacity monitoring system.

The rule amendments include separate opacity testing and monitoring
requirements for coal truck dump operations.  EPA determined that a
different approach for Method 9 opacity performance testing is warranted
due to the intermittent nature of coal truck dumping.  Coal truck dump
operations are subject to the same opacity limits as other coal-handling
operations.  The rule amendments require quarterly performance tests
using an appropriate adaptation of Method 9.

Semiannually, the respondent would be required to prepare and submit to
EPA a compliance report describing any periods of control device
operation during which the monitored values of the specified control
device operating parameters deviated from the boundaries established
during the most recent performance test.  For the affected facilities,
respondents would be required to collect and maintain records in a
logbook of the air pollution control equipment inspections and repairs,
as specified in the rule.

2.	Need for and Use of the Collection

(a)  	Need/Authority for the Collection.

	EPA is charged under section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as
amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary
sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking
into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air
quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. Section
111(a)(l).

EPA refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology
(BDT).  Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if
appropriate, revise such standards every eight years.

	In addition, CAA section 114(a) states that the Administrator may
require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C)
install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit
procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with
such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during
such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);
(E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables
or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with
section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

	In the Administrator’s judgment, particulate emissions from coal
preparation and processing plants cause or contribute to air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
 Therefore, the NSPS was promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Y.

(b)  	Use/Users of the Data.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The information collected would be used by EPA
personnel to: 1) identify new, reconstructed, or modified sources at
coal preparation and processing plants subject to the standards, 2)
ensure that the NSPS is being properly applied; 3) identify those
facilities that should be inspected; 4) identify those facilities that
may benefit from compliance assistance activities; and 5) ensure that
the emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained
on a continuous basis to reduce PM emissions from affected coal-handling
operations, and PM, SO2, NOx, and CO emissions from affected thermal
coal dryers.

To minimize the burden, much of the information EPA needs to determine
compliance would be recorded and retained on-site at the facility.  Such
information would be reviewed by the enforcement personnel during an
inspection and would not need to be routinely reported to EPA.  For
situations other than when a deviation from the rule requirements has
occurred, information required to be reported has been reduced to the
extent practical.

3.	Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

(a)	Nonduplication.

	If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated State or local EPA.  If a
State or local EPA has adopted their own similar standards to implement
the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the State or
local EPA can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report
required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

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

	This section is not applicable because this is a rule related ICR.

(c)	Consultations.

	During development of the rule amendments, EPA held meetings and
conference calls with representatives of the following trade
associations, companies, and control equipment manufacturers:  Utility
Air Regulatory Group (UARG), National Mining Association (NMA), American
Petroleum Institute (API), Peabody Energy Corporation (formerly Peabody
Coal), Benetech, Inc., and Dust Solutions, Inc.  More information is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.

(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

	Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of
detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and
noncompliance would decrease.

(e)	General Guidelines.

	None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of
the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR 1320.5.

(f)	Confidentiality.

	The required information has been determined not to be confidential.
However, any information submitted to EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies
set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B - Confidentiality of
Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1,
1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September
20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

(g)	Sensitive Questions.

	None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive
questions.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes.

	The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for
respondents affected by the standards are listed in the following table.

Standard (40 CFR part 60, subpart Y)	NAICS Code

Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface Mining	212111

Bituminous Coal Underground Mining 	212112

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation	212112

Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units in Indian Country
921150

Anthracite Mining 	212113

Support Activities for Coal Mining	213113

Paper (except Newsprint) Mills	322121

Petrochemical Manufacturing	325110

All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing	324199

Cement Manufacturing	327310

All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing	324199

Iron and Steel Mills	331111

(b)	Information Requested.

	(i)	Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements. All data in this
ICR that is recorded and/or reported is required by NSPS for Coal
preparation and processing plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart Y).

A source must make the following reports:

Reports for 40 CFR Part 60

	Subpart A	Subpart Y

Construction/reconstruction	60.7(a)

	Anticipated startup	60.7(a)

	Notification of actual startup	60.7(a)

	Initial performance test	60.8

	Initial performance test results	60.8	60.258(c)

Physical or operational change	60.7(a)

	Repeat performance test results	60.8	60.258(d)

Semi-Annual Excess Emission Reports	60.7(c)	60.258(b)

	A source must maintain the following records:

Recordkeeping for 40 CFR Part 60

	Subpart A	Subpart Y

Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous
monitoring system is inoperative	60.7(b)

	Maintain a written or electronic logbook

60.258(a)

Records are required to be retained for two (2) years	60.7(f)

	Records of ongoing monitoring	60.7(f)

	Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions Control Plan

60.254(c)

Bag Leak Detection System Site-Specific Plan

60.256(c)

	(ii)	Respondent Activities. The respondent activities required by
subpart Y are listed in the following tables.

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Perform initial performance test using appropriate Reference Method, and
repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5.	The Information Collected: EPA Activities, Collection Methodology,
and Information Management

(a)	EPA Activities.

	EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

EPA Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
emission control plans, and excess emissions reports, required to be
submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS)
database.

Analyze and maintain data in the WebFIRE database.

(b)	Collection Methodology and Management.

	Following notification of startup, EPA or delegated authority might
inspect a coal preparation and processing plant to determine whether the
required air pollution control devices are properly installed and
operated.  Performance test reports are used by EPA to determine an
affected facility’s initial and subsequent compliance with the
applicable emissions limits.  Selected data and records maintained by
the respondents are tabulated for use in air compliance and enforcement
programs.

	Certain information contained in the reports is entered into the AIRS
Facility Subsystem (AFS), which is operated and maintained by EPA’s
Office of Compliance, and into the WebFire database.  AFS is EPA’s
database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance
and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and
government-owned facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air
pollution compliance and enforcement by local and State regulatory
agencies, EPA regional offices, and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its
delegated authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.
The Web Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data System is a database
management system containing EPA’s recommended emission estimation
factors for criteria and hazardous air pollutants.  FIRE includes
information about industries and their emitting processes, the chemicals
emitted, and the emission factors themselves.  FIRE allows easy access
to criteria and hazardous air pollutant emission factors obtained from
the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP 42), Locating and
Estimating (L and E) documents, and the retired AFSEF and XATEF
documents.

	The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner
or operator for two years.

(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	There is a distribution of business sizes for the businesses that have
coal preparation and processing plants.  EPA is not aware of any small
entities in the coal preparation and processing regulated industry.  The
subpart Y standards are applicable to facilities that process (i.e.,
break, crush, screen, clean, or dry) more than 181 megagrams (200 tons)
of coal per day.  Since NSPS are applicable to facilities built in the
future, it is not clear if any future affected facilities would be owned
by small entities.  However, due to technical considerations involving
the process operation and the types of control equipment employed, the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and
large entities.  EPA considers these requirements the minimum needed to
ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small
entities.  To the extent that larger business can use economies of scale
to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

(d)	Collection Schedule.

	The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 2:  Annual Burden of Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements, NSPS for Coal preparation and processing
plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart Y).

6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

	Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c [Year 1 Respondent Burden of Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements, NSPS for Coal Preparation and Processing
plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart Y), Year 2 Respondent Burden of
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, NSPS for Coal Preparation and
Processing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart Y), and Year 3 Respondent
Burden of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, NSPS for Coal
Preparation and Processing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart Y)] document
the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart
included in this ICR for each of the first 3 years.  Table 1d contains a
summary of the respondent burden costs and hours detailed in Tables 1a,
1b, and 1c.

	The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings
believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.  Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions
have been identified.  Responses to this information collection are
mandatory.

	EPA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number.

(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden.

	The total number of respondents was estimated using data compiled from
the last 10 years of coal preparation and processing plant air permits
indicating the growth of and types of equipment used by the industry.
Using this information it is estimated that an additional 22 new coal
preparation and processing plants will become subject to the regulation
over the 5-year NSPS review period.  Thus, it is estimated that there
would be 14 coal preparation and processing plants subject to the rule
amendments over the 3-year ICR period (22/3 = 13.2 rounded to 14).  All
of these 14 coal preparation and processing plants are estimated to be
constructed in the first year of the 3-year ICR period.  Furthermore,
based on industry trends for new coal preparation and processing plants,
it is assumed none of the new 14 plants will include the use of the
types of coal thermal dryers or pneumatic tables subject to the rule
amendments.

	All 14 of the coal preparation and processing plants are assumed to
consist of coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage
systems, coal transfer and loading systems, and open storage piles.  The
burden estimates are based on the conservative control implementation
assumption that all affected owners and operators will choose to use
enclosures vented to fabric filters for the affected facilities at their
plants to comply with the rule.  In actuality many owners and operators
are expected to choose alternative controls allowed under the rule for
many affected sources, when applicable, such as fogging systems, wet
suppression, and passive enclosure containment systems (PECS) that do
not require Method 5 performance testing.  Both Method 5 and Method 9
testing are usually conducted by a contractor such that the cost of the
emissions testing is an annual operations and maintenance cost.  This is
assuming that no plant employs a certified smoke reader.  Finally, it is
assumed that 2 of the 14 coal preparation and processing plants will
have the type of coal truck dump affected facilities subject to the rule
amendments.

	The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 9,193
hours per year (Total Labor Hours from Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c).  These
hours are based on EPA studies and background documents from the
development of the regulation, EPA knowledge and experience with the
NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

(b)  	Estimating Respondent Costs.

	(i)	Estimating Labor Costs. Labor rates and associated costs are based
on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data.  Technical, management, and
clerical average hourly rates for private industry workers were taken
from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
June 2009, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry
group,” available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm"
www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm .  Wages for occupational groups
are used as the basis for the labor rates with a total compensation of
$46.61 per hour for technical, $54.95 per hour for managerial, and
$23.04 per hour for clerical.  These rates represent salaries plus
fringe benefits and do not include the cost of overhead.  An overhead
rate of 110 percent is used to account for these costs.  The
fully-burdened hourly wage rates used to represent respondent labor
costs are: technical at $97.88, management at $115.40, and clerical at
$48.38.

	(ii)	Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs. The
annual operations and maintenance costs associated with the information
collection requirements will include the costs to conduct performance
tests and purchase monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting supplies.  A
third-party contractor testing cost of $7,000 for each Method 5
performance test and $1,300 for each Method 9 performance test was used.
 The estimated number of affected facilities times the number of total
number of tests required for each affected facility per year resulted in
a total capital cost of approximately $882,000 for Method 5 testing and
$231,400 for Method 9 testing over the next three years.  Installing bag
leak detection systems for the fabric filters is included as a capital
cost.  The annual operation and maintenance costs associated with the
purchase of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting supplies is $38,290
over the next three years.

	(iii)  Annualizing Capital Costs. The capital cost associated with
procurement and installation of bag leak detection systems for the
fabric filters was annualized assuming a 7 percent interest rate and
10-year life (i.e., capital recovery factor [CRF] of 0.1424).  The total
annualized capital costs total $674,528.

(c)	Estimating EPA Burden and Cost.

	Table 2a: Year 1 Burden and Cost to the EPA—NSPS for Coal preparation
and processing plants, Table 2b: Year 2 Burden and Cost to the
EPA—NSPS for Coal preparation and processing plants, and Table 2c:
and Year 3 Burden and Cost to the EPA—NSPS for Coal preparation and
processing plants document the costs of this NSPS revision to EPA.  The
only costs to EPA are those costs associated with analysis of the
reported information.  Publication and distribution of the information
are part of the AFS program.  Examination of records to be maintained by
the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of
sources, which is part of EPA’s overall compliance and enforcement
program.  Table 2d contains a summary of EPA burden costs and hours
detailed in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c.  The average annual EPA cost during
the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $57,436.

	The EPA labor rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
2009 General Schedule which excludes locality rates of pay.  These rates
can be obtained from Salary Table 2009-GS, available on the OPM website
at   HYPERLINK "http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/html/gs_h.asp"
www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/html/gs_h.asp .  The government employee labor
rates are $16.04 per hour for clerical (GS-07, Step 1), $33.84 for
technical (GS-13, Step 1), and $47.03 for managerial (GS-15, Step 1).
These rates were increased by 60 percent to include fringe benefits and
overhead.  The fully-burdened wage rates used to represent EPA labor
costs are: clerical at $25.66, technical at $54.14, and managerial at
$75.25.

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

	It is estimated that an additional 14 new coal preparation and
processing plants will become subject to the rule amendments in the next
three years.  The total annual number of responses for the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in rule amendments is 315.
This number is calculated by the 22 responses for the 14 new facilities
that would be subject to additional reporting and recordkeeping
requirement under the rule amendments.

	The total annual labor costs are $2,601,624.  Details upon which this
estimate is based appear in Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c.

(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables.

	The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both EPA and the
respondents are attached.  The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 29
hours per response.

(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden.

	The change in burden cost is primarily due to the additional
performance testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs
attributable to the rule amendments.  It is also due to the use of more
current labor rates for calculating the industry and EPA burden.

(g)	Burden Statement.

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 29 hours per response.
 Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for the Federal EPA.  This includes the time needed to
review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.

	EPA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control
Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed at
40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	Send comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing a respondent burden, including the use of automated
collection techniques, to the Directory, Office of Environmental
Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked
“Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.”  Include the EPA ICR tracking
number 1062.12 and OMB Control Number 2060-0122 for this ICR in any
correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This part is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in
data collection associated with the final rule.

Table 1a. Year 1 Respondent Burden and Cost-NSPS for Coal Preparation
and Processing Plants

See Table 1d for assumptions

Table 1b. Year 2 Respondent Burden and Cost-NSPS for Coal Preparation
and Processing Plants

See Table 1d for assumptions

Table 1c. Year 3 Respondent Burden and Cost-NSPS for Coal Preparation
and Processing Plants

See Table 1d for assumptions

Table 1d. Summary of Respondent Burden and Cost-NSPS for Coal
Preparation and Processing Plants

Respondent Burden

 (based on a total of 14 respondents)	Total Annual Labor Burden (Hours)
Total

Annual

Labor Costs	Total Annualized

Capital Costs	Total

Annual

O&M Costs	Total Annualized Costs

Year 1 (see Table 1a)	10,262	$968,103	$224,843	$428,790	$1,621,735

Year 2 (see Table 1b)	8,658	$816,761	$224,843	$361,450	$1,403,053

Year 3 (see Table 1c)	8,658	$816,761	$224,843	$361,450	$1,403,053

Nationwide 3-Year Total	27,578	$2,601,624	$674,528	$1,151,690	$4,427,842

Nationwide 3-Year Average	9,193	$867,208	$224,843	$383,897	$1,475,947

Average per Respondent	657	$61,943	$16,060	$27,421	$105,425

Respondent Assumptions for Burden and Cost Estimates

14	Total number of coal preparation plants constructed first 3 years
after rule applicability date

5	Average number of coal handling affected facilities except coal truck
dump per plant site subject to Subpart Y opacity limit

3	Average number of coal handling affected facilities at plant site
using enclosure and mechanically vented to fabric filter

2	Average number of coal handling affected facilities using fabric
filter subject to BLD requirement

2	Number of plant sites with coal truck dumps subject to Subpart Y
opacity limit

10%	Percent of coal handling affected facilities subject to Subpart Y
opacity limit requiring 90-day repeat Method 9 performance test

50%	Percent of plant owners/operators electing to perform daily
walkthrough visual emission observations for compliance monitoring

50%	Percent of plant owners/operators electing to perform repeat Method
9 opacity testing for compliance monitoring

Table 2a. Year 1 Burden and Cost to the EPA—NSPS for Coal Preparation
and Processing Plants

Assumes 1 Method 5 and 2 Method 9 performance test site visits at $900
each for a total of 3 trips annually. The $900 includes the costs for
airline, car rental, hotel, and per diem for 3 days.

The Federal Employee Labor Rates are from salary table 2009-GS. The
loaded rates used are $33.84 for technical, 47.03 for manager, and 16.04
for clerical.

Table 2b. Year 2 Burden and Cost to the EPA—NSPS for Coal Preparation
and Processing Plants

Assumes 1 Method 5 and 2 Method 9 performance test site visits at $900
each for a total of 3 trips annually. The $900 includes the costs for
airline, car rental, hotel, and per diem for 3 days.

The Federal Employee Labor Rates are from salary table 2009-GS. The
loaded rates used are $33.84 for technical, 47.03 for manager, and 16.04
for clerical.

Table 2c. Year 3 Burden and Cost to the EPA—NSPS for Coal Preparation
and Processing Plants

Assumes 1 Method 5 and 2 Method 9 performance test site visits at $900
each for a total of 3 trips annually. The $900 includes the costs for
airline, car rental, hotel, and per diem for 3 days.

The Federal Employee Labor Rates are from salary table 2009-GS. The
loaded rates used are $33.84 for technical, 47.03 for manager, and 16.04
for clerical.

Table 2d. Summary of Burden and Cost to the EPA—NSPS for Coal
Preparation and Processing Plants

 PAGE

 PAGE   19

 PAGE