[Federal Register: August 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 152)]
[Notices]
[Page 39984-39986]
[DOCID:fr10au09-69]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60424; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-049]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the Selection Specifications and Study
Outline for the Limited Representative--Investment Banking (``Series
79'') Examination Program

August 4, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 28, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt the selection specifications and
content outline for the Limited Representative--Investment Banking
(``Series 79'') Examination program.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Based upon instruction from the Commission staff, FINRA is
submitting SR-FINRA-2009-049 for immediate effectiveness pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, and
is not filing the question bank for Commission review. See Letter
from Belinda Blaine, Associate Director, Division of Market
Regulation, SEC, to Alden S. Adkins, Senior Vice President and
General Counsel, NASD Regulation, dated July 24, 2000. The question
bank is available for Commission review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Series 79 examination program is proposed in connection with
NASD Rule 1032(i), a new limited representative registration category
for persons whose activities are limited to investment banking and
principals who supervise such activities.\5\ FINRA is not proposing any
textual changes to its By-Laws, Schedules to the By-Laws or rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA will announce the effective date of NASD Rules
1022(a)(1)(B) and 1032(i) in the same Regulatory Notice that will
announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change, and
those two dates will be the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A description of the Series 79 examination is included in the
attached content outline.\6\ Additional information on the examination
is included in the Series 79 selection specifications, which FINRA has
submitted under separate cover with a request for confidential
treatment to the Commission's Secretary pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under
the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission notes that the content outline is attached to
the proposed rule change though not to this notice.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    On April 13, 2009, the Commission approved NASD Rule 1032(i), which
establishes a new limited representative category--Limited
Representative-Investment Banking--for persons whose activities are
limited to investment banking and principals who supervise such
persons.\8\ More specifically, the registration category encompasses
those associated persons whose activities involve: (1) Advising on or
facilitating debt or equity securities offerings through a private
placement or a public offering, including but not limited to
origination, underwriting, marketing, structuring, syndication, and
pricing of such securities and managing the allocation and
stabilization activities of such offerings, or (2) advising on or
facilitating mergers and acquisitions, tender offers, financial
restructurings, asset sales, divestitures or other corporate
reorganizations or business combination transactions, including but not
limited to rendering a fairness, solvency or similar opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59757 (April 13,
2009), 74 FR 18268 (April 21, 2009) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2009-006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 15A(g)(3)(B) of the Act,\9\ FINRA is authorized
to prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for
persons associated with FINRA members. The Series 79 examination
program has been developed to ensure that persons associated with FINRA
members seeking to register as investment banking representatives have
attained specified levels of competence and knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the six-month period following the implementation of Rule
1032(i), individuals who are registered as a General Securities
Representative and function in a member's investment banking business
line as described in Rule 1032(i), or act as principals supervising
such persons, may opt in to the Limited Representative-Investment
Banking registration category. After the six-month opt-in period,
individuals who perform the job functions set out in Rule 1032(i) will
be required to pass the Series 79 exam in lieu of the General
Securities Representative (``Series 7'') exam (or equivalent exams),
unless subject to an exception in the Rule. Any person whose activities
go beyond those specified in Rule 1032(i) will be required to
separately qualify and register in the appropriate category or
categories of registration attendant to such activities. The
registration category does not cover individuals whose investment
banking work is limited to public (municipal) finance or direct
participation programs as defined in NASD Rule 1022(e)(2). Moreover,
individuals who are currently registered as a Limited Representative--
Private Securities Offerings may continue to function in such capacity,
so long as their investment banking activities remain limited to
effecting private securities offerings as defined in NASD Rule
1032(h)(1)(A). Similarly, individuals who in the future wish to engage
in investment banking activities limited to effecting such private
securities offerings may opt to register as a Limited Representative--
Private Securities Offerings and pass the corresponding Series 82 exam
in lieu of the Series 79 exam.
    The qualification exam consists of 175 multiple-choice
questions.\10\ Candidates will be allowed 300 minutes to complete the
exam. Candidates will be given an informational breakdown of their
performance on each section, along with their overall score and pass/
fail status at the completion of the exam session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ To ensure that new exam questions meet acceptable testing
standards prior to use, each examination includes 10 additional,
unidentified ``pre-test'' questions that do not contribute towards
the candidate's score. Therefore, the exam actually consists of 185
questions, 175 of which are scored. The 10 pre-test questions are
randomly distributed throughout the examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A content outline has been prepared to assist member firms in
preparing candidates for the Investment Banking Professional
Qualification Examination and is available at http://www.finra.org/
brokerqualifications/registeredrep. The content outline describes the
following four topical sections comprising the examination: (1)
Collection, Analysis and Evaluation of Data (75 questions); (2)
Underwriting/New Financing Transactions, Types of Offerings and
Registration of Securities (43 questions); (3) Mergers and
Acquisitions, Tender Offers and Financial Restructuring Transactions
(34 questions); and (4) General Securities Industry Regulations (23
questions).
    The selection specifications for the Series 79 examination, which
FINRA has submitted under separate cover with a request for
confidential treatment to the Commission's Secretary pursuant to Rule
24b-2 under the Act,\11\ describe additional confidential information
regarding the examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. FINRA will announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be issued within 60 days
of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed Series 79 examination program is
consistent with Section 15A(b)(6),\12\ which requires, among other
things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest and Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act,\13\ which authorize
[sic] FINRA to prescribe standards of training, experience, and
competence for persons associated with FINRA members. FINRA believes
the proposed rule change would provide for a more targeted assessment
of the competency of investment banking personnel to perform their
unique job functions and, as a result, provide investors better
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days 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\14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to 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 Commission notes that FINRA satisfied the five-day
pre-filing notice requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-049 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-049. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2009-049 and should be
submitted on or before August 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19034 Filed 8-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 29189-29190]
[DOCID:fr19my06-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-27318; 812-13291]

Morgan Stanley and Co. Incorporated, et al.; Notice of
Application and Temporary Order

May 15, 2006.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Temporary order and notice of application for a permanent order
under section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'').

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

Summary of Application: Applicants have received a temporary order
exempting them and any other company of which Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated (``MS&Co.'') is or in the future becomes an affiliated
person (``Covered Persons'') from section 9(a) of the Act with respect
to an injunction entered against MS&Co. on May 12, 2006 by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (the ``Injunction''), until
the Commission takes final action on an application for a permanent
order. Applicants also have applied for a permanent order with respect
to the Injunction.

Applicants: MS&Co., Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP, Morgan Stanley Asset &
Investment Trust Management Co., Limited, Morgan Stanley Investment
Advisors Inc., Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company, Morgan
Stanley Investment Management Inc., Morgan Stanley Investment
Management Limited, Van Kampen Advisors Inc., and Van Kampen Asset
Management (together, the ``Advisers''); Morgan Stanley Distribution,
Inc., Morgan Stanley Distributors Inc., and Van Kampen Funds Inc.
(together, the ``Underwriters''); Morgan Stanley Capital Partners III,
Inc., Morgan Stanley Global Emerging Markets, Inc., Morgan Stanley
Private Equity Asia, Inc., Morgan Stanley Venture Capital III, Inc.,
MSDW Capital Partners IV, Inc., MSDW OIP Investors, Inc., MSDW Real
Estate Special Situations II Manager, L.L.C., MSDW Venture Partners IV,
Inc., MSREF II, Inc., MSREF III, Inc., MSREF IV, L.L.C., MSREF V,
L.L.C. and MSVP 2002, Inc. (together, ``ESC Managers'' and, with the
Advisers and Underwriters, the ``Applicants'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 10, 2006. Applicants
have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the
substance of which is reflected in this notice.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on June 9, 2006, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, c/o Barry Fink,
Esq., Morgan Stanley, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor, New
York, NY 10020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Yoder, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-6878, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division
of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Public Reference Desk, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington DC 20549-0102, (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each Applicant is a direct or indirect subsidiary of Morgan
Stanley, a Delaware corporation. Morgan Stanley is a publicly held
global financial services company that, through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, provides investment, financing, advisory, insurance,
banking and related products and services. MS&Co., a Delaware
corporation, is a global financial services firm and is registered as a
broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') and as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940. MS&Co. serves as principal underwriter for, and the other
Applicants serve as investment adviser, subadviser, depositor or
principal underwriter for, numerous registered investment companies
(``Funds''). The ESC Managers serve as the general partner or
investment adviser to certain employees' securities companies operating
pursuant to Commission orders (included in the term ``Funds'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Morgan Stanley Capital Investors, L.P., Investment Company
Act Release Nos. 24340 (Mar. 17, 2000) (notice) and 24389 (Apr. 12,
2000) (order); Morgan Stanley Venture Investors, L.P., Investment
Company Act Release Nos. 20206 (Apr. 8, 1994) (notice) and 20276
(May 4, 1994) (order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. On May 12, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia entered the Injunction against MS&Co. in a matter brought by
the Commission.\2\ The Commission alleged in the complaint
(``Complaint'') that MS&Co. violated section 17(b) of the Exchange Act
and rule 17a-4(j) thereunder of the Exchange Act by failing to produce
e-mails to the Commission staff pursuant to Commission subpoenas and
requests in the Commission's investigation into MS&Co.'s practices in
allocating shares of stock in initial public offerings and an
investigation into conflicts of interest between the firm's research
and investment banking practices. Without admitting or denying any of
the allegations in the Complaint, except as to jurisdiction, MS&Co.
consented to the entry of the Injunction as well as the payment of a
civil penalty of $15 million.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Morgan Stanley &
Co. Incorporated, Final Judgment Against Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated, 06:CV00882 (RCL) (D.D.C., filed May 12, 2006).
    \3\ The civil penalty would be reduced by any amounts up to
$5,000,000 paid by MS&Co. pursuant to its agreements with NASD and
the New York Stock Exchange to pay a total of $5,000,000 in
penalties in related proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits a person
who has been enjoined from engaging in or continuing any conduct or
practice in connection with the purchase or sale of a security from
acting, among other things, as an investment adviser or depositor of
any registered investment company or a principal underwriter for any
registered open-end investment company, registered unit investment
trust or registered face-amount certificate company. Section 9(a)(3) of
the Act makes the prohibition in section 9(a)(2) applicable to a
company, any affiliated person of which has been disqualified under the
provisions of section 9(a)(2). Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines
``affiliated person'' to include any person directly or indirectly
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other
person.

Applicants state that MS&Co. is an affiliated person of each of the
other Applicants within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act.
Applicants state that, as a result of the Injunction, they would be
subject to the prohibitions of section 9(a).
    2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that the Commission shall grant
an application for exemption from the disqualification provisions of
section 9(a) if it is established that these provisions, as applied to
the applicants, are unduly or disproportionately severe or that the
applicants' conduct has been such as not to make it against the public
interest or the protection of investors to grant the application.
Applicants have filed an application pursuant to section 9(c) seeking a
temporary and permanent order exempting them from the disqualification
provisions of section 9(a) of the Act.
    3. Applicants believe they meet the standards for exemption
specified in section 9(c). Applicants state that the prohibitions of
section 9(a) as applied to them would be unduly and disproportionately
severe and that the conduct of Applicants has been such as not to make
it against the public interest or the protection of investors to grant
the exemption from section 9(a).
    4. Applicants state that none of the persons who had any
involvement in the conduct underlying the Injunction are current or
former officers, directors or employees of the Covered Persons engaged
in the provision of investment advisory, underwriting or depositor
services to the Funds. Applicants further state that the alleged
conduct underlying the Injunction did not involve any Funds.
    5. Applicants state that the inability to continue providing
advisory services to the Funds and the inability to continue serving as
principal underwriter or depositor to the Funds would result in
potentially severe hardships for the Funds and their shareholders.
Applicants also state that they will distribute as soon as is
reasonably practical written materials, including an offer to meet in
person to discuss the materials, to the boards of directors or trustees
of the Funds (the ``Boards''), including the directors or trustees who
are not ``interested persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the
Act, of the Funds and their independent legal counsel, as defined in
rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, if any, regarding the Injunction, any
impact on the Funds, and this application.\4\ Applicants will provide
the Boards with all information concerning the Injunction and this
application that is necessary for the Funds to fulfill their disclosure
and other obligations under the federal securities laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ With respect to Funds that are unit investment trusts
(``UITs''), Applicants will provide written notification to the
trustee for each of the UITs concerning the Injunction, any impact
on the UITs, and the application, and will provide any other related
information that may be requested by the trustee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Applicants also assert that, if they were barred from providing
services to the Funds, the effect on their businesses and employees
would be severe. Applicants state that they have committed substantial
resources over more than thirty years to establish an expertise in
advising and underwriting Funds. Applicants recently applied for and
received an exemption pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act for conduct
relating to certain practices in allocating shares of stock in initial
public offerings.\5\ Applicants also applied for an exemption for
conduct relating to certain research analysts' conflicts of
interest.\6\ In addition, Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., the predecessor of
Morgan Stanley DW Inc., previously sought and received an exemption
under section 9(c) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP, Investment Company Act Release
Nos. 26749 (Feb. 4, 2005) (notice and temporary order) and 26779
(Mar. 2, 2005) (permanent order).
    \6\ Morgan Stanley Investment Advisers Inc., Investment Company
Act Release Nos. 26236 (Oct. 31, 2003) (notice and temporary order)
and 26824 (Mar. 29, 2005) (permanent order).
    \7\ Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., Investment Company Act Release
Nos. 17887 (Nov. 29, 1990) (notice and temporary order) and 18119
(Apr. 29, 1991) (permanent order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    Any temporary exemption granted pursuant to the application shall
be without prejudice to, and shall not limit the Commission's rights in
any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation of, or
administrative proceedings involving or against, Covered Persons,
including without limitation, the consideration by the Commission of a
permanent exemption from section 9(a) of the Act requested pursuant to
the application or the revocation or removal of any temporary
exemptions granted under the Act in connection with the application.

Temporary Order

    The Commission has considered the matter and finds that Applicants
have made the necessary showing to justify granting a temporary
exemption.
    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered, pursuant to section 9(c) of the
Act, that Covered Persons are granted a temporary exemption from the
provisions of section 9(a), effective as of the date of the Injunction,
solely with respect to the Injunction, subject to the condition in the
application, until the date the Commission takes final action on an
application for a permanent order.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7646 Filed 5-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 13864]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04456]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2010-0059]

Kansas City Southern Railway Company's Request To Amend Its
Positive Train Control System

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

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on
February 17, 2023, the Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS)
submitted a request for amendment (RFA) to its FRA-certified positive
train control (PTC) system. FRA is publishing this notice and inviting
public comment on the railroad's RFA to its PTC system.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by March 27, 2023. FRA may
consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable
and without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to a PTC system.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this host
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2010-0059. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports. All comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov;
this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, Title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) Section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host
railroad's PTC system complies with Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be
operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-
certified PTC system or the associated FRA-approved PTC Safety Plan
(PTCSP), a host railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an
RFA to its PTC system or PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021.
    Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register and invite public comment in
accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an RFA includes a request for
approval of a material modification of a signal and train control
system. Accordingly, this notice informs the public that, on February
17, 2023, KCS submitted an RFA to its Interoperable Electronic Train
Management System (I-ETMS), and that RFA is available in Docket No.
FRA-2010-0059.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on KCS's RFA by
submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of this
railroad's RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted within
the timeline specified in this notice and to the extent practicable,
without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications
to a PTC system. See 49 CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR 236.1011(e).
Under 49 CFR 236.1021, FRA maintains the authority to approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a railroad's RFA at FRA's sole discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2023-04456 Filed 3-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 52)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14193-14195]
[DOCID:fr17mr08-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 181

[Docket No. USCG-2007-29236]

Hull Identification Numbers for Recreational Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces it is again requesting comments on
the costs and benefits of expanding the existing 12-character Hull
Identification Number (HIN) in order to provide additional information
identifying vessels. The Coast Guard requests public comments on this
issue and on the specific questions in this Notice.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before June 16, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2007-29236 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call Philip Cappel, Office of Boating Safety, Recreational Boating
Product Assurance Division, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material on this
notice. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http:/
/www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation
(DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy
Act'' paragraph below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket

number for this notice (USCG-2007-29236), and give the reason for each
comment. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address
under ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only
one means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission. For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we
are not be able to read your original submission. If you submit them by
mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the
Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period.
    Viewing the comments: To view the comments, go to http://
www.regulations.gov at any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and
enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-2007-29236) in the Docket
ID box, and click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Background and Purpose

    The existing Hull Identification Number (HIN) is a unique 12-
character serial number required on each recreational vessel
manufactured in or imported into the United States for the purposes of
sale. The Coast Guard assigns the first three characters, a
Manufacturer Identification Code (MIC), which identifies the
manufacturer or importer; characters four through eight are a
manufacturer serial number; characters nine and ten indicate date of
certification for vessels subject to safety standards or the date of
manufacture for vessels not subject to standards; and characters eleven
and twelve indicate the model year.
    The proposed expanded HIN would consist of five additional
characters. Four of the additional characters would indicate length,
hull material, principal means of propulsion, and vessel type. The
fifth additional character would be a check digit. The expanded HIN
with its check digit would reflect additional information useful to law
enforcement authorities, marine bankers, marine insurers, boating
accident data analysts, and marine investigators, and also provide a
useful means of identifying vessels in the Vessel Identification System
(VIS). The VIS is only applicable to recreational vessels that are
registered by a State (see 33 CFR 187.3).
    The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is required to
establish the VIS (46 U.S.C. chapters 125, 131 & 313) for use by the
public and law enforcement officials. The Secretary has delegated to
the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, the authority to implement VIS. VIS
will provide a nationwide pool of vessel and vessel owner information
that will help in the identification and recovery of stolen vessels,
deter vessel theft, and will aid in homeland security.

Regulatory History

    We published a Request for Comments in the Federal Register on
November 16, 1998 (63 FR 63638), soliciting comments on: (1) The
expected benefits of an expanded HIN with vessel-specific characters
and a check digit; (2) the manner in which the Coast Guard should
exempt small entities and the builders of high-volume, low-cost
vessels, such as canoes, kayaks, and inflatables; and (3) the estimated
burdens and costs to boat manufacturers if the HIN regulations were
revised to require vessel-specific characters and a check digit. The
comment period closed on February 16, 1999.
    We received 31 comments, only one of which contained any economic
data that could be used to determine the benefits of a requirement for
an expanded HIN containing vessel-specific characters and a check
digit. Only four comments were in favor of allowing exceptions for
small entities and the builders of high-volume, low-cost vessels, such
as canoes, kayaks, and inflatable boats. None of the comments contained
information about the estimated burdens and costs to boat
manufacturers.

Discussion

    States, bankers, insurers, and theft and accident investigators
favor an expanded format. With vessel-specific characters and a check
digit it would deter both vessel theft and the alteration of HIN's for
fraudulent purposes and could allow for more in-depth analysis of
accident data. In addition, there are other people who favor the
existing 12-character HIN format.
    A rulemaking to increase the number of characters in the HIN to
include vessel-specific information could aid in the recovery of stolen
vessels, reduce fraud, improve the accuracy of accident data analysis,
and help in the remote identification of a ``suspect'' vessel. In
addition there may be other benefits associated with expanding the
existing 12-character HIN to include certain vessel-specific
information.
    Investigations of lost and stolen vessels depend, in large part, on
the proper authorities' ability to identify a vessel. The proposed
regulations would aid in this pursuit by expanding the current 12-
character HIN to include detailed information about each vessel.
    In addition, a check digit in the expanded HIN would make
alteration of an HIN more difficult thereby helping to prevent fraud in
the sale of vessels.
    Boating accident statistics are compiled annually by the Coast
Guard from data received from the States and territories through the
Boating Accident Report Database (BARD). These statistics are analyzed
to, among other uses, determine the different causes of accidents and
what course(s) of action, if any, may be taken by the Boating Safety
Program to reduce the number of accidents. The accident analyses,
however, have been hindered by the lack of specific descriptive
information regarding the vessels involved in the accidents and/or the
inaccuracy of the vessel descriptive data provided in the BARD system.
Boating accident reports are submitted by the owner/operator of the
vessel or, in the case of serious accidents, by an investigating
officer. Since the accident information is being provided by thousands
of different individuals the reports may not always be accurate as to
the exact description of the vessel, which leads to inaccuracies in the
analyses of the accident database. A 17-character HIN with the
additional descriptors built into the HIN is expected to improve both
the scope and the accuracy of the data analyses.
    Adding vessel description information to the HIN could also improve
the personal safety of State water patrol officers by enabling them,
prior to boarding a vessel, through the use of computer lookup of the
vessel registration number, to get an accurate description of the
vessel via the HIN

and alert them to approach with caution if the description does not
match the vessel they are planning to board.
    However, the Coast Guard lacks detailed information about the
anticipated costs and benefits of the expanded HIN format. Also, we
still believe that, if an expanded HIN format, consisting of vessel-
specific characters and a check digit, is adopted, the Coast Guard
should be allowed to except manufacturers that are small business
entities, and manufacturers of high-volume, low-cost vessels to
minimize costs and information collection burdens.
    Federal agencies with regulatory programs are subject to
regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act which are enforced
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The intent of the Act is
to ensure that the Federal Government imposes only the minimum burden
on the public in collecting information and requiring the maintenance
of records, and that the information collected or maintained is
necessary and useful. A regulation requiring manufacturers to display
labels, such as HIN's, is an example of a collection of information
requirement.
    The Coast Guard encourages you to comment on: (1) The expected
benefits and costs of an expanded Hull Identification Number with
vessel-specific characters and a check digit; (2) the manner in which
the Coast Guard should except small entities and the builders of high-
volume, low-cost vessels, such as canoes, kayaks, and inflatables; (3)
the estimated collection of information burdens to boat manufacturers
if the current 12-character HIN regulation were revised to require
additional vessel-specific characters and a check digit; and (4)
possible alternatives to an expanded HIN.
    Data is needed to support a decision-making process. Therefore we
particularly need your help in answering any of the following questions
(please provide arguments or data to support each answer):
    1. What are the expected benefits if the HIN on a vessel included
vessel-specific characters (e.g. vessel length, hull material, means of
propulsion, boat type, and check digit)?
    2. What are the estimated numbers of thefts that might be
prevented?
    3. What are the estimated numbers of additional lost or stolen
vessels that might be recovered?
    4. What is the estimated value of insurance company losses that
might be prevented?
    5. What are the estimated numbers of fraud attempts that might be
prevented?
    6. What are the estimated reductions in investigatory expenditures?
    7. What are the expected benefits from improved accident data
analyses?
    8. How long will it take and what will it cost to determine a 17-
character HIN?
    9. How long will it take and what will it cost to affix a 17-
character HIN to the hull of a vessel?
    10. What are the measurable resources such as labor and capital
that you would include in a cost-benefit analysis of a 17-character HIN
implementation?
    11. Should the Coast Guard consider excepting all builders of non-
powered vessels?
    12. Should the Coast Guard consider excepting manufacturers of
boats that sell for less than a certain dollar value?
    13. What alternatives are available that would reduce adverse
impacts on small entities and builders of high-volume, low-cost
vessels?
    14. Should the Coast Guard consider a phase-in period for
compliance with a 17-character HIN regulation? What time frame would be
appropriate?
    15. What are effective alternatives to a 17-character HIN? Examples
could include the following:
    a. Leave the current 12-character HIN as is.
    b. Implement the Vessel Identification System in lieu of
implementing a 17-character HIN.
    c. Develop a regulation requiring uniform State titling/
registration policies.
    d. Develop a regulation requiring a uniform method to affix the HIN
that would reduce the likelihood of tampering.
    e. Increase security around shore and harbor facilities (more
officers, tracking/monitoring devices).
    f. Require other security measures during vessel construction, such
as barcode HINs, radio frequency identification tags, etc.

    Dated: March 7, 2008.
James A. Watson,
Rear Admiral (Lower Half), U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-5326 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 124)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37629-37632]
[DOCID:fr28jn11-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0126; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-03-AD;
Amendment 39-16726; AD 2011-13-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives: Lycoming Engines (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Textron Lycoming) and Teledyne Continental Motors
(TCM) Turbocharged Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD requires inspecting certain Lycoming and
TCM reciprocating engines with certain Hartzell Engine Technologies,
LLC (HET) turbochargers installed, and disassembly and cleaning of the
turbocharger center housing and rotating assembly (CHRA) cavities of
affected turbochargers. This AD was prompted by a turbocharger failure
due to machining debris left in the cavities of the CHRA during
manufacture. We are issuing this AD to prevent seizure of the
turbocharger turbine, which could result in damage to the engine, and
smoke in the airplane cabin.

DATES: This AD is effective July 13, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 13,
2011.
    We must receive comments on this AD by August 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-

30, 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.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Hartzell
Engine Technologies, LLC, 2900 Selma Highway, Montgomery, AL 36108,
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The 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: Gary Wechsler, Aerospace Engineer,
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College
Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    HET recently informed us of a failure of one of their turbochargers
installed on a TCM TSIO-550-K model reciprocating engine. HET
identified the cause of the failure as machining debris left in the
CHRA. HET also informed us that the debris was a by-product of
manufacture that had not been removed. This debris, if present, could
result in seizure of the turbocharger turbine, which could result in
damage to the engine, and smoke in the airplane cabin.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Hartzell Engine Technologies, LLC Service Bulletin (SB)
No. 040, Revision A, dated December 22, 2010. The SB describes
procedures for identifying affected turbochargers, and performing a
one-time disassembly, CHRA cleaning, and reassembly.

FAA's Determination

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

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the cleaning specified in the
service information described previously.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
airplanes with no more than 50 hours time-in-service on new or
overhauled affected turbochargers are at risk of the unsafe condition
described in this AD. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity
for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists
for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2011-0126 and
Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-03-AD at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that about 2,761 turbochargers are installed on
Lycoming and TCM engines, installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate it will take about 1 work-hour to inspect each
turbocharger and that 264 turbochargers will fail inspection and
require corrective action. Each corrective action will require 3 work-
hours. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. No additional parts
are required. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on
U.S. operators to be $391,765. Our cost estimate is exclusive of
possible warranty coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2011-13-03 Lycoming Engines (Type certificate previously held by
Textron Lycoming) and Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) Turbocharged
Reciprocating Engines: Amendment 39-16726; Docket No. FAA-2011-0126;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-03-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective July 13, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the Lycoming Engines and TCM turbocharged
reciprocating engines listed in, but not limited to, Table 1 of this
AD, with the following Hartzell Engine Technologies, LLC (HET)
turbocharger models TA3601, TAO401, TAO402, TAO411, TAO413, T1879,
T18A21, T18A44, THO867, and TEO659, installed:
    (1) Newly manufactured turbochargers (otherwise known as the -
0000 series) before serial number H-NJL00003, or rebuilt (otherwise
known as the -9000 series) before serial number H-NJR00002; and
    (2) With less than 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) on the
effective date of this AD; and
    (3) With a part number listed in Table 2 or Table 3 of this AD;
and
    (4) With a ``slanted A'' foundry mark located on the center
housing and rotating assembly (CHRA).

                        Table 1--Engines Affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSIO-520-BE.
TSIO-360-MB, SB.
TIO-540-AK1A.
L/TSIO-360-RB.
TIO-540-AE2A.
TSIO-360-H.
O-540-L3C5D.
TSIO-520-T.
L/TO-360-E1A6D.
TIO-540-AG1A.
TIO-540-AF1A.
TIO-540-AF1B.
TIO-540-AH1A.
TIO-541-E1D4.
TIO-541-E1C4.
TIGO-541-E.
GTSIO-520-F.
GTSIO-520-K.
GTSIO-520-D.
GTSIO-520-H.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Table 2--KAES Turbocharger Part Numbers Affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER>
<PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER>
<PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER>
<PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER>
<PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER>                N/A                N/A                N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Table 3--Original Equipment Turbocharger Part Numbers Affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       637374-1           633274-4           635034-2           642518-4             646677           649151-1
       649151-2                 46C19836           46C19839           46C22924             C295001-0301       C295001-0304
       LW-10191           LW-13310           LW-16254                N/A                N/A                N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) This AD does not require action for:
    (1) Turbochargers with more than 50 hours TIS on the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) Turbochargers with a circled ``JT'' foundry mark on the
CHRA.
    (e) This AD does not apply to engines with new or overhauled
turbochargers installed on or before September 2001.

Unsafe Condition

    (f) This AD was prompted by a turbocharger failure due to
machining debris that was not cleaned from the cavities of the
center housing and rotating assembly (CHRA), during manufacture. We
are issuing this AD to prevent seizure of the turbocharger turbine,
which could result in damage to the engine, and smoke in the
airplane cabin.

Compliance

    (g) Unless already done, disassemble, clean, and reassemble the
turbochargers affected by this AD as follows:

Turbochargers With Between 0 and 10 Hours TIS

    (1) For affected turbochargers including overhauls, with between
0 and 10 hours TIS on the effective date of this AD, before further
flight, disassemble the turbocharger, clean the CHRA center housing
cavity, and reassemble the turbocharger.

Turbochargers With More Than 10 Hours TIS But Less Than 50 Hours TIS

    (2) For affected turbochargers including overhauls, with more
than 10 hours TIS but less than 50 hours TIS on the effective date
of this AD, within the next 10 hours TIS, disassemble the
turbocharger, clean the CHRA center housing cavity, and reassemble
the turbocharger.
    (3) Use paragraphs 1 through 10 of the CLEANING CHRA CENTER
HOUSING section of Hartzell Engine Technologies, LLC SB No. 040,
Revision A, dated December 22, 2010, to do the cleaning.
    (4) The reference to Step 16 in paragraph 10 of the CLEANING
CHRA CENTER HOUSING section of Hartzell Engine Technologies, LLC SB
No. 040, Revision A, dated December 22, 2010, is incorrect. The
correct reference is Step 9.

Turbochargers With More Than 50 Hours TIS

    (h) For turbochargers with more than 50 hours TIS on the
effective date of this AD, no further action is required.

Special Flight Permits

    (i) Special flight permits are restricted to day Visual
Meteorological Conditions flight only.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (k) For more information about this AD, contact Gary Wechsler,
Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
404-474-5606; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Hartzell Engine Technologies, LLC Service
Bulletin No. 040, Revision A, dated December 22, 2010, to clean the
turbocharger.
    (m) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (n) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hartzell Engine Technologies, LLC, 2900 Selma Highway, Montgomery,
AL 36108, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (o) You may review copies of the service information that is
incorporated by at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on

the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 14, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-16087 Filed 6-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 19355]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TS11-2-000]

City Utility Commission of the City of Owensboro, Kentucky;
Notice of Request for Waiver or Exemption

    Take notice that on March 18, 2011, The City Utility Commission of
the City of Owensboro, Kentucky, filed a petition for waiver or
exemption of any reciprocity-based standards of conduct or open access
same-time information system (OASIS) requirements under Order No. 888,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036 (1996), Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,241 (2007), or Order No. 717, 125 FERC ] 61,064 (2008).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 18, 2011.

    Dated: March 31, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8245 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7451-7452]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02631]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1246-010; ER10-1253-010; ER14-1927-002; ER14-
1776-004; ER14-1548-003; ER13-764-011; ER12-2499-011; ER12-2498-011;
ER12-1566-005; ER11-3987-006; ER10-1982-011; ER10-1252-010; ER10-1253-
010.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc., Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc., Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.,
Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc., CED White River Solar, LLC, CED
White River Solar 2, LLC, Alpaugh 50, LLC, Alpaugh North, LLC, Broken
Bow Wind II, LLC, Copper Mountain Solar 2, LLC, Copper Mountain Solar
3, LLC, Mesquite Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Notice of change status of the Consolidated Edison,
Inc. subsidiaries.
    Filed Date: 1/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150129-5337.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2701-003.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): Transmission Owner and
ETC Rate Case (TO14-ETC) Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5237.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-933-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
01-30_Schedule 31 Annual Update to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-934-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate
Schedule No. 217 Exhibit B.EGL Revision No. 4 to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-935-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): CCSF
IA--48th Quarterly Filing of Facilities Agreements to be effective 12/
31/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-936-000.
    Applicants: Benson Power, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 MBR Tariff to be
effective 3/3/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-937-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
February 2015 Membership Filing to be effective 1/1/201.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-938-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2956
American Electric Power NITSA and NOA to be effective 1/1/2015 under
ER15-938 Filing Type: 10.

    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5232.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-939-000.
    Applicants: Western Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Amendment 2 HG&E Asset Demarcation Agreement to be effective 1/5/2015
under ER15-939 Filing Type: 10.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5233.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-940-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
1065R3 Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas NITSA and NOA to be
effective 1/1/2015 under ER15-940 Filing Type: 10.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5245.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-941-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Virginia Electric and
Power Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Virginia Electric and Power Co. submits Service Agreement No. 4084--
WDSA to be effective 12/31/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5256.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-942-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
1066R6 Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be
effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5258.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-943-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
01-30_SA 6502 Illinois Power-Edwards SSR 2015 Renewal to be effective
1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5259.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-944-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
1067R3 East Texas Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 1/
1/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5263.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-945-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Stuntz,
Davis & Staffier, P.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
01-30_ITC Midwest Adder Filing to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5273.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-946-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
01-30_Schedule 43C Edwards SSR Renewal to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5274.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA14-4-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf
Power Company, Mississippi Power Company and Southern Power Company.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Southern
Companies.
    Filed Date: 1/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150130-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 30, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02631 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


       Coke Ovens NESHAP Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Proposed Rules
Summary of EPA's July 2023 Draft Proposed Rule for Coke Ovens Undergoing OMB and Interagency Review
Briefing for OMB, Executive Office of the President, and the National Economic Council

PURPOSE OF ACTION  -  in This action the epa is:
    Proposing amendments based on the technology review mandated by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(d)(6) for two source categories: (1) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS, subpart CCCCC); and (2) NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries (COB, subpart L);
    Proposing results of mandated risk review pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for one source category: Coke Ovens: PQBS (subpart CCCCC), and;
    Proposing new emissions standards pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for several unregulated hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or processes as mandated by the recent LEAN v. EPA court decision.

BACKGROUND
    A coke oven facility manufactures metallurgical coke from coal in coke ovens.
    Coke ovens are connected in groups of 100 or more to form coke oven "batteries."
    There are two types of facilities: by-product recovery (ByP) and heat and nonrecovery (HNR), based on whether chemicals are recovered from the coke oven process exhaust.
    The Coke PQBS NESHAP, subpart CCCCC (promulgated in 2003) includes particulate matter (PM) emission limits and opacity limits for pushing coke out of ovens, opacity limits for battery stacks, and a work practice standard to limit HAP emissions for quenching. PM limits and opacity limits are surrogates for PM metal HAP.
    The Coke Oven Battery (COB) NESHAP, subpart L (promulgated in 1993) includes: PM emissions limits for charging  and limits for leaks of coke oven emissions (COE), which is a listed HAP, from coke oven doors, lids, and offtakes.
    There are 14 coke oven facilities in the U.S., located in eight states.
        Nine facilities are ByP (three are idle), and five are HNR facilities. Four HNR facilities process coke oven gas (COG) in on-site heat recovery steam generators (HRSG). The other HNR facility does not use heat recovery.

data collection and STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
    In 2016, EPA sent a CAA section 114 request to 11 facilities to obtain test data and other information for subpart 5C sources (e.g., pushing, quenching) and subpart L sources (e.g., door leaks).
        HAP from subpart CCCCC (5C) sources include acid gases (HCl, HF), metals, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and PAHs.
        For subpart L, we obtained data on visible emissions (VE) from lids, doors, offtakes and developed estimates of COE, which is main HAP from subpart L.
    In June 2022, EPA sent another CAA section 114 request to obtain: (1) additional data for subparts 5C and L; (2) data for co-located chemical ByP recovery plants (CBRPs); (3) fenceline and fugitive monitoring for 6 months; and (4) a requirement to redo a 1981 door leak study at two facilities.
       We intend to address the CBRPs under CAA section 112 in a separate action in the next few years.
    We met with industry representatives (i.e., Coke Oven Environmental Task Force and companies) numerous times to discuss development of the section 114 request (including test methods, which HAP to test, timing, etc.).
    Also met with environmental groups (i.e., Earthjustice, Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, Greater Birmingham Alliance to Stop Pollution, and Ohio Citizens).
    Shared a summary of the draft 2022 section 114 request with both the industry and environmental groups and we solicited and received comments, input, and suggestions from them.
    Considered all comments as we developed the final section 114 request that we sent to industry in June 2022.
    Received all requested data, including fenceline monitoring data from five facilities.
    We had follow-up communications in 2023 with the stakeholders and provided access to all test reports and other data.

OVERVIEW OF THE COKE OVEN PROPOSED RULES
 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
     Technologies for controlling HAP from subpart 5C sources include baghouses or scrubbers for pushing, and baffles for quenching. HRSG main stacks have flue-gas desulfurization units, which include baghouses.
     WE did not identify cost-effective options to reduce actual emissions from currently regulated subpart 5C sources. However, we are asking for comment on whether a 1-hr opacity standard would be beneficial to control battery stack emissions further than the current 24-hr standard of 15% opacity.
     Regarding subpart L, work practices effectively minimize leaks from coke oven doors, lids, and offtakes.
     We have not identified cost-effective options to reduce actual HAP emissions further from subpart L sources; however, we are proposing three actions that reflect technology developments, as described below.

    Regulatory Approach for COB Coke Oven Doors under the Technology Review:
     Current emissions limit for doors is 4% leaking doors for tall doors (more than 20 feet) and 3.3% for "not-tall" doors (less than 20 feet), as visible from the yard (based on Method 303 for VE).
     ALL facilities are below the limits, with most facilities operating well below limits, so we are proposing to lower the limits to reflect current performance for two subcategories: (1) 1.5% for tall doors and 1% for "not tall" doors that only applies to ByP facilities with production capacity >3M tpy coke; and (2) 3% for all other ByP facilities.
     The 1.5%/1% limits would only apply to the Clairton (PA) facility, which is by far the largest facility. Based on available data, Clairton can meet these limits without additional control costs.
     The other COB facilities can meet the 3% limit without additional controls.
     There would be no costs impacts and no reduction of actual emissions but would reduce allowable emissions.

    Regulatory Approach for COB Leaks from Lids & Offtakes under Technology Review:
     Reported leaks at all facilities are 35% or lower of current limits, which are 0.4% for lids, 2.5% for offtakes.
     We are proposing revised limits for offtakes and lids that are 50% of the current limits to reflect improved performance of all facilities (lids 0.2%; offtakes 1.2%).
     All facilities can meet the revised limits with no additional costs. Reduces allowable emissions.

    Regulatory Approach for Fenceline Monitoring under Technology Review for COB:
     We are proposing a fenceline monitoring requirement (for benzene, as a surrogate for COE), with no subcategories, and an action level of 3 ug/m[3], which is the highest modeled annual fenceline concentration.
     Facilities would be required to perform continuous fenceline monitoring for benzene using Methods 325A&B.
     If any 12-month rolling average exceeds the action level, the facility would need to do root cause analyses and corrective actions to lower the fenceline measurements below the action level within 80 days.
     Total costs for monitoring are estimated as: $116,000 per year per facility; $1.3M annually for the industry.
     This approach is very similar to the fenceline monitoring requirements in Petroleum Refineries NESHAP, and in the recent proposed rule for Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (commonly known as the HON).
     Fenceline concentrations (6-month averages for 4 facilities and 3-month average for 1 facility) measured as part of CAA section 114 testing ranged from 0.1 to 30 ug/m[3] for benzene (more details in Appendix A).

d.    Regulatory Approach to Address LEAN Gaps (unregulated HAP) under Technology Review

Table 1. Regulatory Gaps Addressed under Technology Review for Coke PQBS

                                Emission Source
                                Unregulated HAP
                              No. MACT Standards
1
Pushing (ByP and HNR)
AG, HCN, Hg, PAH
                                       4
2
ByP Battery Stack (ByP)
AG, HCN, Hg, PM metals
                                       4
3
HNR HRSG MAIN Stack
AG, Hg, PM metals, PAH
                                       4
4
HNR HRSG Bypass/Waste Heat Stacks
AG, formaldehyde, PAH, Hg, PM metals
                                       5

Total Number of MACT Standards
                                      17

Note: AG = acid gases,; Hg = mercury; PM metals include lead, arsenic, chromium, and other non-Hg metals.

    We calculated MACT Floor limits for the 17 HAP. We expect all sources can meet the MACT Floor limits. The only costs would be testing. We also evaluated beyond-the-floor (BTF) options for all 17 unregulated HAP.
    For 15 of the 17 HAP, we did not identify any potential cost-effective BTF options; therefore, we are proposing MACT Floor limits for these 15 unregulated HAP.
    The two exceptions are for HAP metals (Hg and PM metals) from bypass/waste heat (B/W) stacks, discussed below.

 HRSG Bypass/Waste Heat (B/W) Stacks:
    Emissions from B/W stacks are the exhaust after combustion in the coke ovens.
    Four of five HNR facilities have "bypass" stacks, which are only used when HRSG are bypassed for maintenance. One facility (Vansant) without HRSG only has waste stacks and emits PM and HAP continuously.
    Permits limit the number of hours per year that PM and HAP can be emitted from bypass stacks.
    Emissions of organic HAP are very low. However, there are no controls for HAP metals or acid gases (HCl and HF).
    As shown in following table, the biggest difference across 5 facilities is their permitted use of B/W stacks.

Table 2.  Estimated HAP Emissions from B/W Stacks, in tons per year (tpy) or pounds per year (lbs/yr)
                               SunCoke Facility
           Max Hours Per Year B/W Stack Can Be Used Based on Permits
                                Total HAP (tpy)
                                   HCl (tpy)
                                   HF (tpy)
                                   HCN (tpy)
                                      Hg
                                   (lbs/yr)
                              Non-Hg Metals (tpy)
                              Formalde-hyde (tpy)
                              All Other HAP (tpy)
EastChicago-IN
                                     1,139
                                      280
                                      271
                                      7.3
                                     0.22
                                      46
                                      1.2
                                     0.83
                                    < 1
Franklin-OH
                                      192
                                      34
                                      33
                                     0.96
                                     0.023
                                      5.3
                                     0.12
                                     0.17
                                    < 1
GraniteCity-IL
                                      312
                                      24
                                      24
                                     0.57
                                     0.022
                                      4.4
                                     0.12
                                    0.0017
                                    < 1
Middletown-OH
                                      312
                                      24
                                      23
                                     0.63
                                     0.018
                                      4.0
                                     0.10
                                     0.071
                                    < 1
Vansant-VA
                                     8,760
                                      964
                                      931
                                      25
                                     0.74
                                      160
                                      4.0
                                      2.9
                                     0.20
Total
                                      NA
                                     1,326
                                     1,281
                                      35
                                      1.0
                                      220
                                      5.6
                                      3.9
                                     0.27

 B/W Stacks Non-Hg metals (PM metals) and Hg:
    Non-Hg metals from B/W stacks consist mainly of lead (58%) and arsenic (18%). The Vansant facility accounts for about 70% of total non-Hg metals (4 of 5.6 tpy) from HNR facilities, as shown in the table above.
    We are proposing BTF limits for Hg and non-Hg metals (PM HAP metals) from HNR waste stacks at facilities that do not have HRSG units.
    Costs and emission reductions for the BTF limits are shown in Table 3:

Table 3. Estimated Control Costs and Emissions Reductions with BTF Limits for PM metals and Hg from Waste Stacks
                                  BTF Limits
                                   Controls
                                 Capital Costs
                                Annualized Cost
                                  Reductions
                              Cost Effectiveness
Apply to HNR facilities without HRSG (1 facility, Vansant)
Baghouse (BH) for non-Hg metals, & activated carbon injection (ACI) for Hg
                      $7.2M [BH+ductwork]
$314,000 [ACI]
                                 Total = $7.5M
                              $3.0M [BH+ductwork]
                                  $1.6M [ACI]
                                 Total = $4.7M
                                    4 tpy
                                   PM metals
                                 144 lb/yr Hg
$756K/ton non-Hg metals,
$11K/lb Hg, ACI
$1.1M/ton for all metals,

 Risk Review

Table 4. Summary of Estimated Baseline Inhalation Risks and Post-Control Inhalation Risks
                                    Source
                            Inhalation Cancer Risk
                            Population Cancer Risk
                          Max Chronic Noncancer Risk
                                    Acute

                               MIR in 1 million
                                  Risk Driver
                                    Cases
                                    per yr
                             >= 1-in-100 million
                              >= 1-in-1 million
                               Hazard Index (HI)
                                  Risk Driver
                                    Max HQ
Actual Emissions (Baseline)
Subpart 5C Category
                                     9[a]
                                 Arsenic (As)
                                     0.02
                                       0
                                     2,900
                                      0.1
                                      As
                                      0.6
Whole Facility
                                     50[b]
                                      COE
                                      0.2
                                       0
                                     2.7M
                                      2b
                                      HCN
                                      0.6
Actual Emissions (Post-Control)
Subpart 5C Category
                                     2[a]
                                 Arsenic (As)
                                    0.02[c]
                                       0
                                      390
                                      0.1
                                      As
                                      0.3
Whole Facility
                                     50[b]
                                      COE
                                      0.2
                                       0
                                     2.7M
                                       2
                                     HCN
                                     0.6
Allowable Emissions (Baseline)
Subpart 5C Category
                                      10
                                      As
                                     0.05
                                       0
                                    440,000
                                      0.2
                                      As
                                      ---
[a] The subpart 5C Maximum Individual Risk (MIR) is driven by arsenic emissions from the HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks at the Vansant facility.
[b] Whole facility MIR driven by COE from door leaks at Clairton. 2[nd] highest risk facility is Tarrant-AL, with MIR of 20-in-1 million based on actuals, also driven by COE. Whole facility HI is 2 at Clairton, driven by HCN from co-located CBRP.
[c] The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposures is 0.02 excess cancer case per year (or 1 case every 50 years) and stays approximately the same due to emission reductions as a result of this proposed action.

    Multipathway risks:  Tier 2 screening analysis indicates multipathway risks are not significant.
    The BTF MACT limit for B/W stacks (described above) will reduce MIR from 9-in-1 million to about 2-in-1.
    We have not identified other options to further reduce risks from subpart 5C sources.
    Therefore, we are proposing that risks are acceptable, and the NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety.

Table 5. Estimated Costs and Emissions Reductions of All the Proposed Requirements
Proposed Amendments
Total Capital Cost
Total Annualized Costs
Emission Reductions (TPY)
Compliance Testing for the new limits
                                       0
                                     $3.2M
BTF Limit For HNR Waste Stacks
                                     $7.5M
                                     $4.7M
Metal HAP: 4.1; PM2.5: 11
Fenceline Monitoring (11 facilities)
                                       0
                                     $1.3M
TOTAL
                                     $7.5M
                                     $9.1M
Metal HAP: 4.1; PM2.5: 11
INTERSECTION OF COKE OVENS NESHAPS WITH OTHER NESHAPS
    We identified two NESHAP that have some "intersection" (relationship) with the Coke Ovens RTR:  Taconite Iron Ore Processing 2023 proposed rule; and Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing (II&S) 2023 proposed rule.
    The main intersection is related to Parent Company ownership.
    Cleveland-Cliffs owns 5 taconite facilities, 5 II&S facilities, and 5 coke facilities (of which 1 is idle and 1 is closing).
    The idle Cleveland-Cliffs coke facility (in Middletown, OH) is co-located with its II&S facility.
    One of Cleveland-Cliffs' operating facilities (Burns Harbor, IN) has both a coke oven and II&S facility.
    The Cleveland-Cliffs taconite facilities are not co-located with any other of their facilities.
    US Steel owns two taconite facilities, three II&S facilities, and one coke facility. None are co-located.
    We did not identify any significant risks due to co-location, as indicated by the whole facility risk assessment described above.
    The cost and economic impacts are summarized in the following table.

Table 6. Summary of Estimated Costs of Taconite/Iron & Steel/Coke 2023 Proposed Rules by Firm
                                    Company
                              2023 Proposed Rule
                   Total Capital Investment (million 2022$)
                     Total Annualized Cost (million 2022$)
                               Cleveland-Cliffs
                                   Taconite
                                     $76
                                     $44

                           Integrated Iron and Steel
                                     $3.4
                                     $2.9

                                  Coke Ovens
                                       -
                                   $1.1[a]

                                     Total
                                     $79
                                     $48
                                   US Steel
                                   Taconite
                                     $15
                                     $10

                           Integrated Iron and Steel
                                     $2.8
                                     $2.1

                                  Coke Ovens
                                       -
                                    $0.46

                                     Total
                                     $18
                                     $13
[a] Includes potential costs for 2 idled or closed facilities.

    Annualized cost-to-sales ratios across all three rules using 2021 revenue:
        Cleveland-Cliffs: 0.22%
        US Steel: 0.06%
    ESTIMATED rule costs are low relative to facility sizes, so it is not expected that any particular facility would close due to any of the three rulemakings.

ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE
Milestones
                                     Dates
Administrator's Signature of Proposed Rule
Summer 2023
Administrator's Signature of Final Rule (Court Ordered Deadline)
May 23, 2024

                                  APPENDIX A
   Fenceline monitoring results from the 2022 section 114 request measurements:
 We obtained fugitive fenceline and interior sampling measurements using EPA Methods 325A&B, and EPA TO-13A and 15A from 5 coke oven facilities (4 ByP and 1 HNR) for six months (three months for the HNR facility).
 The table below shows results for benzene, which comprises approximately 70% of the total measured HAP; and naphthalene, a higher toxicity HAP. We believe benzene is a good surrogate for COE.
 Overall average concentrations (ug/m[3]) per facility and method were calculated by taking difference between the highest and lowest concentration for each pollutant and method and taking the average across all sampling periods.
 As shown in the table, fenceline concentrations ranged from 1 to 33 ug/m[3] for benzene at ByP facilities and was 0.1 to 0.2 ug/m[3] for one HNR facility. Highest modeling value for benzene at the fenceline at any facility was 3 ug/m[3]. In most cases, naphthalene was much lower than benzene.

Table A-1. Coke Ovens Fugitive Monitoring Results At Fenceline (Fenceline Concentration, ug/m3 ) [a][,][b]
                                    Method
                             Coke Oven Facilities

                                      ABC
                                 (ByP facility)
                                 Burns Harbor
                                (ByP facility)
                                    DTE/EES
                                 (ByP facility)
                                 USS Clairton
                                (ByP facility)
                               SunCoke-Haverhill
                                (HNR facility)

                                 Naph-thalene
                                    Benzene
                                 Naph-thalene
                                    Benzene
                                 Naph-thalene
                                    Benzene
                                 Naph-thalene
                                    Benzene
                                 Naph-thalene
                                    Benzene
325A&B

                                      16

                                       3

                                       3

                                      33

                                      0.1
TO-15A
                                       1
                                       8
                                      1.1
                                       1
                                      0.4
                                       1
                                       9
                                      35
                                    0.00
                                      0.2
TO-13A
                                       1

                                      0.4

                                      0.6

                                      12

                                     0.01

[a] Difference the between measured value and background concentration ("delta C").
[b] 6 months of data, except for SunCoke-Haverhill, which is 3 months.

Table A-2. List of Coke Oven Facilities

                                    Company
                                     City
                                     State
                                    Status
Bluestone Coke
Birmingham
                                      AL
idle
Cleveland Cliffs
Burns Harbor
                                      IN
operating
Cleveland Cliffs
Follansbee
                                      WV
closed
Cleveland Cliffs
Middletown
                                      OH
idle
Cleveland Cliffs
Monessen
                                      PA
operating
Cleveland Cliffs
Warren
                                      OH
operating
Drummond Co. (ABC ByP facility)
Tarrant
                                      AL
operating
DTE Energy
Detroit/River Rouge
                                      MI
operating
Suncoke Energy
East Chicago
                                      IN
operating
Suncoke Energy (Haverhill facility)
Franklin Furnace
                                      OH
operating
Suncoke Energy
Granite City
                                      IL
operating
Suncoke Energy
Middletown
                                      OH
operating
Suncoke Energy
Vansant
                                      VA
operating
U.S. Steel Corp.
Clairton
                                      PA
operating