[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 167 (Thursday, August 27, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52919-52920]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18886]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0536]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Atlantic Ocean, Cape Canaveral, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within defined points during the launch of SpaceX
Falcon 9 SAOCOM1B mission. The safety zone is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
created by space vehicles being launched in a direction resulting in a
polar orbit trajectory. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville.

DATES: This rule is from 4:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on August 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0536 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Emily Sysko, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the SpaceX Falcon 9 SAOCOM1B mission
was originially scheduled and approved only 20 days before the safety
zone would have been in effect on March 30, 2020. Then, the launch was
cancelled completely on March 26, 2020, with no potential launch date.
Then, on June 25, 2020, Captain of the Port Sector Jacksonville was
notified that the launch was back on the schedule with a tentative
launch date of July 25, 2020 but was subsequently cancelled. On August
19, 2020 Captain of the Port Jacksonville was notified that the launch
was approved for August, 27, 2020. It is impracticable to publish an
NPRM because to be effective the safety zone must be established by
July 25, 2020.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because of safety concerns that should
be mitigated by using a safety zone during space vehicle launches.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Jacksonville (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with a space vehicle launch, on August 27,
2020, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 240 square nautical
mile (nm) area seaward of Cape Canaveral, FL. This rule is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
waters within the safety zone during launch.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 4:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m.
on August 27, 2020. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
within a 240 square nm area in the path of the SpaceX Falcon 9 SAOCOM1B
launch. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment in the surrounding navigable waters
while the launch occurs. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter
the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the limited
duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely
transit around this safety zone which would impact the offshore area
around Cape Canaveral for less than 6 hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard
would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16
about the zone and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to
enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the

person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting only six hours that will prohibit entry of a 240
square nm area for the launch of the SpaceX Falcon 9 SAOCOM1B mission.
The REC for the originally planned launch will be used as the substance
of the determination has not changed, only the date of launch. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0536 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0536  Safety Zone; Atlantic Ocean, Cape Canaveral, FL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Atlantic Ocean, from surface to bottom, encompassed by a line
connecting the following points beginning at Point 1: 28[deg]36'30.95''
N 80[deg]35'38.67'' W, thence to Point 2: 28[deg]37'59.99'' N
80[deg]23'00.00'' W, thence to Point 3: 28[deg]27'32.62'' N
80[deg]17'51.71'' W, thence to Point 4: 28[deg]21'06.81'' N
80[deg]22'39.89'' W, thence to Point 5: 28[deg]10'00.58'' N
80[deg]21'39.38'' W, thence to Point 6: 28[deg]10'00.00'' N
80[deg]24'00.00'' W, thence to Point 7: 28[deg]25'50.40'' N
80[deg]34'14.81'' W, and following along the shoreline back to the
beginning point. These coordinates are based on WGS 84.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel, and
U.S. Air Force range safety personnel, and a Federal, State, and local
officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Jacksonville
(COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, transit through, anchor in or
remain within the safety zone contact the COTP Jacksonville by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM
radio on channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply with all
lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's
designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 4:00
p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on August 27, 2020.

    Dated: August 21, 2020.
M.R. Vlaun,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. 2020-18886 Filed 8-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44408-44409]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16136]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

GPS Adjacent Band Compatibility Assessment Testing

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology,
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation, through the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), is providing
notice to the public that it will conduct additional testing of Global
Positioning System/Global Navigation Satellite System (``GPS/GNSS'')
receivers this July as part of the DOT Adjacent Band Compatibility
Study (``the Study''). The goal of the Study is to evaluate the
adjacent radio frequency band power levels that can be tolerated by
GPS/GNSS receivers, and advance the Department's understanding of the
extent to which such power levels impact devices used for
transportation safety purposes, among other GPS/GNSS applications. In
April 2016, radiated testing of GNSS devices took place in an anechoic
chamber at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory at the White Sands Missile
Range (WSMR) facility in New Mexico.
    The Study provides for testing categories of receivers that include
aviation (non-certified), cellular, general location/navigation, high
precision and networks, timing, and space-based receivers.
Approximately twelve receivers, representing each of these receiver
categories, will be selected for additional testing from those
receivers tested in April.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Mackey at the DOT/OST-R Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
617-494-2753.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department obtained input from broad
public outreach over the past year that included four public meetings
with stakeholders on September 18 and December 4, 2014, and March 12
and October 2, 2015, public issuance of a draft test plan on September
9, 2015 (see 80 FR 54368), and comments received regarding the test
plan. The final test plan was published March 9, 2016 (see 81 FR 12564)
and requested voluntary

participation in this Study by any interested GPS/GNSS device
manufacturers or other parties whose products incorporate GPS/GNSS
devices.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a
Privacy Act system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Discussion at the DOT public meetings highlighted the importance of
conducting GPS/GNSS receiver acquisition testing which had always been
planned as part of the DOT GPS Adjacent Band Compatibility Assessment,
but was not feasible due to time constraints during the radiated test
conducted at WSMR in April. The goal of the additional lab testing to
be conducted at Zeta Associates in Fairfax, Virginia and MITRE
Corporation in Bedford, Massachusetts, is:
    (1) Receiver characterization for comparison with results obtained
in April at the anechoic chamber at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory;
    (2) Evaluation of Out Of Band Emission (OOBE) interference at
prescribed and proposed levels with Long Term Evolution (LTE) uplink
and downlink signals;
    (3) GPS/GNSS signal acquisition characterization.
    The same instrumentation will be used for these conducted tests at
the Zeta Associates laboratory as for the radiated test at the U.S.
Army Research Laboratory at WSMR, utilizing the same GNSS playback
system and interference generation equipment with modifications to
support OOBE and acquisition test requirements;
    (4) Antenna characterizations.
    The acquisition test will be conducted using 10 MHz LTE signals at
four frequencies:

 Base station frequencies of 1525 MHz and 1550 MHz
 Hand-set frequencies of 1620 MHz and 1645 MHz

    Information referenced in this Notice and further background can be
viewed at: http://www.gps.gov/spectrum/ABC/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2016.
Gregory D. Winfree,
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2016-16136 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. With cigarettes and chewing tobacco you risk throwing your health away completely, I feel like most of the ingredients in those products should be taken out if the "FDA" is actually trying to save the lives of American Citizens, I know for a fact that I'm a lot healthier now with vaping than I ever was when I chewed and smoked. So that is my story that I provided you with, I would also like to provide science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69111-69113]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28314]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3969; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-010-AD;
Amendment 39-18318; AD 2015-23-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta
S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB412 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting
the filters installed on the pressure lines of utility hydraulic
systems for metal particles. This AD is prompted by a report of a pump
failure on the hydraulic external hoist caused by metal particles.
These actions are intended to detect metal particles in the filter of
the pressure line and prevent the pumps' failure, which could lead to a
hoisting accident and injury to persons.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 24, 2015.
    We must receive comments on this AD by January 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3969
or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact
AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015
Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-
664757; fax 39-0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins. You may review the referenced service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2014-0063-E, dated March 12, 2014,
to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model AB412 helicopters. EASA
advises that during a hoist operation, a pressure line pump part number
(P/N) 1-8072 Rev. A failed on a Model AB412 helicopter. Preliminary
investigations reveal that unusual wear of an internal subcomponent
generated metal particles, which caused the pump to fail, EASA advises.
The root cause of this wear has not been determined.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to future
pump failures, resulting in hoisting accidents and injuries. As a
result, EASA requires repetitive inspections of the pump's filter for
metal particles and replacement of the pressure line pump if particles
exist. EASA advises that its AD is an interim action and that further
AD action may follow, depending on the outcome of the investigations.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We
are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by
EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist
or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Related Service Information

    AgustaWestland has issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 412-140, dated
March 11, 2014 (BT), for Model AB412 helicopters with a hydraulic
external hoist P/N BL10300-60 installed. The BT notes that Agusta
received a report that pump P/N 1-8072 Rev. A failed during a hoist
operation on a Model AB412 helicopter due to metal particles generated
by unusual wear of an internal subcomponent. The BT calls for
inspecting the filter installed on the external hoist's pressure line
for metal particles. The BT notes that an investigation is underway to
determine the failure's root causes and that the BT could be updated.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, inspecting to
determine whether metal particles are in the filter installed on the
pressure line of the utility hydraulic system. If there are any metal
particles, this AD requires, before the next flight, flushing the
utility hydraulic system, replacing the filter with an airworthy
filter, and replacing the pressure line pump with an airworthy pressure
line pump.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval
holder is investigating the root cause for the unsafe condition
identified in this AD. Once the investigation is completed, we might
consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no
helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    There are no helicopters with this type certificate are on the U.S.
Registry. Therefore, we believe it is unlikely that we will receive any
adverse comments or useful information about this AD from U.S.
Operators.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary because there are
none of these helicopters on the U.S. Registry and that good cause
exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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, 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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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):

2015-23-02 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-18318; Docket No. FAA-2015-
3969; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-010-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model AB412 helicopters with a hydraulic
external hoist part number BL10300-60 installed, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a hydraulic
external hoist pressure line pump. This condition, if not detected
and prevented, could result in loss of hydraulic pressure and
subsequent injury to persons being lifted in the hoist.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective November 24, 2015.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS:
    (1) Inspect the hydraulic external hoist pressure line filter
for metal particles.
    (2) If there are any metal particles, before further flight,
flush the utility hydraulic system, replace the pressure line pump,
and replace the filter.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) AgustaWestland Bollettino Tecnico No. 412-140, dated March
11, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference, contains
additional information about the subject of this AD. For service
information identified in this AD, contact AgustaWestland, Product
Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA)
Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-664757; fax 39-
0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins. You may review a copy of the service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2014-0063-E, dated March 12, 2014. You
may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-3969.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2550, Cargo
Compartments.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 30, 2015.
James A. Grigg,
Acting Assistant Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-28314 Filed 11-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 15778-15780]
[DOCID:fr29mr06-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53537; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Reflect Committee Revisions

March 21, 2006.

    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 February 6, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. On March 13, 2006, the CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ The CBOE has designated the proposed rule
change as concerned solely with the administration of the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act,\4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3)
thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission.\6\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaces the original filing in its
entirety. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (i) revised the rule
text to reflect revisions that had become effective through
separate, unrelated rule change filings and to correct typographical
errors; and (ii) made certain clarifications in the text of CBOE
Rule 4.11, Interpretation and Policy .05(b) regarding the Exchange's
procedures in the event that a Market-Maker's position limit
exemption request is denied and in the event that the Exchange
subsequently reviews a position limit exemption request that it had
granted.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
    \6\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, as
amended, under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission
considers the period to commence on March 13, 2006, the date on
which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to delete or modify
specific references to certain committees that have been eliminated and
to modify specific references to other committees whose titles or
authorities have changed. All references that currently relate to
committees that are being eliminated will be replaced with terms such
as the ``appropriate Exchange committee'' or the ``Exchange.'' All
references to committees that have changed titles or authorities will
be amended accordingly. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com), at the

Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change, as amended, is to delete
from the CBOE Rules any specific references to the Clearing Procedures
Committee, Exemption Committee, Modified Trading System Appointments
(``MTS'') Committee, appropriate Screen-Based Trading (``SBT'') Trading
Committee, appropriate SBT DPM Appointments Committee, and Special
Product Assignment Committee. The Exchange is proposing to make these
changes at this time because it recently determined to eliminate these
committees and reassign their respective authorities to other
committees and/or to Exchange staff.\7\ The Exchange is also deleting
all references to the Allocation Committee in the CBOE Rules in order
to simplify the rule text and avoid confusion over the division of
authorities among that

committee and other appropriate Exchange committees that are assuming
the authorities of the former Special Product Assignment Committee. In
addition, a reference to the Securities Committee in CBOE Rule 6.41 is
being deleted to avoid confusion, because this committee is a committee
of the Options Clearing Corporation and not of the Exchange. References
to the ``appropriate Floor Procedure Committee,'' the ``appropriate
FPC'' and the like are also being amended to say the ``appropriate
Procedure Committee'' to reflect a change in the names of those
committees.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, the authorities of the former MTS Committee
have been reassigned to the Allocation Committee and the appropriate
Market Performance Committees. There were also other committees that
the Exchange eliminated for which there are no specific references
in the CBOE rules that need to be updated. For example, the Market
Fee Oversight Committee was eliminated and its specific authorities
have been reassigned to the appropriate Market Performance
Committees.
    \8\ Specifically, the Exchange has changed the titles of its
Floor Procedure Committees to simply ``Procedure Committees'' (e.g.,
the Equity Floor Procedure Committee is now the Equity Option
Procedure Committee and the Index Floor Procedure Committee is now
the Index Option Procedure Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make certain clarifications in the
text of CBOE Rule 4.11, Interpretation and Policy .05(b) regarding the
procedures following denial of a Market-Maker's position limit
exemption request and subsequent Exchange review of a granted position
limit exemption request.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ With respect to an initial request, ordinarily a first
exemption request application will be considered without the
presence of the Market-Maker. If a Market-Maker's first application
request for an exemption is denied and he wishes to reapply, he may
make a brief personal appearance before the Exchange. The proposed
rule change deletes language that had limited a Market-Maker's
appearance to presenting only those issues not previously considered
as part of the first application. Under the proposed rule change, no
such restriction will apply. With respect to review of a granted
request, which may be revoked or modified by the Exchange, the
proposed rule change clarifies that such reviews may be considered
by the Exchange without the presence of the Market-Maker that
originally received the exemption. The proposed rule change also
clarifies that, if a granted exemption that is reviewed by the
Exchange without the presence of a Market-Maker is revoked or
modified and the Market-Maker wishes to reapply for the exemption or
a modified exemption, the Market-Maker may make a brief scheduled
personal appearance before the Exchange. The Exchange notes that
CBOE Rule 4.11, Interpretation and Policy .05 applies only to
Market-Makers seeking an exemption to the standard position limits
in all options traded on the Exchange for the purpose of assuring
that there is sufficient depth and liquidity in the marketplace, and
not to confer a right upon the Market-Maker applying for an
exemption. As such and in light of the procedural safeguards
described herein, as well as other procedural safeguards set out in
Rule 4.11, Interpretation and Policy .05, the purpose of the
exemption process, and the prohibition against the granting of
retroactive exemptions, decisions granting or denying exemptions are
not subject to review under Chapter XIX of the Exchange Rules
regarding Hearings and Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, various miscellaneous changes to the rule text to
accommodate the above-described changes are also being made.
    In trying to accommodate the reassignments, the Exchange believes a
better approach than making a specific reference to a committee is to
make reference to the ``appropriate Exchange committee'' in the
instances where the reassignment is to another committee and to the
``Exchange'' in instances where the reassignment is to Exchange staff
and/or a committee. In this way, the Exchange will have the flexibility
to delegate the authorities under the rules to the appropriate
committee (or appropriate Exchange staff) and will not have to make a
rule change merely, for instance, to accommodate a future change in the
title of a committee or to accommodate the reassignment of an authority
to another committee. As the authority exercised by committees (and by
Exchange staff) is delegated pursuant to Exchange rules, the Exchange
believes that the title of the committees exercising their authority
should not be relevant.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ which requires,
among other things, that the rules of the Exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation
among persons engaged in facilitating securities transactions, and
protect investors and the public interest. The CBOE believes that this
proposal complies with the Act because the CBOE is amending its rules
to update and/or generalize certain committee references to facilitate
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    The Exchange has designated this proposal as concerned solely with
the administration of the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of
the Act,\11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder,\12\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-CBOE-2006-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2006-15. 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. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying

information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-CBOE-2006-15 and should be submitted on or before April 19,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant
to delegated authority.\14\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4517 Filed 3-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 108 (Thursday, June 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32555-32556]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13016]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-N-0444]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Focus Groups as Used
by the Food and Drug Administration (All Food and Drug Administration-
Regulated Products)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 7,
2014.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0497.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Focus Groups as Used by the Food and Drug Administration (All FDA-
Regulated Products)--(OMB Control Number 0910-0497)--Extension

    FDA conducts focus group interviews on a variety of topics
involving FDA-regulated products, including drugs, biologics, devices,
food, tobacco, and veterinary medicine.
    Focus groups provide an important role in gathering information
because they allow for a more indepth understanding of consumers'
attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and feelings than do quantitative
studies. Focus groups serve the narrowly defined need for direct and
informal opinion on a specific topic and as a qualitative research tool
have three major purposes:
     To obtain consumer information that is useful for
developing variables and measures for quantitative studies,
     To better understand consumers' attitudes and emotions in
response to topics and concepts, and
     To further explore findings obtained from quantitative
studies.
    FDA will use focus group findings to test and refine ideas but will
generally conduct further research before making important decisions
such as adopting new policies and allocating or redirecting significant
resources to support these policies.
    In the Federal Register of February 18, 2014 (79 FR 9222), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                              Activity                                  Number of      responses per     Total annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focus Group Interviews.............................................           1,440                1            1,440             1.75            2,520
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Annually, FDA projects about 20 focus group studies using 160 focus
groups with an average of 9 persons per group, and lasting an average
of 1.75 hours each. FDA is requesting this burden for unplanned focus
groups so as not to restrict the Agency's ability to gather information
on public sentiment of its proposals in its regulatory and
communications programs.

    Dated: May 30, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-13016 Filed 6-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 47800-47801]
[DOCID:fr18au06-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Filings

August 14, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC06-151-000.
    Applicants: Northern New England Energy Corp.
    Description: Green Mountain Power Corp et al. submits an
application for a merger and associated disposition of Commission-
jurisdictional facilities pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power
Act.
    Filed Date: 08/09/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060811-0151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 30, 2006.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER03-1088-002.
    Applicants: Direct Energy Marketing Inc.
    Description: Direct Energy Marketing, Inc submits its Triennial
Updated Market Analysis, in compliance with FERC's 8/13/03 Order.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060811-0222.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-445-018; ER04-435-021; ER04-441-013; ER04-443-
014.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and
Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: The California Independent System Operator Corp
submits their filing in compliance with FERC's 7/12/06 Order.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060811-0225.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-700-003.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp submits an
errata to its Supplemental Compliance Filing submitted on 8/9/06 to
modify the ISO tariff.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060811-0221.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1005-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities in response to
FERC's correspondence on 7/13/06 withdrawing their 5/17/06 filing of a
Service Agreement with Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc.
    Filed Date: 08/09/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060811-0162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 30, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1347-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Services Corp.
    Description: Indiana and Michigan Power Co submits an Original
Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement with the Town of
Warren, Indiana.
    Filed Date: 08/09/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060810-0055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 30, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1348-000.
    Applicants: Katmai Energy, LLC.
    Description: Katmai Energy, LLC's petition for acceptance of
initial rate schedule, FERC Electric Rate Schedule 1, granting certain
blanket approvals, waiver and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: 08/09/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060811-0192.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 30, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1349-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits seven Executed
Service Agreements for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service with
Kansas Municipal Energy Agency.
    Filed Date: 08/09/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060811-0191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 30, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1350-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits its First
Revised FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 86.

    Filed Date: 08/10/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060811-0194.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 31, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-13629 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


9/18/06

MEMORANDUM

FROM:  Larry Sorrels

	    U.S. EPA/OAQPS/HEID/ABCG

TO:	    Neal Fann

	    U.S. EPA/OAQPS/HEID/ABCG

SUBJECT:	Control Measures Changes to AirControlNET 4.1 As Part of Control Measures Validation Review

	This memorandum provides a detailed listing of the changes to AirControlNET 4.1 resulting from a review of the control measures data that occurred between February 1, 2006 and April 1, 2006.  These revisions occurred as a result of extensive review of the AirControlNET’s PM2.5, PM10, SO2,, and NOx control measures by control measure experts in OAQPS, OPAR, and other offices in EPA.  All of these revisions were included in AirControlNET 4.1 as of April 11, 2006 for use in the final PM2.5 NAAQS RIA control strategy analyses, and the control measures documentation report for that version of AirControlNET reflects all of these changes.

Revisions to Control Measures Already in AirControlNET 4.1

Correct the commercial cooking control measure - catalytic oxidizer - to only 10% of the emissions in Source Classification Code (SCC) 2302002000.   To make this adjustment, change the rule penetration to 10% from 100%.  No other data for this measure shall be changed.

Correct the residential wood stove control measure - changeout to an NSPS-compliant wood stove - to have a rule penetration of 10% from the current 100%.   No other data for this measure shall be changed.

Add organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) control efficiencies to the IMF (increased monitoring frequency) and continuous emission monitoring (CEM)s upgrade control measures.   These control efficiencies will be identical to the PM10 and PM2.5 efficiencies currently there (6.5% and 7.7%), respectively.    It will also be made clear that these controls can only be applied to sources that already have an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or baghouse (fabric filter)  installed.  No other data for this measure will change.

P. III-1229 – Remove the following from the list of affected SCCs for the Wood Pulp and Paper source category/Dry ESP-Wire Plate Type control measure combination:

30700101

30700102

30700105

30700118

30700121

30700122

30700199

P. III-1232 – Remove the following from the list of affected SCCs for the Wood Pulp and Paper source category/Wet ESP-Wire Plate Type control measure combination:

30700101

30700102

30700105

30700118

30700121

30700122

30700199

P. III-1278 – Remove SCC 30700106 from the list of affected SCCs for the Pulp and Paper Industry (Sulfate Pulping) source category /Flue Gas Desulfurization control measure combination.

P. III-1128 – Remove SCCs 30300515, 30300516, and 30300519 from the list of affected SCCs for the Non-Ferrous Metal Processing – Copper source category/Fabric Filter control measure combination and the combination of this source category with ESPs (all types).

For all Asphalt Manufacture source category/Fabric Filter (any type) control measure combinations, remove the following SCCs from the affected list:  30500101, 30500102, 30500103, 30500105, 30500106, 30500108, 30500110, 30500111, 30500117, 30500290.  The first of these combinations is on p. III-635.

6) Remove the Lime Kilns source category/SNCR (Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction) and Lime Kilns/SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) control measure combinations.  AirControlNET 4.1 shall not have any post-combustion control on NOx from this source category.  The first of these combinations is on p. III-377.

7)   Mineral Products – coal cleaning

Delete all add-on controls (all Fabric filters, ESPs, venturi scrubber) for

30501008

30501009

30501011

30501015

30501016

30501021

30501022

30501023

30501024

30501030

30501031

30501032

30501033

30501036

30501037

30501038

30501039

30501040

30501041

30501043

30501044

30501045

30501046

30501047

30501049

30501050

30501051

30501090

30501099

8)  Fabricated metal products – welding

Donna Lee Jones of OAQPS/SPPD recommends following control options for fabricated metal products – welding SCCs 30900501 and 30904001.

* FF- cartridge type 25% control

* total enclosure and FF-cartridge type 99%

* hood and FF –cart 98%

* fume gun 75%

* pulse current 50%

Please include these measures and flag them in AirControlNET due to their being no cost data for them.

Mineral Products – Stone Quarrying & Processing

Please remove the applicability of dry ESPs and baghouses to the following SCCs (p. III-1080, 1084, 1088, 1092, 1096, 1100, and III-1104):

30502008

30502009

30502010

30502011

30502017

30502020

With this change in applicability, the IMF and CEM upgrade/IMF applicability to these SCCs shall also be removed.

Mineral Products Industry (p. III-1264)

Please remove the applicability of FGD (flue gas desulfurization) scrubbers to the following SCCs:

30500612

30599999

Mineral Products – Cement Manufacture

Please remove the applicability of fabric filters (any type) to the following SCCs:

30500607

30500608

30500615

30500619

30500699

30500707

30500708

30500719

30500799

For dry ESP – Wire Plate Type applied to Mineral Products – Cement Manufacture, please remove the applicability to these SCCs:

30500607

30500608

30500609

30500610

30500611

30500612

30500613

30500615

30500616

30500617

30500618

30500619

30500624

30500699

30500707

30500708

30500709

30500710

30500712

30500714

30500716

30500717

30500718

30500719

30500719

30500799

12) For Mineral Products – Cement Manufacture, Paper/Nonwoven Filters (p. III-987) please remove the applicability to these SCCs:

30500608

30500615

30500619

30500699

30500708

30500799

13) For Mineral Products – Cement Manufacture, Paper/Nonwoven Filters (p. III-987) please remove the applicability to these SCCs:

30500608

30500615

30500619

30500699

30500708

30500719

30500799

For Fabric Filter – any type at Ferrous Metals Processing – Coke, please remove the applicability to these SCCs:

30300302

30300304

30300308

30300334

30300401

For Venturi Scrubber applied to Ferrous Metal Processing – Coke, please remove the applicability to these SCCs:

30300302

30300304

30300308

16) 	For Vacuum Carbonate + Sulfur Recovery Plant applied to By-Product Coke Manufacturing (p. III-1248), please make this control measure applicable only to SCC 30300306.  Also, change the control efficiency to 90% from 82%.

For FGD  scrubbers applied in the Petroleum Industry (p. III-1267), please remove the applicability to these SCCs;

30600101

30600103

30600104

30600105

30600106

30600202

30600301

30600401

30600504

30600805

30600903

30600904

30600999

30601001

30601401

30609903

30609904

Remove FGD scrubber’s applicability to Sulfur Recovery Plants – Elemental Sulfur (p. III-1302) and Sulfur Recovery Plants – Sulfur Removal (p. III-1304) from the control measures database.

Remove the IMF of PM Controls as well as the CEM Upgrade and IMF of PM Controls measure’s applicability to the following source categories:

Commercial Institutional Boilers – Liquid Waste

Industrial Boilers – Liquid Waste

Commercial Institutional Boilers – LPG

Industrial Boilers - LPG

Commercial Institutional Boilers – Natural Gas

Industrial Boilers – Natural Gas

Commercial Institutional Boilers – Process Gas

Industrial Boilers – Process Gas

For Commercial Institutional Boilers – Oil , remove the applicability of Dry ESP – Wire Plate Type to SCC 10300501

For Commercial Institutional Boilers – Oil, remove the applicability of IMF of PM Controls and CEM Upgrade and IMF of PM Controls to SCC 103005

For Fabric Filter (Pulse Jet Type) applied to Commercial Institutional Boilers – Wood/Bark, change the control efficiency to 80%.  This change is based on AP-42 emission factors for these sources.

For Dry ESP – Wire Plate Type applied to Commercial Institutional Boilers – Wood/Bark, change the control efficiency for both PM10 and PM2.5 to 90%.  This change is based on AP-42 emission factors for these sources.

For Commercial Institutional Boilers – Wood/Bark, change the control efficiency of fabric filters (any type) to 80% for both PM10 and PM2.5.  This change is based on AP-42 emission factors for these sources.

For Industrial Boilers – Oil, remove the applicability of IMF of PM Controls and CEM Upgrade and IMF of PM Controls to SCC 102005.

For FGD (both dry and wet) scrubbers applied to Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal, remove the applicability to SCC 10300217.   Also, make the same change for Spray Dryer Absorber’ and applicability to the same source category.

For Distillate Oil (Industrial Boilers), remove the applicability of Wet FGD scrubbers entirely to this source category.

Control Measures Added to AirControlNET 4.1

Area Source SO2 Control Measure.

This measure will be a switch from high-sulfur (2,500 ppm sulfur content) to low-sulfur (500 ppm) home heating oil for residential users.  Resulting control efficiencies are as follows:

75% - SO2

80% - PM10 and PM2.5

10% - NOx

Note:  there are no OC and EC control efficiencies with this measure.

The resulting costs are 1.5 cents/gallon.  Presuming a density of 0.8 for home heating oil (HHO), 1 gallon = 0.8*8 = 6.4 lbs of oil.  The costs in dollars per ton annually is thus (2000/6.4)*0.015 =  $4.70/ton of HHO *(1 ton of oil/0.02 percent of sulfur/ton of oil) = 4.70 * 500 = $2,350/ton sulfur in HHO.  Given that reduction of 1 part sulfur in HHO is equal to 1 part SO2 emissions, then we can say that the cost per ton of SO2 reduction due to this switch to home heating oil is also $2,350.   Note: the study from which this data is taken states there is a 1:1 relationship between fuel sulfur contention reduction and SO2 emissions reduction.

The cost for this measure in AirControlNET shall be $2,350/ton of SO2 emissions reduction (2002$).

In addition, there is some evidence of reductions in maintenance costs for residential users due to reduced fouling of heating equipment and reduced cleaning.   The costs have not been adjusted for these reductions.   Please note this in the new at-a-glance table for this measure.

The SCC this control measure applies to:<PHONE_NUMBER> (Stationary Source Fuel Combustion – Residential - Distillate Oil).

Source:     Low Sulfur Heating Oil in the Northeast States:  An Overview of Benefits, Costs, and Implementation Issues.  NESCAUM, Boston, MA.  December 2005.

Area and Point Non-EGU PM Control Measures

ESP for Commercial Cooking or "Smog-Hog".   Applied to Underfired Charbroilers.   This control is to be applied to all commercial cooking category SCCs, but with a rule penetration of only 18.75% (equal to 75% of all commercial cooking emissions with application to 25% of this amount of emissions).

The capital cost of this control:   $38,500 (range of capital costs from $2,000 - 75,000).

Annualized capital costs:  $5,482.    Equipment life of the control is 10 years, and costs are annualized at 7%.

O&M costs:  $500.

Total annualized costs:  $5,982.

Control efficiency:  99% of PM2.5  and PM10.  OC and EC reductions are presumed to be identical to the PM reductions.

Plant-Specific PM2.5 Control Measure Applications

Below in Table 1 is a list of control measures that exist on PM2.5 point sources likely to be impacted control strategies associated with direct PM reductions in areas that our air quality modeling has shown to be nonattainment.

Table 1.  New PM2.5 Control Measures – for Various Iron and Steel Mill Emissions Points

Source Category	SCCs to be controlled	PM2.5 Control measure/percent control	Plants to apply control measure to within SCCs	Costs (1999$)

Blast Furnace Casthouse	30300825	Install capture hoods vented to a baghouse (85% reduction, range of control efficiencies is 80 -90%)	AK Steel, Butler co., Ohio (Plant ID:<PHONE_NUMBER>)	This control already installed April 2005, thus no additional control

	“

AK Steel, Ashland, KY (Plant ID:<PHONE_NUMBER>)	Capital: $5.32 million; Annualized:  $1.2 million*

	“

LTV (now Mittal), Cleveland, OH	“

	“

LTV (now Mittal), East Chicago, IN	“

	“	For this plant, apply control to 25% of emissions 	U.S. Steel, Gary, IN (Plant ID:  00121)	“

	30300824

Weirton Steel, Hancock Co., WV (Plant ID:  00001)	“

	30300825

Rouge Steel (now Severstal), Wayne Co., MI (Plant ID: A8640)	None (control already planned)

	30300825

Bethlehem (now Mittai) Steel, Porter Co., IN (Plant ID:  00001)	None (expected control due to MACT standard)

	30300825	For Republic Technologies, Lorain, OH apply control to 50% of emissions	Republic Technologies, Lorain, OH	“

Blast Open Furnace (BOF)- open hoods	30300913	Dedicated secondary capture and control system (use 85% as best estimate of control efficiency, range from 80-90%)	AK Steel, Butler co., Ohio (Plant ID: 1409010006)	None (Control already installed)

	“

Rouge Steel (now Severstal), Wayne Co., MI (Plant ID: A8640)	None (Control already installed)

	“

Bethelehem (now Mittai) Steel, Porter Co., IN (Plant ID:  00001)	Capital cost:  $12.7 million,

Annualized cost:  $1.7 million*

	“

Bethelehem (now Mittai) Steel, Sparrows Point, MD (Plant ID:  0147)	“

	“

LTV (now Mittal), Cleveland, OH	“

	“

LTV (now Mittal), East Chicago, IN	“

	“

National Steel (now U.S. Steel), Granite City, IL (Plant ID:  119813AAI)

	“

	“	Apply control to half of emissions at Gary, IN plant	U.S. Steel, Gary, IN (Plant ID: 00121)	“

	Republic Technologies, Lorain, OH	“

	“

WCI Steel, Warren, OH (Plant ID:<PHONE_NUMBER>)	“

	“

Weirton Steel, Hancock Co., WV (Plant ID:  0001)	“

	“

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Mingo Junction, OH (Plant ID:<PHONE_NUMBER>)	“

Sinter Cooler	30300817	99%	Assume for all plants in this SCC	$5,000 per ton PM2.5  reduction

* Based on 7% interest rate and 20 year equipment life.

cc: Tim Smith, US EPA/OAQPS/AQPD/GSG

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US 09/25/2007 03:14 PM	To <EMAIL_ADDRESS>cc Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA bcc

Subject Re: Tomorrow's call and option for meeting next week? 	 		 		Christian, 		 		Attached is one of the files regarding annual costs for model plants.   This is related to the assumption for 2000 hrs of operation on avg for  EIFs.