[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39984-39986]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15722]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0579; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00267-R]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Leonardo S.p.a. (Leonardo) Model AB139 and AW139
helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of several
occurrences of a cracked main gearbox (MGB) spherical bearing lock nut
(lock nut). This proposed AD would require removing from service a
certain part-numbered MGB lock nut that is installed on certain part-
numbered MGBs and replacing it with newly designed MGB lock nut. This
proposed AD would also would prohibit installing any MGB with the
affected MGB lock nut and would prohibit installing any affected MGB
lock nut on any helicopter. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     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 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the Mail address between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Leonardo
S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale
G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-
225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://customerportal.leonardocompany.com/en-US/. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817)
222-5110.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0579; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer,
Dynamic Systems Section, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy &
Innovation Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0579; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-00267-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI

as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Rao
Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, Dynamic Systems Section, Technical
Innovation Policy Branch, Policy & Innovation Division, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, issued EASA AD 2019-0036, dated February 15, 2019 (EASA
AD 2019-0036), to correct an unsafe condition for all serial-numbered
Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters (formerly Finmeccanica S.p.A,
AgustaWestland S.p.A., Agusta S.p.A.; and AgustaWestland Philadelphia
Corporation, formerly Agusta Aerospace Corporation) Model AB139 and
AW139 helicopters. EASA advises that an occurrence was reported of a
cracked MGB lock nut part number (P/N) 3G6310A09151, which is used to
keep the planetary gears in position. EASA AD 2019-0036 required
replacing each MGB lock nut with an airworthy MGB lock nut. EASA
advised this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of the MGB planetary gears, resulting in loss of control of the
helicopter.
    After EASA issued EASA AD 2019-0036, an additional occurrence was
reported of a cracked MGB lock nut P/N 3G6320A09151. Accordingly, EASA
superseded EASA AD 2019-0036 with EASA AD 2019-0174, dated July 18,
2019 (EASA AD 2019-0174), which retained the requirements of EASA AD
2019-0036 but reduced the compliance times. After EASA issued EASA AD
2019-0174, Leonardo Helicopters issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
139-609, dated December 18, 2019 to provide instructions for replacing
the affected MGB lock nut with MGB lock nut P/N 3G6320A09152, which has
a redesigned flange reducing the stress at the bearing nut locations
where cracks were detected.
    Accordingly, EASA then issued EASA AD 2020-0011, dated January 29,
2020, and corrected January 30, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0011), which
superseded EASA AD 2019-0174, and partially retained the requirements
of EASA AD 2019-0174. EASA AD 2020-0011 revised the compliance times in
EASA AD 2019-0174; required replacing each affected MGB lock nut with a
newly designed MGB lock nut and prohibited installing an affected MGB
on any helicopter. After EASA issued EASA AD 2020-0011, EASA identified
that certain MGB part numbers were inadvertently categorized
incorrectly and therefore listed in the wrong group of helicopters.
Accordingly, EASA issued EASA AD 2020-0011R1, dated November 20, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-011R1), revising EASA AD 2020-0011. EASA AD 2020-0011R1
retains the requirements of EASA AD 2020-0011 and corrects Appendix 1
of EASA AD 2020-0011.
    After EASA issued EASA AD 2020-0011R1, Leonardo Helicopters issued
ASB No. 139-609, Revision A, dated April 13, 2021 (ASB 139-609 Rev A),
which identifies an additional part-numbered MGB, which is also
affected by the unsafe condition. Accordingly, EASA superseded EASA AD
2020-0011R1 with EASA AD 2021-0121, dated May 4, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-
0121). EASA AD 2021-0121 adds an additional part-numbered MGB with a
certain S/N to the list of affected parts. EASA AD 2021-0121 retains
the requirements of EASA AD 2020-0011R1, and corrects Table 1 and
Appendix 1 of EASA AD 2020-0011R1.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an
unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of
the same type designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed ASB 139-609 Rev A, which specifies procedures for
replacing an affected MGB lock nut with the new MGB lock nut, within
certain compliance times for certain part-numbered MGBs, with certain
serial numbers.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA also reviewed Leonardo Helicopters ASB No. 139-567,
Revision B, dated October 18, 2019, which provides additional
information for replacing the MGB lock nut.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require within 100 hours time in service
(TIS) or during the next scheduled MGB overhaul, whichever occurs first
after the effective date of this AD, removing a certain part-numbered
MGB lock nut from service and replacing it with a new part-numbered MGB
lock nut. This proposed AD would prohibit installing an MGB having an
affected MGB lock nut and also prohibit installing an affected MGB lock
nut on any helicopter as of the effective date of the proposed AD.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2021-0121 requires a compliance time based on number of
landings, whereas this proposed AD would require a compliance time
based on hours TIS. The service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0121 requires submitting certain information and parts to Leonardo,
whereas this proposed AD would not. EASA AD 2021-0121 applies to all
serial-numbered Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, whereas this
proposed AD would only apply to Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters
without certain part-numbered MGB lock nuts installed and with certain
part-numbered MGBs installed.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 130 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at
$85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the
following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
    Replacing each affected MGB lock nut with a newly designed MGB lock
nut would take about 190 work-hours (during next MGB overhaul) and
parts would cost about $7,600 for an estimated cost of $23,750 per
replacement.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and

procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Leonardo S.p.a.: Docket No. FAA-2021-0579; Project Identifier MCAI-
2020-00267-R.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 9, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139
helicopters, certificated in any category, without main gearbox
(MGB) spherical bearing lock nut (lock nut) part number (P/N)
3G6320A09152 installed and with:
    (1) MGB P/N 3G6320A00131, 3G6320A00132, 3G6320A00133,
3G6320A00134, 3G6320A00135, 3G6320A00136, 3G6320A22031,
4G6320A00132, or 4G6320A00133 installed, or
    (2) MGB P/N 3G320A00133 with serial number (S/N) M23, or MGB P/N
3G6320A00134, with S/N M6, N76, N92, P124, P129, P131, P162, P184,
Q230, Q243, Q249, R272, V21, V39, V96, V163, V211, V241, V272, V281,
V384, V386, or V622 installed, or
    (3) MGB P/N 3G6320A00136 with S/N AW1, AW2, AW3, AW5, or AW10
installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6320, Main Rotor
Gearbox.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a cracked MGB lock nut. The FAA is
issuing this AD to replace an affected MGB lock nut with a new MGB
lock nut. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
failure of the MGB planetary gears, resulting in loss of control of
the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 100 hours time-in-service, or during the next
scheduled MGB overhaul, whichever occurs first after the effective
date of this AD, remove each MGB lock nut P/N 3G6320A09151 from
service and replace with MGB lock nut P/N 3G6320A09152 in accordance
with Annex A, steps 1 through 17, of Leonardo Helicopters Alert
Service Bulletin No. 139-609, Revision A, dated April 13, 2021 (ASB
139-609, Rev A), except you are not required to send parts to
Leonardo Helicopters.
    Note to paragraph (g)(1): Leonardo Helicopters service
information refers to an MGB lock nut as a ring nut.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any MGB
having MGB lock nut P/N 3G630A09151 on any helicopter, and do not
install any MGB lock nut P/N 3G630A09151 on any helicopter.

(h) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

 (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Rao Edupuganti,
Aerospace Engineer, Dynamic Systems Section, Technical Innovation
Policy Branch, Policy & Innovation Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://customerportal.leonardocompany.com/en-US/. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0121, dated May 4, 2021. You
may view the EASA AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
in Docket No. FAA-2021-0579.

    Issued on July 20, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-15722 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1065-1067]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00050]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73977; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2014-152]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending Its
Program That Allows Transactions To Take Place at a Price That Is Below
$1 Per Option Contract Until January 5, 2016

January 2, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 30, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend its program that allows
transactions to take place at a price that is below $1 per option
contract until January 5, 2016. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to extend the Pilot Program \4\ under
Rule 6.80 to allow accommodation transactions (``Cabinet Trades'') to
take place at a price that is below $1 per option contract for one
additional year. The Exchange proposes to extend the program, which is
due to expire on January 5, 2015 until January 5, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63476 (December 8,
2010), 75 FR 77930 (December 14, 2010) (SR-NYSE Arca-2010-109).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An ``accommodation'' or ``cabinet'' trade refers to trades in
listed options on the Exchange that are worthless or not actively
traded. Cabinet trading is generally conducted in accordance with the
Exchange Rules, except as provided in Exchange Rule 6.80 Accommodation
Transactions (Cabinet Trades), which sets forth specific procedures for
engaging in cabinet trades. Rule 6.80 currently provides for cabinet
transactions to occur via open outcry at a cabinet price of a $1 per
option contract in any options series open for trading in the Exchange,
except that the Rule is not applicable to trading in option classes
participating in the Penny Pilot Program. Under the procedures, bids
and offers (whether opening or closing a position) at a price of $1 per
option contract may be represented in the trading crowd by a Floor
Broker or by a Market Maker or provided in response to a request by a
Trading Official, a Floor Broker or a Market Maker, but must yield
priority to all resting orders in the Cabinet (those orders held by the
Trading Official, and which resting cabinet orders may be closing
only). So long as both the buyer and the seller yield to orders resting
in the cabinet book, opening cabinet bids can trade with opening
cabinet offers at $1 per option contract.
    The Exchange has temporarily amended the procedures through January
5, 2015 to allow transactions to take place in open outcry at a price
of at least $0 but less than $1 per option contract. These lower-priced
transactions are permitted to be traded pursuant to the same procedures
applicable to $1 cabinet trades, except that (i) bids and offers for
opening transactions are only permitted to accommodate closing
transactions in order to limit use of the procedure to liquidations of
existing positions, and (ii) the procedures are also made available for
trading in option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program.\5\
The Exchange believes that allowing a price of at least $0 but less
than $1 better accommodates the closing of options positions in series
that are worthless or not actively traded, particularly in the event
where there has been a significant movement in the price of the
underlying security that results in a large number of series being out-
of-the-money. For example, a market participant might have a long
position in a put series with a strike price of $30 and the underlying
stock might be trading at $100. In such an instance, there might not
otherwise be a market for that person to close-out the position even at
the $1 cabinet price (e.g., the series might be quoted no bid).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Currently the $1 cabinet trading procedures are limited to
options classes traded in $0.05 or $0.10 standard increment. The $1
cabinet trading procedures are not available in Penny Pilot Program
classes because in those classes an option series can trade in a
standard increment as low as $0.01 per share (or $1.00 per option
contract with a 100 share multiplier). Because the temporary
procedures allow trading below $0.01 per share (or $1.00 per option
contract with a 100 share multiplier), the procedures are available
for all classes, including those classes participating in the Penny
Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with other accommodation liquidations under Rule 6.80,
transactions that occur for less than $1 will not be disseminated to
the public on the consolidated tape. In addition, as with other
accommodation liquidations under Rule 6.80, the transactions will be
exempt from the Consolidated Options Audit Trail (``COATS'')
requirements of Exchange Rule 6.67 Order Format and System Entry
Requirements. However, the Exchange will maintain quotation, order and
transaction information for the transactions in the same format as the
COATS data is maintained. In this regard, all transactions for less
than $1 must be reported to the Exchange following the close of each
business day.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\6\
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that allowing
for liquidations at a price less than $1 per option contract will
better facilitate the closing of options positions that are worthless
or not actively trading, especially in Penny Pilot issues where Cabinet
Trades are not otherwise permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule 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 if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission,\8\ the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,\11\ the proposal does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that
the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period after which a
proposed rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) becomes operative so that
the pilot may continue without interruption. The Commission believes
that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection

of investors and the public interest because it will allow the pilot to
continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential investor
confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot
and allowing members to continue to benefit from the program. Based on
the foregoing, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay
and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-152 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-152. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEARCA-2014-152 and should be submitted on or before
January 29, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00050 Filed 1-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 50864-50865]
[DOCID:fr01oc09-133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Application for
Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is
requested is indicated by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2009.
    Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous,
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC or at http://
regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in

accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials
transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 24, 2009.
Delmer F. Billings,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Regulation(s)     Nature of special
        Application No.            Docket No.           Applicant            affected         permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14902-N........................  ..............  Federal Aviation                 49 CFR  To authorize the
                                                  Administration.               171.2(k)   transportation in
                                                                                commerce of
                                                                                packagings identified
                                                                                as hazardous material
                                                                                which are actually
                                                                                non-hazardous for
                                                                                purposes of shipping
                                                                                and packaging drills
                                                                                conducted by FAA for
                                                                                air carriers. (modes
                                                                                4,5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-23535 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58536-58537]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23339]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC12-140-000.
    Applicants: LSP Energy Limited Partnership.
    Description: Application for Order Authorizing the Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act
and Request for Waivers, Expedited Action and Shortened Comment Period
of LSP Energy Limited Partnership.
    Filed Date: 9/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120914-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/5/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG12-110-000.
    Applicants: Crawfordsville Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification as an Exempt Wholesale
Generator of Crawfordsville Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120914-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. et 10/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: EG12-111-000.
    Applicants: Catalina Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Catalina Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120914-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/5/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3697-003.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Formula Transmission Rate Informational Filing to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120914-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-40-004.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 217 Compliance Filing, Diagrams to
be effective 10/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120914-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2622-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance--Order 719 MST 2.4 4.1 4.2 Aggregators--
DSASP Op Rsrvs Rgltn Srvc Mrkts to be effective 4/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120913-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2623-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2012-09-13 Amendment to Valley Electric Transition
Agreement to be effective 11/13/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120913-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2624-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Tariff Attachments O & P re Interconnection
Customer Drawings in ISA/ICSAs to be effective 11/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120914-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2625-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Resource's Capacity Supply Obligation to be effective
11/13/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120914-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2626-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Amended SGIA and DSA to 2250 Sequoia Ave Ontario Roof
Top Solar Project to be effective 9/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120914-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2627-000.
    Applicants: Catalina Solar, LLC.
    Description: Catalina Solar Baseline MBR Application Filing to be
effective 11/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120914-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2628-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 131 Cost Reimbursement Letter Agmt-
Colorado River Commission to be effective 9/11/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120914-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/5/12.

    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
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: September 14, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23339 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47976-47977]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19612]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86884; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
to the Removal of a Number of Outdated Fees and References in the Cboe
Options Fees Schedule

September 5, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 28, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to remove a number of outdated fees and references in the Cboe Options
Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in
Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to make a number of non-substantive, cleanup
changes to its fees schedule.
    First, the Exchange proposes to remove the ``New Trading Permit
Holder Orientation and Exam'' fee in the Cboe Options Fees Schedule.
Particularly, the Exchange notes that it recently submitted a rule
filing which eliminated the Trading Permit Holder Orientation and Exam,
as of July 6, 2019, rendering the corresponding fee obsolete.\3\ As
such, the Exchange proposes to remove the fee, which no longer can be
assessed, from the Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86065 (June 7,
2019), 84 FR 27667 (June 13, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-029).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate references to another
examination that no longer exists. Particularly, as of January 2016,
the Series 56 examination was eliminated.\4\ The Exchange notes
however, that it inadvertently omitted to update the Fees Schedule and
eliminate references to the Series 56 examination and related fees.
Accordingly, the Exchange first proposes to eliminate the reference to
``(e.g., Series 56 examination)'' in the notes section of the
Qualification Examination Waiver Request Fee. The Exchange further
proposes to eliminate the ``Initial Proprietary Registration'' and
``Annual Proprietary Registration'' fees. These registration fees were
assessed in connection with the registration of the Series 56 exam, and
as such, are no longer necessary to maintain in the Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76247 (October 23,
2015), 80 FR 66605 (October 29, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2015-094).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next proposes to eliminate LiveVol Fees (Livevol Core
``LVCX'' fees), as the Exchange no longer offers this functionality,
and also proposes to eliminate the ``In-Crowd Telephones (plus usage
fee)'' fee, as this service is similarly no longer offered.
    The Exchange further proposes to eliminate references to the
``Position Transfer Fee'' (on-floor 6.49A fee), as on-floor position
transfers were recently eliminated.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85732 (April 26,
2019), 84 FR 18901 (May 2, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-024). See also Cboe
Options Exchange Regulatory Circular RG 19-019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange lastly proposes to eliminate all references to the
following symbols as they are no longer listed: AWDE, FTEM, FXTM, GVZ,
VXEEM, VXEWZ, OVX, XSPAM, Volatility Indexes \6\ and Binary options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ They Exchange notes that it is not eliminating any
references to VIX options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it has not assessed any of the above fees
since the elimination of the respective service/exam/rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling,

processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \9\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to update the Fees
Schedule to remove obsolete fees and references, maintains clarity in
the Fees Schedule and will alleviate potential confusion, thereby
removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and protecting investors and the
public interest. As noted above, the proposed filing does not
substantively change any transaction fees or rebates, but merely
removes unnecessary and obsolete language that the Exchange
inadvertently failed to update upon the elimination of the
corresponding fees, services and exams. Particularly, Exchange has not
assessed any of the above-referenced fees since the elimination of the
respective service/exam/rule.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
does not address competitive issues, but rather, as discussed above, is
merely intended to correct inadvertent omissions to update the Fees
Schedule to remove obsolete fees and references, which will alleviate
potential confusion.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2019-052 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-052. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-052, and should be submitted
on or before October 2, 2019.

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

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

Jill M. Petereson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19612 Filed 9-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66384-66385]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26442]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on December 5, 2014, from 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Location: The Marriott Inn and Conference Center, University of
Maryland University College, The Ballroom, 3501 University Blvd. East,
Adelphi, MD 20783. The conference center's telephone number is 301-985-
7300.
    Contact Person: Jennifer Shepherd, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-
741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the
Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.

    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application 206494 for
ceftazidime-avibactam for injection, submitted by Cerexa Inc., for the
proposed indications of: Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections,
Complicated Urinary Tract Infections, including Acute Pyelonephritis
and Limited Use Indication: Aerobic Gram-negative Infections with
Limited Treatment Options.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
November 28, 2014. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before November 20, 2014. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by November 21, 2014.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jennifer Shepherd at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: October 31, 2014.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-26442 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		August 20, 2012
TO:		File / Public Docket EPA - R09 - OAR - 2012 - 0566
FROM:	Jeanhee Hong, EPA Region 9, Office of Regional Counsel
		Laura Yannayon, EPA Region 9, Permits Office
RE: 	Call with Clark County Department of Air Quality regarding rule deficiencies identified in EPA's proposed rule at 77 FR 43206 (July 24, 2012)

Clark County Participants:  Tina Gingras, Michael Uhl, Dennis Ransel, Gary Miller, Richard Beckstead, Russell Roberts, Roger Ferland, Colin Campbell, Catherine Jorgenson.

EPA Region 9 Partipants: Amy Zimpfer, Jeanhee Hong, Laura Yannayon, Gerardo Rios.

EPA (Amy) requested that Clark County explain the roles of Roger Ferland and Colin Campbell.

Clark County (Tina) explained that Roger Ferland (Quarles & Brady) and Colin Campbell (RTP Associates, LLC) are legal and technical consultants on these permitting regulations.

EPA (Amy) noted that this conversation will be on the record because it relates to a pending SIP action for which we are in the middle of the public comment period.

EPA (Jeanhee) explained that the Sierra Club recently filed a deadline suit alleging that EPA has failed to take timely action on several of these permitting rules, which constrains EPA's schedule for action.  Jeanhee stated that EPA expects final action by late September on the permitting rules will help in negotiations with the litigants in this case.

Clark County (Tina) explained that several of the identified deficiencies appear to be issues that developed since Clark County submitted the rules (e.g., requirements for the PM2.5 and lead NAAQS, and PM2.5 precursor requirements) and turned it over to Roger Ferland for specifics.

Roger stated that a lot of the deficiencies appear to be based on new requirements but that Clark County thought the County had up to three years to submit a lot of these subsequent requirements.  Roger also stated that in some cases, for example the stay, the status is very confusing and that even EPA conceded that the stay is very confusing.

EPA (Amy) requested clarification on the latter point and Roger clarified he was referring to EPA's stay of the Fugitives Rule.

Roger stated the County would delete the language in Section 12.1, subsection <IP_ADDRESS>(a)(5) that EPA had identified as problematic, but asked whether it was permissible for states to adopt provisions that have no applicability to the SIP and don't interfere with the control strategy (i.e., don't have anything to do with SIP goals).  For example, odor requirements, public nuisance requirements.

EPA (Jeanhee) responded that state/local agencies are free to develop regulations not required by the Clean Air Act (e.g., rules addressing odor, public nuisances) and that those regulations do not need to be submitted for approval into the SIP, but that to the extent a rule is submitted to EPA for SIP approval as part of a minor NSR program, EPA would evaluate that rule for compliance with applicable CAA requirements.

EPA (Laura) stated that 40 CFR 52.23, which was designed to address Federally-Enforceable State Operating Permit programs (FESOPs), states that all conditions of a permit issued pursuant to a SIP-approved program are federally enforceable.

EPA (Gerardo) stated that conditions in a permit issued through a SIP-approved program are federally enforceable, but if the County wanted to have state-only conditions in a permit, this could be okay if the program makes clear that those conditions do not come from a SIP-approved program.

Roger asked why the County's "insignificant activities" list in its title V regulation (Section 12.5) cannot be incorporated by reference into the minor NSR program and stated that the County had submitted the "insignificant activities" list in Section 12.5 to EPA as part of its title V program submission.

EPA (Jeanhee) stated that incorporation by reference (IBR) is a term that has specific legal effect and that a regulation must actually use those words in order to have the effect of incorporating separate rule provisions into it.  Provided state law allows for IBR and the minor NSR rule (Section 12.1) uses the words "incorporation by reference," EPA would treat those referenced provisions as part of Section 12.1, but Clark County would have to submit the IBR'ed provisions as part of the SIP submission, not as part of a title V submission.

Roger stated that this sounded like a simple fix that Clark County could make.

On the definition of "allowable emissions" in Section 12.2 (PSD rule): Roger acknowledged that the term "practically enforceable" is not defined in the rule and stated the County might use the term "federally enforceable" instead, which is defined in EPA rules.  Roger asked why EPA had objected to the language about "permit conditions with future compliance date" and stated that 40 CFR 51.166(b)(16)(ii) explicitly allows for this.

EPA agreed to review the language in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(16)(ii).

On the definition of "baseline actual emissions" in Section 12.2: Clark County stated that EPA's preamble from 2002 (NSR reform rule) states that with respect to contemporaneous changes, "currently" doesn't mean "currently."  Clark County referenced EPA's 2002 final rule at 67 FR 80186, 80197 and stated that according to the preamble, with respect to contemporaneous changes, "current" refers to limits, source operations, etc. just prior to the date of the contemporaneous change.  So, it doesn't mean current but rather what "was" current just prior to the particular date of the contemporaneous change.  Clark County said it was not sure how to address this issue given the County was trying to clarify ambiguities in EPA's rule, and EPA itself has acknowledged that the language in the rule is not clear.

EPA (Jeanhee) stated that the most straightforward fix would be to simply track the federal definition, which is the language that EPA ultimately codified, and that to the extent Clark County wants to explore language that departs from the federal rule, EPA is not in a position to opine on that at this time.

EPA (Gerardo) stated that it seems we are all confused about which date applies to which "particular action" and suggested that Clark County take this opportunity to explain how it interprets its rules, and where it believes its language may provide clarification.

Clark County agreed to provide such an explanation in their comments.

Clark County (Michael Uhl) stated that it was not clear why EPA thought the provisions in Section 12.3 (Nonattainment NSR rule) for ozone (NOx/VOC) and PM2.5 (SO2/NOx) interpollutant trades were deficient.  Michael stated that the language in subsection 12.3.6 provides 3 parts: (1) interpollutant trades are not allowed, (2) intra-pollutant trades of NOx and VOC are not prohibited, and (3) intra-pollutant trades of PM2.5 and SOx or NOx are not prohibited.  Michael also noted that Appendix S specifically allows for intra-pollutant trading (not interpollutant trading).

EPA (Jeanhee) stated that Appendix S does not apply to this action and that Clark County's rule is inconsistent with EPA's requirements in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(11) for PM.2.5 precursor trades.

EPA (Laura) stated that for ozone, precursor trades are allowed where the offset ratio has been demonstrated and the rule requires case-by-case EPA concurrence.  Precursor trades for ozone are not approved into the SIP but the permitting actions generally come in to EPA.  So the rule must specify that for interpollutant trading of ozone precursors, EPA concurrence is required.  For PM2.5, EPA stated in the preamble to the PM2.5 implementation rule that only SIP approved trading ratios would be allowed, and suggested approvable ratios for NOx and SOx.  Since that time, EPA has retracted its suggested ratios and has stated in a memo that only SIP approved trading ratios based on local modeling of appropriate trading ratios is allowed, and that the interpollutant trading ratios must be approved as part of SIP NSR program or part of the attainment demonstration for the area.

EPA and Clark County agreed that Clark County is currently designated attainment/unclassifiable for the PM2.5 NAAQS, so offset requirements for PM2.5 don't currently apply.

EPA (Jeanhee) asked whether Section 12.3 essentially allows for precursor trades at a 1:1 ratio.

Clark County stated that the rule does not specifically establish a 1:1 ratio and that the County's intent was to bank PM2.5 credits in advance of a nonattainment designation.

Clark County noted that it seemed the better solution would be to pull these provisions out of the rule, and develop offset/banking provisions later upon nonattainment designation.

EPA agreed.

Clark County asked why EPA thought the Section 12.3 provisions regarding emission reduction credits were deficient and stated that the definition of "surplus" tracked the federal definition.

EPA (Jeanhee) stated that CAA section 173(c) prohibited the use of any emission reductions required by the Act for offset purposes, and that Clark County's definition of "surplus" was too narrowly drawn to cover NSPS and NESHAP under section 111 and 112 of the Act.

Roger stated that this was a straightforward fix.

With respect to other requirements related to offsets, Roger stated that the NSR rule (Section 12.3) should have incorporated Section 12.7 into the rule, specifically only subsection 12.7.5.  Roger stated that this was Clark County's intent.

Clark County asked why EPA did not include Section 12.11 (general permits rule) in EPA's July proposal.

EPA (Jeanhee) stated that the role of Section 12.11 in Clark County's minor NSR program was not clear from the text of Section 12.1, and that in the absence of an explanation of its role and how the rule complies with the requirements for minor NSR programs, EPA was unable to draft a rationale supporting a proposed action.

EPA (Laura) stated that it became apparent during EPA's review that Section 12.11 was really part of the minor NSR program, but that it was not clear how the rule met the requirements for minor NSR programs in 40 CFR 51.160-51.164.

Clark County asked that EPA explain what needs to be done in response.

EPA (Laura) explained that Clark County could revise Section 12.11 as part of its rulemakings to revise Section 12.1 to address EPA's concerns.

Clark County (Russell) said the County would comment on the record on other disapproval issues as well and would try to be as detailed in the comments as possible about its proposed fixes. Russell stated that it would help if, in the final action, EPA gave some indication of whether Clark County's proposed fixes would be adequate.

EPA agreed to provide these explanations.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20704]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0235]

Safety Zone; Annual Fireworks Displays Within the Captain of the
Port Zone, Columbia River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce safety zone regulations at
various locations in the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port Zone
from May 27, 2022, to July 16, 2022, to provide for the safety of life
on navigable waters during these fireworks displays. Our regulation for
fireworks displays within the Thirteenth Coast Guard District
designates the regulated areas and identifies the approximate dates for
these events. The specific dates and times are identified in this
notice. These regulations prohibit persons and vessels from being in
the regulated areas unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector
Columbia River or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1315 will be enforced for the
safety zones identified in Table 1 in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section below for the dates and times specified.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email LT Sean Murphy, Waterways
Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce safety zones in
33 CFR 165.1315 for the events specified below in Table 1, during the
designated enforcement periods, and within a 450 yard radius of the
launch site and the listed locations. This action is being taken to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during these
events.
    Our regulation for fireworks displays within the Thirteenth Coast
Guard District designates the regulated areas and identifies the
approximate dates for these events. The specific dates and times are
specified below. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in Sec.
165.1315, persons and vessels are prohibited from being in the
regulated areas unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector
Columbia River or a designated representative. These safety zones are
subject to enforcement at least 1 hour prior to the start and 1 hour
after the conclusion of the events.

 Table 1--Dates and Durations of Enforcement for 33 CFR 165.1315 Safety Zones at Various Locations Within the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port
                                                                      Zone in 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Event name                        Event location                Date of event                 Latitude                    Longitude
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland Rose Festival Fireworks....  Portland, OR....................  May 27, 2022 9:30 p.m.   45[deg]30'58'' N             122[deg]40'12'' W
                                                                         to 11 p.m.
IIwaco July 4th Committee Fireworks/  IIwaco, WA......................  July 2, 2022 9:30 p.m.   46[deg]18'17'' N             124[deg]02'00'' W
 Independence Day at the Port.                                           to 11:30 pm.
Yachats 4th of July.................  Yachats, OR.....................  July 2, 2022 9:30 p.m.   44[deg]18'38'' N             124[deg]06'27'' W
                                                                         to 11 p.m..
Cedco Inc./The Mill Casino            North Bend, OR..................  July 3, 2022 9:30 p.m.   43[deg]23'42'' N             124[deg]12'55'' W
 Independence Day.                                                       to 11 p.m..
Waldport 4th of July................  Waldport, OR....................  July 3, 2022 9:30 p.m.   44[deg]25'31'' N             124[deg]04'44'' W
                                                                         to 11 p.m..
City of Coos Bay July 4th             Coos Bay, OR....................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   43[deg]22'06'' N             124[deg]12'24'' W
 Celebration/Fireworks Over the Bay.                                     to 11 p.m..
The Dalles Area Fourth of July......  The Dalles, OR..................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   45[deg]36'18'' N             121[deg]10'23'' W
                                                                         to 11 p.m..
Tri-City Chamber of Commerce          Kennewick, WA...................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   46[deg]13'37'' N             119[deg]08'47'' W
 Fireworks/River of Fire Festival.                                       to 11:30 p.m..
Astoria-Warrenton 4th of July         Astoria, OR.....................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   46[deg]11'34'' N             123[deg]49'28'' W
 Fireworks.                                                              to 11 p.m..
Washougal 4th of July...............  Washougal, WA...................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   45[deg]34'32'' N             122[deg]22'53'' W
                                                                         to 11 p.m..
City of St. Helens 4th of July        St. Helens, OR..................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   45[deg]51'54'' N             122[deg]47'26'' W
 Fireworks.                                                              11 p.m..
Lincoln City 4th of July............  Lincoln City, OR................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   44[deg]55'28'' N             124[deg]01'31'' W
                                                                         to 11 p.m..
Florence Independence Day             Florence, OR....................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   43[deg]58'09'' N             124[deg]05'50'' W
 Celebration.                                                            to 11 p.m..
Bandon 4th of July..................  Bandon, OR......................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   43[deg]07'29'' N             124[deg]25'05'' W
                                                                         to 11 p.m..
July 4th Party at the Port of Gold    Gold Beach, OR..................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   42[deg]25'30'' N             124[deg]25'03'' W
 Beach.                                                                  to 11 p.m..
Waverly Country Club 4th of July      Milwaukie, OR...................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   45[deg]27'03'' N             122[deg]39'18'' W
 Fireworks.                                                              to 11 p.m..
Port Orford 4th of July Jubilee.....  Port Orford, OR.................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   42[deg]44'31'' N             124[deg]29'30'' W
                                                                         to 11 p.m..
Brookings, OR July 4th Fireworks....  Brookings, OR...................  July 4, 2022 9 p.m. to   42[deg]02'39'' N             124[deg]16'14'' W
                                                                         10:30 p.m..
Waterfront Blues Festival...........  Portland, OR....................  July 4, 2022 9:30 p.m.   45[deg]30'42'' N             122[deg]40'14'' W
                                                                         to 11 p.m..
City of Rainier/Rainier Days........  Rainier, OR.....................  July 9, 2022 9:30 p.m.   46[deg]05'46'' N             122[deg]56'18'' W
                                                                         to 11 p.m..
Bald Eagle Days.....................  Cathlamet, WA...................  July 16, 2022 9 p.m. to  46[deg]12'14'' N             123[deg]23'17'' W
                                                                         11 p.m..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All coordinates are listed in reference Datum NAD 1983.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of these
enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast
notice to mariners.

    Dated: April 4, 2022.
M. Scott Jackson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2022-07549 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Wednesday, October 14, 2020 1:28 PM
To:
BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Re: Suncoke - 10/7- Whole industry QA review of Coke data and calculations - EPA response

Hello Katie and Kris - Thank you again for your work providing us with the requested information for the Coke RTR. We have provided comments and questions in the "EPA Q's" first tab in the attached file. In general, for the new methodology suggested by SunCoke, we are OK with the procedure but need more information to be able to use it. In other cases, where SunCoke clarified the data, we want to confirm we understand correctly.
Please provide your answers in the blue highlighted cells (column G), as appropriate.
Feel free to contact us at any time if you are not clear on any of these instructions.

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

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

<< EPA-Response-10-14-20-CokeOvens-Enclosure 12 QA-Whole IndustryTest Data-Aug 2020 SCE comments final draft_EPA.xlsx >>

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 9:43 AM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Suncoke - 10/7- Whole industry QA review of Coke data and calculations

Donna Lee,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and revisions to these files. We have a number of comments to provide, which are included below, along with edits to the spreadsheet, which is attached.

Comment 1: HNR Pushing (SC-Vansant-VA and SC-EastChicago-IN only)
 Pushing emissions for SC-Vansant-VA should apply a control efficiency for a cokeside shed. We recommend using a 74% control efficiency for all applicable pollutants for the cokeside shed (AP-42, Table 12.2-6, filterable PM capture efficiency from coke oven pushing).  The value shown in the spreadsheet uses an average of Middletown and Granite City emission factors for the multiclone.  The Vansant site does not have a multiclone, but instead has a shed enclosure for control; therefore, the Middletown and Granite City factors are not applicable here.
 Pushing emissions for SC-EastChicago-IN should apply a control efficiency for a baghouse. We recommend using a 99% control efficiency for the baghouse for all applicable pollutants (AP-42, Appendix B.2, Figure B.2-1 for fabric filter filterable PM collection efficiency). The value shown in the spreadsheet uses an average of Middletown and Granite City emission factors for the multiclone.  The East Chicago site does not have a multiclone, but instead has a shed enclosure with a baghouse for control; therefore, the Middletown and Granite City factors are not applicable here.
Comment 2: HRSG Main Stacks
Since the main stacks at all facilities operate continuously (up to 8,760 hours per year), except in the case of a flue gas desulphurization (FGD) system outage, main stack emissions are not related to coke production and main stacks emit during periods where charging does not occur, a more accurate method to calculate emissions is to use the measured lb/hour emission rate from the ICR source test and multiply by the annual hours/year to calculate an annual emission rate. Since the main stack activity is not tied to charging activity, using a lb/ton coke emission factor is not representative of the main stack emissions process.  When the FGD system is offline, the emissions are directed through the bypass vent stacks.

Comment 3: HRSG Bypass-Waste Heat
Bypass Vent Stacks (BVS) operate intermittently and their operation is not tied to coke production, therefore annual emissions in tons/year should not be based on annual coke production. We believe that a more accurate method to calculate emissions is to use the measured lb/hour emission rate from the ICR source test and multiply by the number of permitted hours of operation per year.  Applicable site permit limits for venting are shown below:
 SC-GraniteCity-IL: 312 hours per BVS (a total of 1,872 permitted stack and FGD hours per year, divided by 6 bypass stacks) (pg. 21, section 4.1.5)
 SC-FranklinFurnace-OH: 1920 hours for all 10 stacks per year
 SC-Middletown-OH: 312 hours per BVS (a total of 1,560 permitted stack and FGD hours per year, divided by 5 bypass stacks)
 SC-EastChicago-IN: 13% annual venting limit, equal to 0.13*8760 = 1,139 hours total per year (pg. 35, section D.1.0.1)
 SC-Vansant-VA: 8,760 hours (operates continuously)
Comment 4: Specific Spreadsheet Changes
Other comments or changes/additions made to spreadsheets as well as questions on calculation methods:
CokeOvens-Enclosure 12 QA-Whole Industry Test Data-Aug 2020.xls
 Tab A-1
 General comment  -  We see that EPA has tried to create a lb/ton of coke emission factor for all sources by using the total amount of coal charged to each oven during the test.  However, this is not representative of a coking cycle, nor is it accurately calculated, in some cases, because the actual number of ovens pushed/charged doesn't appear to be included in this calculation.  Multiple ovens are pushed/charged during any test run.
 Main Stack EP-6
                                                               i.      As stated above in Comment 2, it makes more sense to use lb/hr factor because the main stack emissions are not directly tied to pushing and charging.
                                                             ii.      Error in Column AQ for main stack test and bypass vent stack sources (coal charged during test run in tons/hr)
 For the main stack and bypass vent stack tests, the number shown in column AK (~42 - 46 tons) is the amount of tons charged to each oven, on average.  The calculation does not take into account the actual number of ovens charged.  Regardless, the lb/hr emission factor should be used for these sources as they are not tied to active pushing and charging.
 HRSG BVS EP-7
                                                               i.      Same issue as noted above for EP-6.
 Tab A-3
 The pushing charging machine (PCM) emission factors would be more accurately represented as a lb/ton coal charged as the PCM solely charges coal into the ovens.
 Tab A-4
 Updated total oven count for SC-Vansant (changed from 143 to 142).
 Tab A-5
 Updated battery/oven data as needed.
Thanks,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 4:18 PM
To: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Re: Suncoke - 10/7- Whole industry QA review of Coke data and calculations

OK. We look forward to your comments on 10/7. We appreciate your conscientiousness in reviewing the data.

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

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

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 1:52 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Whole industry QA review of Coke data and calculations

Donna Lee,

We have been working through reviewing the spreadsheet and found a couple of items that we are still working on correcting (e.g. calculation of lb/ton values).  Could we please have a few extra days to complete our review and return our comments to you by 10/7?

Thank you,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 11:32 AM
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Charles Jones'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brenna M Harden<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robert B Sanch<EMAIL_ADDRESS>BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Whole industry QA review of Coke data and calculations

Hello all - We have finished tabulating all of the test data and developing emissions (lb HAP/ton coke, lb HAP/hr, and/or ton HAP/year) from the test facilities, as well as generating default HAP emission factors (lb HAP/ton coke produced or lb HAP/hr) for facilities that did not test or did not do all tests.

Please review and send your comments back (either in the spreadsheets themselves and/or with attached comments) on or before September 28, 2020 (Monday).

I tried to send this email to at least two people per company for all facilities, to make sure I include at least one correct person who can  distribute this QA review to all their company's facilities. Please let me know if I should substitute or add someone else for future emails about the EPA Coke data or the QA.

The attached files are listed below with a description of their contents:
1.    CokeOvens-Estimates&Assumptions-Aug_2020 (Word file)
 Explains the assumptions and estimates used in the Excel spreadsheets.

2.    CokeOvens-Example Emission Calcs-Aug_2020 (Excel file)
 Example calculations for Antimony (Sb) emissions using test data from facilities who tested, for each source category process (EP-1 through EP-9*). The spreadsheet takes the calculations through a complete calculation sequence as an example of what will be done for all HAP tested.
 Shows the default emission factors developed from the test data that will be used for Antimony, as an example HAP, for facilities without test data for the indicated process, to be done next for all HAP tested.
 Shows the application of the default emission factors for Antimony to all facilities without test data for the indicated process to calculate tons Antimony (Sb)/year, to be done next for all HAP.

 The CU (Capacity Utilization) worksheet shows the production values reported to the EPA and the values estimated by the EPA for use in the emission calculations and estimates, for all coke facilities.
 Erie production values from test data (wet/dry coal charged/pushed, and total coke) and ratios developed from these data, to be used to estimate production for facilities without complete production data.

3.    CokeOvens-Enclosures-1&2-QA-Whole_Industry-Emissions-Test-Data-Aug_2020 (Excel file)
 All of the previously reviewed (by individual facility) run-by-run stack test (air) data for all pollutants from test facilities and the EPA calculations made using the test data to produce lb HAP/hr and lb HAP/ton coke emission factors for all HAP.
 Industry default emission factors to be used as default for all HAP, for facilities without test data, developed as described for Antimony in Example Emissions Calcs file.
 Battery (physical) dimensions to be reviewed by industry facilities.
 Oven and battery count from the ICR and previous EPA report (2001 BID).
 Same CU (Capacity Utilization) and Erie production worksheets, as described above for the Example Emissions Calcs file.
 All other test data submitted in the ICR, such as water and opacity tests, COG tests, material tests, etc., which may not be completely summarized, as yet, by the EPA.

Next step will be for EPA to use the approach shown in the Example Emission file and data in the Whole Industry Emissions file to generate all HAP emissions for all coke facilities.

If you have any questions before 9/28/20, please contact Gabrielle AND me by email, and one of us will get back to you.

  * EP-1 BP Pushing (CD), EP-9 HNR Pushing (CD), EP-3 BP Combustion Stacks, EP-4 BP Boiler Stacks, EP-6 HRSG Main Stacks, EP-7 HRSG Bypass-Waste Heat Stacks, EP-8 HNR Charging (CD), EP-10 Quench Tower.

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


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32962-32963]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0554]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval Comparative Price Information in
Direct-to-Consumer and Professional Prescription Drug Advertisements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Comparative Price Information in
Direct-to-Consumer and Professional Prescription Drug Advertisements''
has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

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: On April 23, 2015, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled, ``Comparative Price
Information in Direct-to-Consumer and Professional Prescription Drug
Advertisements'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information
collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0791. The approval
expires on May 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this
information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: June 4, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-14122 Filed 6-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P