[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 106 (Monday, June 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25730-25734]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11457]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505; FRL-9963-40-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT63

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Grant of Reconsideration and
Partial Stay

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of reconsideration and partial stay.

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

SUMMARY: By a letter dated April 18, 2017, the Administrator announced
the convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the fugitive
emission requirements at well sites and compressor station sites in the
final rule, ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources,'' published in the Federal
Register on June 3, 2016. In this action, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting reconsideration of additional

requirements in that rule, specifically the well site pneumatic pumps
standards and the requirements for certification by professional
engineer. In addition, the EPA is staying for three months these rule
requirements pending reconsideration.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 2, 2017. The action granting
reconsideration is effective June 2, 2017. The stay of Sec. Sec.
60.5393a(b) through (c), 60.5397a, 60.5410a(e)(2) through (5) and (j),
60.5411a(d), 60.5415a(h), 60.5420a(b)(7), (8), and (12), and (c)(15)
through (17) is effective from June 2, 2017, until August 31, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter Tsirigotis, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (D205-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Electronic copies of this document are available on EPA's Web site
at https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry. Copies of this document are also available at https://www.regulations.gov, at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 3, 2016, the EPA published a final rule titled ``Oil and
Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and
Modified Sources; Final Rule,'' 81 FR 35824 (June 3, 2016) (``2016
Rule''). The 2016 Rule establishes new source performance standards
(NSPS) for greenhouse gas emissions and volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. This rule addresses,
among other things, fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor
station sites (``fugitive emissions requirements''), and emissions from
pneumatic pumps. In addition, for a number of affected facilities
(i.e., centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic
pumps, and storage vessels), the rule requires certification by a
professional engineer of the closed vent system design and capacity, as
well as any technical infeasibility determination relative to
controlling pneumatic pumps at well sites. For further information on
the 2016 Rule, see 81 FR 35824 (June 3, 2016).
    On August 2, 2016, a number of interested parties submitted
administrative petitions to the EPA seeking reconsideration of various
aspects of the 2016 Rule pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).\1\ Those petitions include
numerous objections relative to the fugitive emissions requirements,
well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for
certification by professional engineer. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of
the CAA, the Administrator shall convene a reconsideration proceeding
if, in the Administrator's judgment, the petitioner raises an objection
to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or
if the grounds for the objection arose after the comment period but
within the period for judicial review. In either case, the
Administrator must also conclude that the objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule. The Administrator may stay the
effectiveness of the rule for up to three months during such
reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Copies of these petitions are included in the docket for the
2016 Rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated April 18, 2017, based on the criteria in CAA
section 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrator convened a proceeding for
reconsideration of the following objections relative to the fugitive
emissions requirements: (1) The applicability of the fugitive emissions
requirements to low production well sites, and (2) the process and
criteria for requesting and receiving approval for the use of an
alternative means of emission limitations (AMEL) for purposes of
compliance with the fugitive emissions requirements in the 2016 Rule.
    The EPA had proposed to exempt low production well sites from the
fugitive emissions requirements, believing the lower production
associated with these wells would generally result in lower fugitive
emissions. 80 FR 56639. However, the final rule differs significantly
from what was proposed in that it requires these well sites to comply
with the fugitive emissions requirements based on information and
rationale not presented for public comment during the proposal stage.
See 81 FR 35856 (``. . . well site fugitive emissions are not
correlated with levels of production, but rather based on the number of
pieces of equipment and components''). It was therefore impracticable
to object to this new rationale during the public comment period.
    The AMEL process and criteria were included in the 2016 Rule
without having been proposed for notice and comment. The EPA added the
AMEL provisions in the final rule with the intent of, among other
goals, reducing compliance burdens for those sources that may already
be reducing fugitive emissions in accordance with a state requirement
or other program that is achieving reductions equivalent to those
required by the 2016 Rule. These AMEL provisions were also added to
encourage the development and use of innovative technology, in
particular for fugitive emissions monitoring. 81 FR 35861. However,
issues and questions raised in the administrative petitions for
reconsideration (e.g., who can apply for and who can use an approved
AMEL) suggest that sources may have difficulty understanding and
applying for AMEL.
    Both issues described above, which relate directly to whether
certain sources must implement the fugitive emissions requirements, are
of central relevance to the outcome of the 2016 Rule for the reasons
stated below. Fugitive emissions are a significant source of emissions
for many industries, and the EPA has promulgated numerous NSPS
specifically for reducing fugitive emissions, including 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKK (addressing VOC leaks from on-shore natural gas processing
plants), as standalone rules. The fact that the EPA chose here to
promulgate the well site and compressor station fugitive emissions
requirements along with other standards in the 2016 Rule does not make
these requirements any less important than the other fugitive emissions
standards; rather, because of their importance, they are a significant
component of the 2016 Rule. The issues described above are important as
they determine the universe of affected facilities that must implement
the fugitive emission requirements; as such, they are of central
relevance to the outcome of the 2016 Rule. As stated in the April 18,
2017, letter, the EPA has convened an administrative proceeding for the
reconsideration of the fugitive emissions requirements in response to
these two objections.

II. Grant of Reconsideration of Additional Issues

    Since issuing the April 18, 2017, letter, the EPA has identified
objections to two other aspects of the 2016 Rule that meet the criteria
for reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. These
objections relate to (1) the requirements for certification of closed
vent system by professional engineer, and (2) the well site pneumatic
pump standards.

A. Requirements for Certification of Closed Vent System by Professional
Engineer

    For closed vent systems used to comply with the emission standards
for

various equipment used in the oil and natural gas sector, the 2016 Rule
requires certification by a professional engineer (PE) that a closed
vent system design and capacity assessment was conducted under his or
her direction or supervision and that the assessment and resulting
report were conducted pursuant to the requirements of the 2016 Rule
(``PE certification requirement''). Several petitioners for
administrative reconsideration assert that the PE certification
requirement was not proposed for notice and comment.\2\ One petitioner
notes that no costs associated with obtaining such certification were
considered or provided for review during the proposal process.\3\ The
petitioner claims that there is no quantifiable benefit to the
environment from this additional compliance demonstration requirement,
while there is significant expense involved.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7682 and Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7686.
    \3\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7682.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 111 of the CAA requires that the EPA consider, among other
factors, the cost associated with establishing a new source performance
standard. See 111(a)(1) of the CAA. The statute is thus clear that cost
is an important consideration in determining whether to impose a
requirement. In finalizing the 2016 Rule, the EPA made clear that it
viewed the PE certification requirement to be an important aspect of a
number of performance standards in the that rule. The EPA acknowledges
that it had not analyzed the costs associated with the PE certification
requirement; therefore, it was impracticable for petitioners to provide
meaningful comments during the comment period on whether the improved
environmental performance this requirement may achieve justifies the
associated costs and other compliance burden. This issue is of central
relevance to the outcome of the 2016 Rule because the rule requires
this PE certification for demonstrating compliance for a number of
different standards, including the standards for centrifugal
compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps, and storage
vessels. For the reasons stated above, the EPA is granting
reconsideration of the PE certification requirement.

B. Technical Infeasibility Determination (Well Site Pneumatic Pump
Standards)

    In the 2016 Rule, the EPA exempts a pneumatic pump at a well site
from the emission reduction requirement if it is technically infeasible
to route the pneumatic pump to a control device or a process. 81 FR
35850. However, the rule requires that such technical infeasibility be
determined and certified by a ``qualified professional engineer'' as
that term is defined in the final rule. During the proposal stage, the
EPA did not propose or otherwise suggest exempting well site pneumatic
pumps from emission control based on such certification. In fact, the
technical infeasibility exemption itself was added during the final
rule stage. Further, this certification requirement differs
significantly from how the EPA has previously addressed another
``technical infeasibility'' issue encountered by this industry.
Specifically, the oil and gas NSPS subpart OOOO, which was promulgated
in 2012, exempts hydraulically fractured gas well completions from
performing a reduced emission completion (REC) if it is not technically
feasible to do so, and requires documentation and recordkeeping of the
technical infeasibility. See 40 CFR 60.5375. The 2016 Rule extends the
REC requirement and associated technical infeasibility exemption to
hydraulically fractured oil well completions and requires more detailed
documentation of technical infeasibility. Neither subpart OOOO nor the
2016 Rule require that REC technical infeasibility be certified by a
qualified professional engineer, nor was such requirement proposed or
otherwise raised during the public comment period for these rules. In
light of the fact that the EPA had not proposed such certification
requirement for pneumatic pumps, and how this requirement differs from
the EPA's previous treatment of a similar issue as described above, one
could not have anticipated that the 2016 Rule would finalize such
certification requirement for pneumatic pumps in the 2016 Rule.
Further, believing that ``circumstances that could otherwise make
control of a pneumatic pump technically infeasible at an existing
location can be addressed in the site's design and construction,'' the
EPA does not allow such exemption for new developments in the 2016
Rule. 40 CFR 60.5393a(b)(5); see also, 81 FR 35849. The 2016 Rule
refers to such new developments as ``greenfield,'' which is defined as
an ``entirely new construction.'' 40 CFR 60.5430a.
    The provisions described above were included in the 2016 Rule
without having been proposed for notice and comment, and numerous
related objections and issues were raised in the reconsideration
petitions. With respect to the requirement that technical infeasibility
be certified by a professional engineer, petitioners raised the same
issues as those for closed vent system certification discussed in
section II.A. In addition, several petitions find the definition of
greenfield unclear. For example, one petitioner questions whether the
term ``new'' as used in this definition is synonymous to how that term
is defined in section 111 of the CAA. Additional questions include
whether a greenfield remains forever a greenfield, considering that
site designs may change by the time that a new control or pump is
installed (which may be years later). Petitioners also object to EPA's
assumption that the technical infeasibility encountered at existing
well sites can be addressed when ``new'' sites are developed. The
issues described above dictate whether one must achieve the emission
reduction required under the well site pneumatic pump standards, which
were a major addition to the existing oil and gas NSPS regulations
through promulgation of the 2016 Rule. Therefore, these issues are of
central relevance to the outcome of the 2016 Rule.
    As announced in the April 18, 2017, letter, and as further
announced in this document, the Administrator has convened an
administrative reconsideration proceeding. As part of the proceeding,
the EPA will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide
the petitioners and the public an opportunity to comment on the rule
requirements and associated issues identified above, as well as those
for which reconsideration was granted in the April 18, 2017, letter.
During the reconsideration proceeding, the EPA intends to look broadly
at the entire 2016 Rule. For a copy of this letter and the
administrative reconsideration petitions, please see Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0505.

III. Stay of Certain Provisions

    By this document, in addition to the grant of reconsideration
discussed in section II above, the EPA is staying the effectiveness of
certain aspects of the 2016 Rule for three months pursuant to section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA pending reconsideration of the requirements and
associated issues described above and in the April 18, 2017, letter.
Specifically, the EPA is staying the effectiveness of the fugitive
emissions requirements, the standards for pneumatic pumps at well
sites, and the certification by a professional engineer requirements.
As explained above, the low production well sites and AMEL issues under
reconsideration determine the universe of sources that must implement
the fugitive emissions requirements. The

2016 Rule requires compliance with the closed vent system requirements,
including certification by a professional engineer, in order to meet
the emissions standards for a wide range of equipment (centrifugal
compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps, and storage
vessels); therefore, the issues relative to closed vent certification
affect the ability of these equipment to comply with the 2016 Rule. The
technical infeasibility exemption and the associated certification by
professional engineer requirement, as well as the ``greenfield'' issues
described above, dictate whether a source must comply with the emission
reduction requirement for well site pneumatic pumps. In light of the
uncertainties these issues generate regarding the application and/or
implementation of the fugitive emissions requirements, the well site
pneumatic pumps standards and the certification by professional
engineers requirements, the EPA believes it is reasonable to stay the
effectiveness of these requirements in the 2016 Rule, pending
reconsideration. Therefore, pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the
CAA, the EPA hereby stays the effectiveness of these requirements for
three months.
    This stay will remain in place until August 31, 2017.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping.

    Dated: May 26, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons cited in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart OOOOa--[Amended]

0
2. Section 60.5393a is amended by:
0
a. Staying paragraphs (b) and (c) from June 2, 2017, until August 31,
2017; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (f).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  60.5393a  What GHG and VOC standards apply to pneumatic pump
affected facilities?

* * * * *
    (f) Pneumatic pumps at a well site are not subject to the
requirements of paragraph (d) and (e) of this section from June 2,
2017, until August 31, 2017.

Sec.  60.5397a   [Amended]

0
3. Section 60.5397a is stayed from June 2, 2017, until August 31, 2017.

0
4. Section 60.5410a is amended by:
0
a. Staying paragraphs (e)(2) through (5) from June 2, 2017, until
August 31, 2017;
0
b. Adding paragraph (e)(8); and
0
c. Staying paragraph (j) from June 2, 2017, until August 31, 2017.
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  60.5410a  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
standards for my well, centrifugal compressor, reciprocating
compressor, pneumatic controller, pneumatic pump, storage vessel,
collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site, collection
of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station, and equipment
leaks and sweetening unit affected facilities at onshore natural gas
processing plants?

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (8) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well are not subject to
the requirements of (e)(6) and (7) of this section from June 2, 2017,
until August 31, 2017.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 60.5411a is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. Staying paragraph (d) from June 2, 2017, until August 31, 2017; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (e).
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  60.5411a  What additional requirements must I meet to determine
initial compliance for my covers and closed vent systems routing
emissions from centrifugal compressor wet seal fluid degassing systems,
reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps and storage vessels?

    You must meet the applicable requirements of this section for each
cover and closed vent system used to comply with the emission standards
for your centrifugal compressor wet seal degassing systems,
reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps and storage vessels except
as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site are not
subject to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section from June
2, 2017, until August 31, 2017.

0
6. Section 60.5415a is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text and adding paragraph
(b)(4); and
0
b. Staying paragraph (h) from June 2, 2017, until August 31, 2017.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  60.5415a  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
standards for my well, centrifugal compressor, reciprocating
compressor, pneumatic controller, pneumatic pump, storage vessel,
collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site, and
collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station
affected facilities, and affected facilities at onshore natural gas
processing plants?

* * * * *
    (b) For each centrifugal compressor affected facility and each
pneumatic pump affected facility, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section except as
provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. For each centrifugal
compressor affected facility, you also must demonstrate continuous
compliance according to paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site are not
subject to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(3) of this section from
June 2, 2017, until August 31, 2017.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 60.5416a is amended by revising the introductory text and
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5416a  What are the initial and continuous cover and closed
vent system inspection and monitoring requirements for my centrifugal
compressor, reciprocating compressor, pneumatic pump, and storage
vessel affected facilities?

    For each closed vent system or cover at your storage vessel,
centrifugal compressor, reciprocating compressor and pneumatic pump
affected facilities, you must comply with the applicable requirements
of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, except as provided in
paragraph (d) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site are not
subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
from June 2, 2017, until August 31, 2017.

0
8. Section 60.5420a is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Staying paragraphs (b)(7), (8), and (12) from June 2, 2017, until
August 31, 2017;
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(13); and
0
d. Staying paragraphs (c)(15) through (17) from June 2, 2017, until
August 31, 2017.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  60.5420a  What are my notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) Reporting requirements. You must submit annual reports
containing the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8)
and (12) of this section and performance test reports as specified in
paragraph (b)(9) or (10) of this section, if applicable, except as
provided in paragraph (b)(13) of this section. You must submit annual
reports following the procedure specified in paragraph (b)(11) of this
section. The initial annual report is due no later than 90 days after
the end of the initial compliance period as determined according to
Sec.  60.5410a. Subsequent annual reports are due no later than same
date each year as the initial annual report. If you own or operate more
than one affected facility, you may submit one report for multiple
affected facilities provided the report contains all of the information
required as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section,
except as provided in paragraph (b)(13) of this section. Annual reports
may coincide with title V reports as long as all the required elements
of the annual report are included. You may arrange with the
Administrator a common schedule on which reports required by this part
may be submitted as long as the schedule does not extend the reporting
period.
* * * * *
    (13) The collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site
(as defined in Sec.  60.5430a), the collection of fugitive emissions
components at a compressor station (as defined in Sec.  60.5430a), and
pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site (as defined in Sec.
60.5365a(h)(2)) are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)
of this section from June 2, 2017, until August 31, 2017.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-11457 Filed 6-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 59205-59206]
[DOCID:fr17no09-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Thermal Aspects of Radio Frequency Exposure; Public Workshop

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
workshop entitled ``Thermal Aspects of Radio Frequency Exposure.'' The
purpose of the workshop is to discuss thermal sensitivity and heating
effects of different tissues.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on January 11 and
12, 2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the Gaithersburg
Hilton, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877.
    Contact Person: Victoria Wagman, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Registration: Mail or fax your registration information (including
name, title, firm name, address, telephone and fax numbers) to the
contact person by December 15, 2009. There is no registration fee for
the public workshop. Early registration is recommended because seating
is limited. Registration on the day of the public workshop will be
provided on a space available basis beginning at 8 a.m.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Victoria Wagman by November 4, 2009.
    Transcripts: Transcripts of the public workshop may be requested in
writing from the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857,
approximately 15 working days after the public workshop at a cost of 10
cents per page. A transcript of the public workshop will be available
on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/
NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/TranscriptsMinutes/default.htm.

    Dated: November 6, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Acting Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. E9-27513 Filed 11-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: December 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 71003-71004]
[DOCID:fr07de06-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54846; File No. SR-CHX-2006-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding the Implementation of a Communications or Routing Service

November 30, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 16, 2006, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The CHX has
filed this proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to operate a service that
allows its participants to route orders to any other destination
connected to the CHX's network.

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
    As part of the Exchange's new trading model, the Exchange proposes
to operate a neutral communications service that allows its
participants to route orders to any destination connected to the CHX's
network. Specifically, this service would allow participants to route
orders to: (1) The CHX Matching System; (2) CHX institutional brokers;
(3) market makers or other broker-dealers connected to the CHX's
network, which provide order handling and execution services in the
over-the-counter market; and (4) other destinations (including order-
routing vendors) that are connected to the CHX's network.\5\ This
communications or routing service would not effect trade executions and
would not report trades to ``the tape.'' An order would not pass
through the CHX market before going to an entity or market outside of
the CHX (i.e., a participant could choose to route an order directly to
any of the above destinations). A participant would be responsible for
identifying the appropriate destination for any orders sent through the
service and for ensuring that it had authority to access the selected
destination; the CHX would merely provide the mechanism by which orders
(and associated messages) could be routed by a participant to a
destination and from the destination back to the participant.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Details associated with the operation of these routing
services would be set out on the Exchange's Web site or could be the
subject of an agreement between the CHX and any participants that
seek to use the services.
    \6\ This service is an extension of a service that the Exchange
already provides to its participants--current order-sending
participants route orders through access provided by the Exchange to
the MAX[reg] trading system and to the CHX's
institutional brokers. Institutional brokers and specialists use
CHX-provided connectivity to route orders to the MAX trading system
(and, for securities that have been transitioned to the new trading
model, to the CHX's new Matching System).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This service would be a facility of the Exchange. As a result, the
Exchange would submit fee changes, and any applicable changes to its
rules, to the Commission as required by Rule 19b-4 under the Act in
connection with its routing.\7\ Accordingly, the Exchange is

filing, concurrently with this proposal, a separate proposal to charge
a fee to recipients of orders that are sent through this service.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. The Exchange's rules and fees, however,
would not address the fees or manner of operation of any destination
to which the participant asked that an order be routed.
    \8\ See File No. SR-CHX-2006-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would provide these routing services in compliance
with its rules and with the provisions of the Act and the rules
thereunder, including, but not limited to, the requirements of Sections
6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act \9\ that the rules of a national securities
exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using
its facilities, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4)-(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The CHX believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable
to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the
requirements of Section 6(b).\10\ The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\
because they would 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, protect investors
and the public interest by confirming that the CHX would operate its
routing services as a facility of the Exchange, in a manner consistent
with the requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 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 changes will
impose any burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days from the
date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 5-day pre-
filing notice requirement. The Commission has determined to waive
this requirement for this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, a 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 CHX has requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow
participants to begin to utilize the proposed routing function in
connection with the implementation of the Exchange's new trading model.
For these reasons, the Commission designates that the proposed rule
change become operative immediately.
    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CHX-2006-34 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-2006-34. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-
CHX-2006-34 and should be submitted on or before December 28, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-20719 Filed 12-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 14623]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Number: PR21-37-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: COH Rates effective
March 1 2021 to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/9/2021.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>47.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-879-000.
    Applicants: Antero Resources Corporation, MU Marketing LLC.
    Description: Joint Request of Antero Resources Corporation, et al.
for Extension of Limited Waiver et al.
    Filed Date: 3/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210310-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/21.

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

    Dated: March 11, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05498 Filed 3-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11180-11184]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0093; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01213-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports indicating that the left- and
right-hand elevator torque tube bearings were contaminated with sand
and corrosion, restricting free rotation. This proposed AD would
require repetitive general visual inspections of the left- and right-
hand elevator torque tube bearings for any sand, dust, or corrosion;
repetitive functional tests of the elevator control system; and
replacement of the elevator torque tube bearings if necessary. 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 April 12,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 200 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or
direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0093; 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, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<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-2021-0093; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01213-T'' 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
the 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
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

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
Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and
Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-
794-5531; 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

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-29, dated August 21,
2020 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all
Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0093.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports indicating that the left-
and right-hand elevator torque tube bearings were contaminated with
sand and corrosion, restricting free rotation. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address sand contamination and corrosion of the elevator
torque tube bearings, which could lead to binding or seizure of the
bearings, and potentially lead to a reduction in or loss of airplane
pitch control. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-041, Revision 1,
dated December 7, 2020.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-083, Revision 1, dated
December 7, 2020.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5012, Revision 1, dated
December 7, 2020.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5503, Revision 1, dated
December 7, 2020.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6012, Revision 1, dated
December 7, 2020.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6503, Revision 1, dated
December 7, 2020.
    This service information describes procedures for repetitive
general visual inspections of the left- and right-hand elevator torque
tube bearings for any sand, dust, or corrosion; repetitive functional
tests of the elevator control system; and corrective actions including
replacement of the elevator torque tube bearings if necessary. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models
and 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.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously. This proposed AD also
would require sending the inspection results to Bombardier.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 392 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                     Estimated Costs for Required Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Labor cost                       Parts cost             Cost per product     Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 work-hours x $85 per hour =       Up to $4 (for four cotter    Up to $1,874..........  Up to $734,608.
 $1,870.                              pins) **.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table does not include estimated costs for reporting.
 ** Parts cost include replacement parts where necessary.

    The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA
estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S.
operators to be $33,320, or $85 per product.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
            Labor cost                   Parts cost           product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $425  $271 (for four                  $696
                                     bearings).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all
known costs in the cost estimate.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has
been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and
includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting
associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the
accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should
be directed to Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal
Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-
1524.

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 above, 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:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2021-0093; Project Identifier MCAI-
2020-01213-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by April 12, 2021.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and
BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports indicating that the left- and
right-hand elevator torque tube bearings were contaminated with sand
and corrosion, restricting free rotation. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address sand contamination and corrosion of the elevator torque
tube bearings, which could lead to binding or seizure of the
bearings, and potentially lead to a reduction in or loss of airplane
pitch control.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Actions

    Within 36 months from the effective date of this AD or within 63
months from the date of airplane manufacture, as identified on the
identification plate of the airplane, whichever occurs later: Do a
general visual inspection of the left- and right-hand elevator
torque tube bearings for any sand, dust, or corrosion; perform a
functional test of the elevator control system; and do all
applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of paragraphs 2.B., 2.C., and 2.D. of the applicable
service information specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this
AD. Applicable corrective actions must be done before further
flight. Repeat the general visual inspection and functional test
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 63 months.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24FE21.002

(h) Reporting Requirement

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (2) of
this AD, submit a report of all findings, positive and negative, of
each of the first three inspections required by paragraph (g) of
this AD. Submit the report to Bombardier, in accordance with the
details specified in the applicable service information specified in
figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the applicable service information in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (6).
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-041, dated July 23,
2020.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-083, dated July 23, 2020.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5012, dated July 23,
2020.
    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5503, dated July 23,
2020.
    (5) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6012, dated July 23,
2020.
    (6) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6503, dated July 23,
2020.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
All responses to this collection of information are mandatory as
required by this AD. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2020-29, dated August 21, 2020, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2021-0093.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Siddeeq Bacchus,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 200 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free telephone 1-
866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA,

Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on February 9, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03588 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 240)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 75182-75186]
[DOCID:fr14de06-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009; FRL-8256-2]
RIN 2060-AK22

National Air Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning: Notice of Data Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing this Notice of Data Availability (NODA) in
support of the proposed rule issued August 17, 2006, entitled
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants--Halogenated
Solvent Cleaning''. EPA received a number of comments on the proposed
rule and is in the process of evaluating those comments. This NODA
addresses certain new data and information that EPA received concerning
the unique nature and size of the degreasing machines used by the
following facilities: narrow tubing manufacturing facilities,
facilities that manufacture specialized products requiring continuous
web cleaning, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities, large
military vehicle maintenance operations, and facilities that use
multiple degreasing machines. Specifically, the new data and
information that form the basis of this NODA relates to the following
three issues; the ability of the above-noted facilities meeting the
proposed facility-wide emission limits; the cost impacts associated
with the above-noted facilities implementing the proposed facility-wide
emission limits; and, the time frame needed for the above-noted
facilities to comply with the proposed facility-wide emission limits.
    Although we recognize that the public has access to comments
submitted during the comment period, we are nonetheless issuing this
NODA because the new data and information at issue in this NODA are
directly relevant to the alternative proposed standards described in
the proposed rule. We are seeking comment only on the three issues
identified above that relate to the unique nature and size of the
degreasing machines used by the facilities specified above. We do not
intend to respond to comments addressing any other aspect of the
proposed rule.

DATES: Comments on the NODA must be received on or before January 29,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the NODA should be submitted to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009. Comments may be submitted by one of the following
methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://http://www.regulations.govhttp://www..regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's

electronic public docket and comment system is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail: Air Docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants--Halogenated Solvent Cleaning, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of two copies.
    Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Room B108, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to the flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. During the cleanup, however, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/eaphome/dockets.htm for current information on

docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected by the

flooding and will remain the same.

    Instructions: Direct your comments on the NODA to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009. The EPA's policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public docket(s) without change and may be made
available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal
regulations.gov Web sites are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your
E-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some

information is

not publicly available (i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H. Lynn Dail, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Planning Division,
Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this NODA is
organized as follows:

I. Additional Information on Submitting Comments
    A. How Can I Help EPA Ensure That My Comments Are Reviewed
Quickly?
    B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
    1. Submitting CBI
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
II. Why Is EPA Issuing This NODA and What Are the Issues on Which
EPA Is Soliciting Comment?
III. Proposed Emission Limit Options
    A. What Are the Proposed Emissions Limits?
    B. What Is the New Information or Data That EPA Is Making
Available for Review and Comment?
    C. What Additional Supporting Data or Documentation Do I Need To
Provide With My Comments?
IV. EPA's Proposed Cost Assessment
    A. What Are the Estimated Compliance Costs?
    B. What Is the New Information EPA Is Making Available for
Review and Comment?
    C. What Additional Supporting Data or Documentation Do I Need To
Provide With My Comments?
V. EPA's Proposed Compliance Schedule
    A. What Is the Proposed Compliance Schedule?
    B. What Is the New Information EPA Is Making Available for
Review and Comment?
    C. What Additional Supporting Data or Documentation Do I Need To
Provide With My Comments?

I. Additional Information on Submitting Comments

A. How Can I Help EPA Ensure That My Comments Are Reviewed Quickly?

    To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the
copy you submit to the official docket, to H. Lynn Dail, U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group, Mail Code E143-03, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
    Information or documents declared as CBI will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Why Is EPA Issuing This NODA and What Are the Issues on Which EPA
Is Soliciting Comment?

    In August 2006, pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2), EPA
issued the proposed rule entitled, ``National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants--Halogenated Solvent Cleaning'' (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009) (the ``proposed rule''). See 71 FR 47670 (Aug.
17, 2006). In developing the proposed rule, EPA used the best available
data that it had before it at the time. Detailed background information
describing the proposed rulemaking may be found in the proposed rule
and the docket in support of that rule.
    During the public comment period, EPA received certain new data and
information concerning the unique nature and size of the degreasing
machines used by the following facilities: narrow tubing manufacturing
facilities, facilities that manufacture specialized products requiring
continuous web cleaning,\1\ aerospace manufacturing and maintenance
facilities, large military vehicle maintenance operations, and
facilities that use multiple degreasing machines. The new data and
information at issue in this NODA are directly relevant to the
alternative proposed standards described in the proposed rule. To
better inform our decision making, we are identifying the new data and
information received from the above-noted facilities and soliciting
comment on the following three discrete issues: (1) The ability of the
above-noted facilities meeting the proposed facility-wide emission
limits, (2) the cost impacts associated with the above-noted facilities
implementing the proposed facility-wide emission limits, and (3) the
time frame needed for the above-noted facilities to comply with the
proposed facility-wide emission limits. The EPA will consider only
comments, data or information related to these three issues. We do not
intend to respond to comments addressing any other aspect of the
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 2, 1994, EPA promulgated HSC NESHAP that
established both control device and work practice requirements for
batch and in-line solvent cleaning machines (59 FR 61801).
Continuous web cleaning machines are a subset of in-line cleaning
machines. Subsequently, we clarified the applicability of certain
compliance options under the HSC NESHAP, and also specified
alternative compliance requirements for continuous web cleaning
machines (64 FR 67793, 67794-67796 (December 3, 1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All the comments, information and data submitted by commenters and
discussed in this NODA are available in the Air Docket, National
Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants--Halogenated Solvent Cleaning,
Environmental Protection Agency, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009.

III. Proposed Emissions Limit Options

A. What Are the Proposed Emissions Limits?

    The proposed rule presented an emissions limit approach whereby
emissions of the hazardous air pollutants (HAP), perchloroethylene
(PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and methylene chloride (MC) from
facilities operating halogenated solvent cleaning machines are capped
at levels determined to protect public health with an ample margin of
safety and to prevent adverse environmental effects.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's proposed determination pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6) is set forth in the proposed rule at 71 FR 47684-47685.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, under the proposed rule, the owner or operator of
each affected facility would ensure that the facility-wide PCE, TCE,
and MC emissions from all halogenated solvent cleaning machines subject
to the MACT standards are less than or equal to specific solvent
emissions limits, as identified in the proposed rule. The proposed rule
identified six different regulatory alternatives in this regard,
including the two co-proposed options of 25,000 kilograms per year (kg/
yr) and 40,000 kg/yr of MC equivalent.
    We believe that there are multiple ways in which facilities can
comply with the proposed rule, and while we analyzed and identified in
the proposed rule some of the methods that may effectively reduce
emissions, we neither proposed specific compliance options nor did we
limit the options by which facilities could comply. Under the proposed
revised standards, the HSC MACT requirements for all applicable new and
existing sources would remain applicable. See 71 FR 47675-47676 and
47683-47684 for a complete discussion of the proposed facility-wide
solvent emission limit and compliance options. Nothing in the proposed
rule precludes a facility from using a compliance option not identified
in the proposal. Sources may implement compliance options identified in
the MACT or whatever compliance options they choose regardless of
whether it is mentioned in the August 2006 proposal or the MACT.

B. What Is the New Information or Data That EPA Is Making Available for
Review and Comment?

     Comments and data provided by the Halogenated Solvents
Industry Alliance (HSIA) concerning the technical infeasibility of
using solvent switching, retrofitting, and installation of vacuum-to-
vacuum machines on applications in the narrow tubing and aerospace
industries, facilities that use continuous web cleaners and large
military vehicle maintenance facilities. HSIA states that these
degreasing applications use large machines and the current low-emitting
cleaning machines are technically infeasible because these industries
degrease parts of uncommon sizes and shapes that these machines have
not been commonly designed to handle. The commenter provides instances
where particular companies have installed low-emitting equipment yet
were unable to meet the 1994 HSC NESHAP. The commenter stated that the
EPA should revise its emission reduction estimate for vacuum cleaning
machines and have this new estimate confirmed by companies that have
recently installed vacuum-to-vacuum machines.
     Comments and data provided by the American Safety Razor
Company, concerning the technical infeasibility of solvent switching,
retrofitting and vacuum-to-vacuum machines for facilities using
continuous web cleaning machines because the cleaning process is so
unique and different from the other forms of degreasing, batch cold and
vapor cleaning. The commenter states that EPA incorrectly concluded
that solvent switching will work for continuous web cleaners because,
according to the commenter, a majority of alternative HAP and non-HAP
solvents are incompatible with its products. Without any supporting
data, the commenter also states that EPA's proposal significantly
overstates the potential for emission reductions in the source
category.
     Comments and data provided by Delta Air Lines suggesting
that EPA should establish limits on each degreaser in terms of either
kilograms per degreaser or kilograms per square meter of solvent/air
interface area. The commenter indicates that low-emitting technology
such as the vacuum-to-vacuum machines are not feasible when considering
the unique shape and size of the parts they clean because of shape,
size, metallurgy, corrosion resistance and that many aerospace
maintenance procedures are approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration. The commenter further suggests that EPA create
emissions limits for an aerospace degreasing subcategory.
     Comments and data provided by Spirit Aerosystems on
compliance options for the proposed facility-wide emissions limits. The
commenter compels EPA to consider regulatory approaches other than the
single facility-wide emissions limit that do not result in a
disproportionate and unfair regulatory burden on large facilities with
unique, complex and stringent production requirements related to
materials cleaning and for whom few compliance options are available.
In simple terms, the commenter states that reducing emissions to the
emission limit, when compared to smaller facilities, the aerospace
facilities faces greater liability and burden than most other
degreasing facilities.
     Comments provided by Eastman Kodak Company indicate their
belief that facility-wide emission limits leave source owners only two
compliance options: (1) establish internal production restrictions or
(2) install add-on capture and control equipment to insure operating
flexibility.
     Comments and data provided by narrow tubing manufacturers,
such as Salem Tubing, Superior Tubing, Plymouth Tubing, Accellent
Endoscopy and Summerill Tubing, on the technical infeasibility of
achieving the degree of emissions reduction projected by EPA. The
commenters contend that there may be no technology or degreasing method
available to their industry that would allow them to reduce emissions
further. The commenters state that switching to an alternative solvent
could present a myriad of problems including incompatibility with
materials being cleaned, solvent performance, and worker safety
concerns, especially with MC. The commenters also explain that many
facilities have retrofitted their equipment and that emission reduction
option would not be available to them. They also state that vacuum-to-
vacuum cleaning machines have not been engineered or built to the large
size necessary to effectively degrease specialized tubing such as 40-
foot lengths of tubing and large coils. The commenters provided data to
support these comments.

C. What Additional Supporting Data or Documentation Do I Need To
Provide With My Comments?

    The EPA is soliciting comment on the new data provided. EPA also
seeks additional data and information concerning the specific comments
described above that relate to the three issues identified at the
outset of this NODA. In addition, with respect to narrow tubing
manufacturing facilities, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance
facilities, large military vehicle maintenance operations, facilities
that use multiple degreaser machines, and facilities that use
continuous web cleaners, EPA seeks

additional data and information from these facilities that includes,
but is not limited to, any technology or other methods or approaches
that may achieve the proposed emission limits. The EPA is also
requesting that commenters provide detailed comments if their responses
indicate that there are no technologies or other methods available or
feasible. Commenters may also provide details of any barriers that may
exist to prevent lowering of emission levels. The EPA further requests
that commenters provide data on the operational life expectancy of HSC
machines, and the difference in floor space needed to install low-
emitting machines.

IV. EPA's Proposed Cost Assessment

A. What Are the Estimated Compliance Costs?

    Pursuant to the CAA section 112(f), EPA evaluated the remaining
risk to public health and the environment following implementation of
the technology-based rule for HSC machines. The EPA proposed more
stringent standards in order to protect the public health with an ample
margin of safety and to prevent adverse environmental impacts. In the
second step of the ample margin of safety analysis, EPA considered the
issue of costs consistent with section 112(f)(2).
    EPA analyzed and presented the nationwide cost impacts and
emissions reductions associated with each of the six regulatory
alternatives identified in the proposal. Two of those alternatives
include the 25,000 kilograms per year (kg/yr) and 40,000 kg/yr of MC
equivalent alternatives noted above. See 71 FR 47681-47683 for a
complete discussion of our estimated costs to reduce HAP emissions from
HSC machines.

B. What Is the New Information EPA Is Making Available for Review and
Comment?

     Comments and cost information for design and installation
of new vacuum-to-vacuum machines was provided by the narrow tube
manufacturers. They also included comments and data that indicates that
EPA's capital cost basis is approximately fifteen times below industry
projected costs range. They also indicate that EPA failed to factor in
the costs associated with facilities expanding current building to
accommodate vacuum-to-vacuum machines that may require a larger floor
space.
     Comments and data provided by an aerospace industry
association indicates that EPA understated compliance costs for the
aerospace industry because any action by the facility to switch
solvents must go through a rigorous approval process to meet the
requirements of the original equipment manufacturer and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure that safety and quality
criteria are met. This process is not a common process for other HSC
facilities. The commenter also reports that there are few manufacturers
of vacuum-to-vacuum degreasing machines and they are not aware if the
technology can effectively degrease parts of specific types and sizes.
The commenter reported that similar facilities that installed the
technology incurred costs of over $1 million with new annualized costs
of approximately $80,000 per year.
     Comments and data provided by the HSIA indicating that EPA
failed to meet the duty to reasonably consider the economic effects of
the rulemaking on small businesses. Comments and data provided by HSIA
indicate that EPA's costs are understated because, in actuality, fewer
facilities than estimated by EPA can comply with the rule by switching
solvent, and more facilities would need to use a more costly method to
comply with the rule. The HSIA asserts that, even assuming that
emission control technology and/or low-emitting cleaning machines such
as vacuum-to-vacuum machines can be adapted to the very specific
degreasing requirements for the aerospace and the narrow tubing
industries, the cost of installing vacuum-to-vacuum machines at
facilities with very large degreasing operations would be cost
prohibitive. HSIA provides data supporting this assertion.
     Comments and data provided by Plymouth Tubing indicate
that most companies using larger machines are able to purchase solvent
at significant savings, per unit cost. The commenter contends that EPA
solvent cost was estimated at $1.05 per pound. That cost is
significantly higher that the $0.71 per pound of fresh unused TCE the
commenter purchases. The commenter indicates that the cost savings EPA
anticipated with reduced solvent use is significantly overstated.

C. What Additional Supporting Data or Documentation Do I Need To
Provide With My Comments?

    EPA is soliciting comment on the new data provided. EPA also seeks
additional data and information concerning the specific comments
described above that relate to the three issues identified at the
outset of this NODA. In addition, as for the narrow tubing
manufacturing facilities, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance
facilities, large military vehicle maintenance operations, facilities
that use multiple degreaser machines, and facilities that use
continuous web cleaners, EPA specifically seeks data and information
from these facilities including, but not limited to, information on the
costs (capital and operating) to achieve the proposed facility-wide
emission limits.
    EPA also requests that commenters provide specific cost data on the
cleaning machines used by the above-named specific industries that may
include, but is not limited to, the costs of machine replacement with
low emitting machine technology, the costs associated with applying
emission capture and control technology, the costs of operating and
maintaining such systems, the costs of installing emission control
systems or low-emitting machines, the costs of clean unused solvent,
and the cost of switching solvent to a non-HAP solvent or to a solvent
with less health effects.
    EPA is also requesting commenters that identify new technology,
methods or processes for compliance other than those EPA analyzed in
the proposed rule to provide the associated costs of such new
technology, methods or processes. Commenters may provide comments on
barriers to implementing new technology, methods or processes.
    Commenters may also provide comments with supporting data on any
production rate increases or losses that may occur at the types of
facilities discussed in this notice when complying with the proposed
emission limits.

V. EPA's Proposed Compliance Schedule

A. What Is the Proposed Compliance Schedule?

    In our proposed rule, we proposed a compliance deadline of 2 years
for existing sources of halogenated cleaning machines to comply with
the proposed emissions limits. We also indicated that the CAA section
112(f)(4)(B) states that EPA may grant a waiver of up to an additional
2 years after the effective date of a standard if more time is needed
to install controls or implement steps to assure that the health of
persons will be protected from imminent endangerment. We said we
believed the proposed compliance deadline was both reasonable and
realistic for any affected facility that has to plan their control
strategy, purchase and install the control device(s), and bring the
control device online. See 71 FR 47684 for a

complete discussion of the proposed compliance deadline.

B. What Is the New Information EPA Is Making Available for Review and
Comment?

     Comments provided by Aerospace Industry Association and an
airline, indicating that changing solvents involves a rigorous approval
process to meet requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and of the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). The commenter
indicates that such an approval process takes considerable time and
requires many steps.
     Comments provided by HSIA indicated that a compliance
period of as much as 10 years would be required for industry to
complete the multi-step process of upgrading degreasing operations. The
commenter cites installations of new equipment at an existing facility
may require the following: (1) Extended time to test performance of
untried degreasing technologies for their particular application, (2)
additional or redesigned floor space, (3) customer approval of new
degreasing techniques and machines, (4) amending air permits; (5)
amending government agency directives on cleaning protocols. HSIA did
not submit data to support this comment.
     Comments and data provided by the American Safety Razor
Company indicated that EPA should remain consistent with the proposed
HON rule and provide affected facilities three (3) years after the
effective date of the promulgated standard.
     Comments and data provided by Salem Tubing Company on the
compliance period for sources of existing HSC machines and constructed
or reconstructed HSC machines after August 17, 2006. The facility
indicated that vacuum-to-vacuum cleaning is not a feasible option for
the narrow tube manufacturing industry because of the large size of
their degreasing machines and the fact that the vacuum-to-vacuum
technology is not currently available in the machines sizes required.
The commenter contends that in order to design, test and implement such
a system would take much longer than the proposed compliance period.
     Comments provided by the HSIA indicated that the
compliance schedule should be amended to (1) require new facilities
constructed after the date of promulgation to be in compliance upon
startup; (2) consider new facilities constructed prior to the date of
promulgation to be existing facilities; (3) allow existing HSC
facilities that installed new equipment after the date of proposal, but
prior to the date of promulgation, 10 years to come into compliance
with any new requirements consistent with CAA section 112(i)(7), and
(4) allow the maximum amount of time possible for existing HSC
facilities to come into compliance.

C. What Additional Supporting Data or Documentation Do I Need To
Provide With My Comments?

    EPA is soliciting comment on the new information provided described
above that relates to the issues identified at the outset of this NODA.
In addition, as for the narrow tubing manufacturing facilities,
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities, large military
vehicle maintenance operations, facilities that use multiple degreaser
machines, and facilities that use continuous web cleaners, EPA
specifically seeks data and information from these facilities
including, but not limited to, information on the time to design and
install new HSC machines, the lifespan of the typical HSC machine used
in the facilities of interest (listed above), the time required to seek
additional permits from State and local air permitting agencies, the
time required for FAA and OEM approvals to vary or change degreasing
cleaning procedures, whether a 2-year or a 3-year compliance period is
appropriate, or data on how much time it would take to comply with the
proposed requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 8, 2006.
Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
 [FR Doc. E6-21296 Filed 12-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Whether a substance poses a risk to humans or other organisms depends on two factors: how toxic the substance is, and how much of it an organism is exposed to. Therefore, the EPA considers toxicity data and exposure data in deciding whether to approve a pesticide for use. Office of Pesticide Programs Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division October 2004 BIOPESTICIDE FACT SHEET Active Ingredient Name: Chondrostereum purpureum strain PFC 2139 OPP Chemical Code: PC Code 081308 SUMMARY Chondrostereum purpureum strain PFC 2139 is a naturally occurring fungus that will be used in herbicide products to inhibit sprouting and regrowth of cut tree stumps. Its use is limited to painting cut stumps of alders, aspen and other hardwood trees and shrubs in rights of way and forests. The fungus has shown no toxicity or pathogenicity to humans, wildlife, or the environment.

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT Chondrostereum purpureum is a cosmopolitan fungus species that is found in temperate regions of the northern and southern hemispheres. It is ubiquitous in Canada and common in the United States south to Virginia in the east and to northern California in the west. C. purpureum is found only in the xylem of living or recently killed broadleaf trees and shrubs. It causes silverleaf, a disease that occurs when the fungus blocks xylem vessels. These vessels provide structural support to the plant and also transport sap containing nutrients up to the leaves.

II. USE SITES, PURPOSE, AND APPLICATION METHODS Use Sites: Stumps of cut trees and shrubs in rights of way and forest areas.

Purpose: Inhibits sprouting and regrowth of shrubs and hardwood trees such as red alder, sitka alder, speckled alder and trembling aspen. Application Methods: Immediately after cutting down the tree, the user applies the product as a paste to the entire surface of the stump.

III. ASSESSING RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH No signs of toxicity or pathogenicity were observed when C. purpureum strain PFC 2139 was administered to rats and rabbits via the oral, pulmonary, and dermal routes of exposure. In rabbits, C. purpureum strain PFC 2139 was slightly irritating when applied dermally, or when instilled in the eye. Furthermore, C. purpureum has not been reported to produce any mammalian toxins or to infect mammalian tissues. It will not survive at or near normal human body temperature ( 37

C). Therefore, no worker protection measures have been established beyond requiring the standard precautionary labeling and typical personal protective equipment. IV. ASSESSING RISKS TO THE ENVIRONMENT Chondrostereum purpureum is ubiquitous in the forest ecosystem, so non target organisms are naturally exposed to spores. However, there is very limited risk to non target broadleaf plants found near application sites, due to simultaneous, multiple requirements for infection: a nearby source of inoculum, a narrow temperature range ( 20 25

C), high relative humidity (+ 80%) for maximum sporulation, the presence of a fresh wound on a susceptible shrub or tree, and sufficient wind for spores to reach susceptible plants. In addition, an extensive literature search found no reports of adverse effects on birds, wild mammals, fish, insects or other invertebrates, or aquatic plants. Acute mammalian toxicity testing showed that C. purpureum strain PFC 2139 is not toxic or pathogenic. C. purpureum does not grow at 35

C and is killed by sustained incubation at 37

C, making it unlikely to be a pathogen of mammals or birds.

V. REGULATORY INFORMATION On April 15, 1999, MycoLogic Incorporated submitted a formal request to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) for a Joint Review of the Chondrostereum purpureum strain PFC 2139 submission by both the Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA) and EPA. Subsequently, MycoLogic Incorporated submitted an application to EPA on August 2, 2001 for registration of an end use product and a manufacturing use product. On September 23, 2004, EPA issued registrations to the first two products containing Chondrostereum purpureum strain PFC 2139 as the active ingredient: the Manufacturing Use Product, " CP PFC 2139" ( EPA Reg. No. 47200 2) and the End Use Product, " Chontrol Paste" ( EPA Reg. No. 74200 1).

VI. REGISTRANT INFORMATION MycoLogic Inc. Department of Biology University of Victoria P. O. Box 3020 Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3N5 250 721 6319 pdelabas@ uvic. ca VII. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT Jim Downing Regulatory Action Leader Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C) Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D. C. 20460 Phone ( 703) 308 9071 ( or 308 8712) Fax ( 703) 308 7026 e mail: downing. jim@ epa. gov The EPA Biopesticides Website is: http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ biopesticides DISCLAIMER: The information in this Biopesticide Fact Sheet is a summary only. For more information, click on the links at the top of this document or contact the person listed above.