[Federal Register: November 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 60312]
[DOCID:fr20no09-118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0271]

Identification of Interstate Motor Vehicles: New York City, Cook
County and New Jersey Tax Identification Requirements; Petition for
Determination

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Petition for Determination; extension of comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
extends until December 3, 2009 the comment period for the Petition for
Determination that was published on October 19, 2009.

DATES: Comments are due on or before December 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System Number in the heading of this document by any of the
following methods --Internet, facsimile, regular mail, or hand-
delivery. Do not submit the same comments by more than one method.
However, to allow effective public participation before the comment
period deadline, the Agency encourages use of the Web site that is
listed first. It will provide the most efficient and timely method of
receiving and processing your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this action. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Refer to the Privacy Act heading on
http://www.regulations.gov for further information.
    Public Participation: The regulations.gov system is generally
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``Help'' section of the Web site. For notification that FMCSA received
the comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or
postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that appears after
submitting comments on line. Copies or abstracts of all documents
referenced in this notice are in the docket: FMCSA-2009-0271. For
access to the docket to read background documents or comments received,
go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. All comments received
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above will be considered and will be available for examination in the
docket at the above address. Comments received after the closing date
will be considered to the extent practicable. FMCSA may, however, issue
a final determination at any time after the close of the comment
period. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file
in the public docket relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genevieve D. Sapir, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 19, 2009, FMCSA published a
Notice of Petition for Determination inviting public comment on three
petitions submitted by the American Trucking Associations (ATA)
requesting determinations that the Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV)
identification requirements imposed by the State of New Jersey, New
York City, and Cook County, Illinois, are preempted by Federal law (74
FR 53578). The Agency provided the public with a 30-day comment period
scheduled to expire on November 18, 2009. Because of the level of
interest this notice has generated, FMCSA extends the comment period
until December 3, 2009.

    Issued on: November 16, 2009.
David K. Tochen,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9-27855 Filed 11-17-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


nine mass burn/waterwall units and three refuse-derived fuel units.  Two
tire-fired units subject to the state MWC rule also operate with SNCR.
Similarly, all of New Jersey's large MWC units are equipped with SCR to
meet NOx emissions limitations based on the federal emissions
guidelines.

Cost

The capital cost of installing SNCR on a MWC unit is approximately
$1,500 MMBtu/hr (see, e.g., Institute of Clean Air Companies, 2000).
Most of the cost of using SNCR is in operating expenses (Institute of
Clean Air Companies, 2000), which EPA estimates as falling between 680
and 1,200 $/MMBtu (1993 dollars).  Thus, SNCR is well suited for
seasonal control in that it may provide significant reductions in NOx
emissions but incurs little cost when the system is not in use.  EPA has
assigned an ozone season cost effectiveness to SNCR operated on MWC
units of $2,140 per ton of NOx reduced (1990 dollars)(EPA, 1999, Table
16).

Emissions reductions

In Connecticut, MWC facility owners report emissions reductions of 25 to
50% from the operation of SNCR; a typical reduction of 35-40% could be
assumed from the installation and operation of SNCR/ammonia injection to
MWC units of similar size and type.  Other combustors of varying
technologies and capacities but with similar baseline NOx emissions have
reported reductions ranging from 35 - 75% from the operation of
urea-based SNCR (Appendix 1, Institute of Clean Air Companies, 2000).
EPA assigns a typical 45% emission reduction to the effectiveness of
SNCR at MWCs (EPA, 1999, Table 16).

REFERENCES

Institute of Clean Air Companies.  May 2000.  Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction (SNCR) for Controlling NOx Emissions.
http://www.fueltechnv.com/pdf/TPP-534.pdf

Thermal Energy International Inc.  2000.  Thermal THERMALONOx
Competitive Advantages.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.thermalenergy.com/solutions/solutions.html"
http://www.thermalenergy.com/solutions/solutions.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  November 1999.  Nitrogen Oxides
(NOx), Why and How They are Controlled.  Clean Air Technology Center:
EPA 456/F-99-006R.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  April 2005.  Corrected Response
to Significant Public Comments on the Proposed Clean Air Interstate
Rule.  Comment of IWSA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  December 19, 2005.  Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for
Existing Sources:  Large Municipal Waste Combustors; Proposed Rule.  70
FR 75348.

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY FOR

Printing and Graphic Arts

Control Measure Summary:  This category includes categories of both heat
set and non-heat set operations.  It includes lithographic, gravure,
flexographic and screen printing.  It includes both point sources and
area sources.

	Emissions (tons/year) in Ozone Transport Region

2002 existing measures: RACT, BACT, NSPS

   	VOC Point

Actual 2002

VOC Area

Actual 2002:

5,501

31,738

2009 On-the-Books measures:    MACT Std. - Subpart KK

      Publication rotogravure – limit organic HAP emissions to no more
than 8% of volatile matter used each month.  Either reformulation or 92%
capture and control efficiency.  Product and packaging rotogravure and
wide-web flexo – limit organic HAP emissions to no more than 5% of
volatile matter used each month.  Either reformulation or 95% capture
and control efficiency.

       Emission Reductions:

     Control Cost:

Timing of Implementation: Compliance Date (existing) December 5, 2005

Implementation Area:  Nationwide	VOC Point

Actual 2002:

2009 Reduction:

2009 Remaining:

VOC Point

Actual 2002:

2009 Reduction:

2009 Remaining:

5,501

-121

5,380

31,738

-0

31,738

Candidate measure:  Adopt the requirements of SCAQMD rule 1130 and
1130.1

      Emission Reductions:  Under evaluation

Control Cost:  Under evaluation

Timing of Implementation: Assuming 2007 or 2008 effective date of rule,
emission reductions in 2009 or 2010

Implementation Area: OTR

	VOC

OTB 2009:

BOTW 2009:

Reduction from

BOTW:

	Under review

Candidate measure: Same option as CM1, except potentially require that
publication, packaging and product rotogravure and wide web flexo
printers that are equipped with capture and control equipment, meet the
capture and control efficiency requirement in the MACT standard for VOC
reductions (this would apply to facilities not major for HAPs).

Implementation Area: OTR	VOC

OTB 2009:

BOTW 2009:

Reduction from

BOTW:

	Under review

Candidate measure: Adopt September 2006 CTGs.  In September 2006, EPA
determined that control technique guideline (CTG) documents will be
substantially as effective as national regulations in reducing VOC
emissions in ozone nonattainment areas from the following Group II
product categories: lithographic printing materials, letterpress
printing materials, and flexible packaging printing materials

Implementation Area: OTR

Under Review

Policy Recommendation: Final recommendation not made as of June, 2006.

Brief Rationale for Recommended Strategy:

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY FOR

Portable Fuel Containers

Control Measure Summary: Portable Fuel Containers

This control measure establishes design and manufacturing specifications
for portable fuel containers (PFCs) based on the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) rules.  PFCs are used to refuel residential and
commercial equipment and vehicles.  PFCs are used to refuel a broad
range of small off-road engines and other equipment (e.g., lawnmowers,
chainsaws, personal watercraft, motorcycles, etc.).	VOC Emissions

in Ozone Transport Region

2002 Existing Measure: None 	2002 Annual:

2002 Summer:	99,919 tpy

315.3 tpd

2009 On-the-Books Measure: Adopt the OTC Model Rule for PFCs, which is
based on the 2000 CARB rule for PFCs.

Emission Reductions:  Based on a CE=65%, RE=100%, RP=based on the number
of years the rule has been in place based on the assumed 10-yr turnover
of the sale of the cans, and Total control = 65% when fully implemented
after 10 years.

Control Cost:  $581 per ton

Timing of Implementation: State specific with a 10% per year turnover,
full reductions are achieved after 10 years.  CARB, and the EPA, have
estimated a 5 year turnover for the cans, but the OTC used a more
conservative 10 year turnover in calculating emission reductions.

Implementation Area: OTR 	Annual:

2009 Reduction:

2009 Remaining:

Summer:

2009 Reduction:

2009 Remaining:

33,055 tpy

66,864 tpy

107.1 tpd

208.2 tpd

2009 On-the-Way Measure:  Proposed Federal HAP Mobile Source Reg (Feb
28, 2006) Rule –   This rule proposes to regulate PFCs similar to
CARBs 2006 rule amendments and will regulate permeability to 0.3 grams
of HC per gallon per day (2001 OTC Model Rule has 0.4 grams per gallon
per day).  It does not contain CARBs amendments regarding kerosene
containers and utility jugs.

Emission Reductions:  EPA estimates about a 9% reduction nationwide in
2009 and a 61% reduction when fully implemented after 5 years.

Control Cost:  $180 per ton without fuel savings; over the long term,
fuel savings outweigh costs.

Timing of Implementation:  Jan.1, 2009 effective date of rule and 20%
per year turnover, full reductions are achieved after 5 years, in 2014.

Implementation Area: Nationwide	Annual:

2009 Reduction:

2009 Remaining:

Summer:

2009 Reduction:

2009 Remaining:

negligible

66,864 tpy

negligible

208.2 tpd

Candidate measure: Adopt the CARB 2006 amendments broadening PFC
definition to include kerosene containers and utility jugs, increasing
the permeability requirement from 0.3 grams of hydrocarbons per gallon
per day to 0.4 grams of hydrocarbons per gallon per day, and other
changes needed to make the OTC Model Rule consistent with CARB

Emission Reductions: CARB estimates their amendments are expected to
reduce ROG emissions by 58% after full penetration into the marketplace,
assumed to be 5 years.

Control Cost: CARB estimate is $800 to $1,400 per ton reduced

Timing of Implementation: State specific with a 10% per year turnover,
full reductions are achieved after 10 years

Implementation Area: OTR

	Annual:

2009 Base:

2009 Reduction:

2009 Remaining:

Summer:

2009 Base:

2009 Reduction:

2009 Remaining:

66,864 tpy

4,152 tpy

62,712 tpy

208.2 tpd

12.8 tpd

195.4 tpd

Summary of Candidate Measure:

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2000 PFC regulation
establishes design and manufacturing specifications for PFCs.  PFC
emissions are calculated by accounting for emissions from five different
components related to gas container use: permeation, diurnal,
transport-spillage, refueling spillage and refueling vapor displacement
emissions.  The permeation, diurnal emissions (associated with storage)
and transport-spillage emissions are included in the area source
inventory.  The equipment refueling spillage and refueling vapor
displacement emissions are calculated from the non-road model and are
included in the non-road inventory.  After four years of implementation
and a comprehensive assessment of the program, CARB staff  identified
some problems with the rule related to consumer acceptance and reducing
anticipated emission reductions.  Their 2006 amendments address these
issues, as well as expanding on the regulation to increase emission
reductions.  The amendments include the following:

Eliminate the requirement for an auto shutoff.

Eliminate fuel flow rate and fill level standards.

Eliminate one opening standard.

Reduce pressure standard from 10 psig to 5 psig.

Establish a certification program for PFCs.

Expand the definition of a PFC to include utility jugs and kerosene
containers.  CARB staff determined that consumers were using these
containers for gasoline.

Change permeability standard from 0.4 grams ROG /gallon-day to 0.3
grams/gallon-day.

Combine the evaporation and permeation standards into a new diurnal
standard to simplify certification and compliance testing.

Adopt new PFC test procedures.

Include a voluntary Consumer Acceptance Program to support and encourage
user-friendly PFC designs (i.e., allowing the use of the ARB Star Rating
system to clearly identify superior designs as determined by users).

While ARB staff does not expect these changes to affect the cost of
gasoline cans, the price of kerosene cans could rise to as much as $8.50
per container once the regulations are implemented.  CARB also estimates
the cost-effectiveness to be between $0.40 to $0.70 per pound.

Recommended Strategy:  CARB, through their comprehensive history of
research and multiple product surveys, have the best technical data
available to create rules to regulate portable fuel containers.  Most
portable fuel container manufacturers market their products nationally,
therefore many will be selling the new products nationally after they
have produced cans than conform with the CARB rules.  The CARB rule
contains some revisions to their original rule to ease consumer
acceptance of the cans, for states that have adopted the original OTC
model rule.  In addition the CARB rule amendments regulate kerosene cans
and utility jugs, which the Federal rule proposal does not.

References:

2009 On-the-Books Measure (OTC Model Rule):

E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., Control Measure Development Support
Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules, March 31, 2001.
Much of the analysis in this report was based on CARB’s analysis for
CARB’s original 1999 PFC rule , which estimated a 75% reduction that
would be fully achieved after 5 years (CARB’s assumed life cycle for
PFCs).  The OTC used a more conservative 10-year turnover rate in its
analysis.  Table II-5 of the Pechan report shows the cost of compliance
to be $581/ton.

2009 On-the-Way Measure (Proposed 2/28/06 Federal Rule):

U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality.  Estimating Emissions
Associated with Portable Fuel Containers (PFCs), Draft Report,
EPA420-D-06-003, February 2006.

U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality.  Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis: Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile
Sources, EPA420-D-06-004, February 2006.

Candidate Measure (CARB 2006 Amendments):

California Air Resources Board.  Final Statement of Reasons for
Rulemaking, Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response: PUBLIC
HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE PORTABLE FUEL CONTAINER
REGULATIONS.  September 15, 2005.

California Air Resources Board.  Initial Statement of Reasons for
Proposed Amendments to  the Portable Fuel Container Regulations.  July
29, 2005.  Table 5.1 shows the cost-effectiveness of the proposed
amendments to be $0.40 to $0.70 per pound ($800 to $1,400 per ton)

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY FOR

Regional Fuel

Control Measure Summary: The OTR proposes a common fuel standard for the
OTR states that does not require MTBE or Ethanol, but exhibits
Environmentally Beneficial Combustion Properties.	NOx Emissions
(tons/summer day) in OTR

2002 existing measure:  Federal program in the CAA requiring RFG in
certain non-attainment areas and allowing other states with
non-attainment areas to opt-in.  All but two states in the OTR are
participating, in whole or in part, with the federal program, however
nearly 1/3 of the gasoline sold in the OTR is not RFG.

Candidate measure:

Measure ID: OTR-wide Regional Fuel

Emission Reductions:

Control Cost:  unknown at this time

Timing of Implementation:

Implementation Area: All states in the OTR

NOx

VOC

~ 4.8 tpsd

~ 139.4 tpsd

Policy Recommendation:  Continue to examine the potential for a regional
fuel, keeping in mind that some states like PA may have
statutory/legislative constraints.

Brief Rationale for Recommended Strategy:  The Energy Policy Act of 2005
provides the opportunity for the OTR to achieve a single clean-burning
gasoline without MTBE, as it also eliminates the oxygen content
requirement for RFG.  The authority provided in Energy Act is consistent
with what states promoted through the long debate over MTBE/ethanol/RFG.
 Approximately one-third of the gasoline currently sold in the OTR is
not RFG; most is conventional gasoline.  The new authority plus the
potential for emission reductions from the amount of non-RFG sold in the
OTR provides an opportunity for additional emission reductions in the
region as well as for a reduced number of fuels, and possibly a single
fuel, to be utilized throughout the region.

Appendix D – VOC Emissions by County for 2002 and 2009

Table D-1  Adhesives and Sealants VOC Area Source Emission Summary for
2002 and 2009 by County

Table D-2 Adhesives and Sealants VOC Point Source Emission Summary for
2002 and 2009 by County

Table D-3 Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving VOC Area Source Emission
Summary for 2002 and 2009 by County

Table D-4 Consumer Products VOC Area Source Emission Summary for 2002
and 2009 by County

Table D-5 Portable Fuel Containers VOC Area Source Emission Summary for
2002 and 2009 by County

Table D-6 Portable Fuel Containers VOC Nonroad Source Emission Summary
for 2002 and 2009 by State

Table D-7 Reformulated Gasoline Emission Summary by State

Due to their large size, these tables are being transmitted
electronically in the spreadsheet named Appendix_D_VOC_2009.xls.  There
are separate tabs for each of the tables listed above.

Appendix E – NOx Emissions by County for 2002 and 2009

Table E-1  Reformulated Gasoline Emission Summary by State

Table E-2 Chip Reflash Emission Summary by State

Table E-3 Asphalt Production Plant NOx Emission Summary for 2002 and
2009 by County

Table E-4 Cement Kiln NOx Emission Summary for 2002 and 2009 by County

Table E-5 Glass and Fiberglass Furnace NOx Emission Summary for 2002 and
2009 by County

Table E-6 ICI Boiler NOx Area Source Emission Summary for 2002 and 2009
by State

Table E-7 ICI Boiler NOx Point Source Emission Summary for 2002 and 2009
by State

Due to their large size, these tables are being transmitted
electronically in the spreadsheet named Appendix_E_NOx_2009.xls.  There
are separate tabs for each of the tables listed above.

Appendix F – State ICI Boiler Regulations

Due to their large size, these tables are being transmitted
electronically in the spreadsheet named Appendix F State ICI Regs.xls.
There are separate tabs for each state.  In the final report, these
tables will be provided in electronic format

 	Assumes 100% rule effectiveness, which is reasonable given that the
MWCs are operated with continuous emissions monitoring.

 	The use of SCR to control NOx emissions from MWCs in North American is
limited to very few units (see, e.g.,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.region.peel.on.ca/pw/waste/facilities/algonquin-power.htm"
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/pw/waste/facilities/algonquin-power.htm )
because the nature of municipal solid waste requires huge SCR reactor
sizes and significant actions to prevent catalyst poisoning.  These
factors, combined with the relatively small size of most MWCs, makes the
use of SCR prohibitively expensive (EPA 2005, comment by IWSA).

 	Connecticut also has three mass burn refractory units that are
classified as small MWCs and do not use SNCR.

 	For comparison, EPA places the capital cost of SNCR between 1,600 and
3,300 $/MMBtu (1993 dollars).  In 2002, the 3-unit facility (140
MMBTU/hr per unit) owned by the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority
in Bridgeport, Connecticut installed SNCR on all three units at a
capital cost of $2.1 million.

 PAGE

TSD for 2006 OTC Control Measure Evaluation	February 28, 2007

	Page  PAGE   vi

	MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.

TSD for 2006 OTC Control Measure Evaluation	February 28, 2007

Section 1 – Executive Summary	Page  PAGE   1-8

TSD for 2006 OTC Control Meaure Evaluation	February 28, 2007

Section 2 – Introduction	Page  PAGE   2-2

TSD for 2006 OTC Control Measure Evaluation	February 28, 2007

Section 3 – VOC Analysis Methods	Page   PAGE  3-25

TSD for 2006 OTC Control Measures	February 28, 2007

Section 4 – NOx Analysis Methods	Page   PAGE  4-31

TSD for 2006 OTC Control Measures	February 28, 2007

Section 5 – References	Page   PAGE  5-3

TSD for OTC Control Measure Evaluation	February 28, 2007

Appendix A –Process for Identifying and Evaluating Control Measures
Page A-  PAGE  8

TSD for OTC Control Measure Evaluation	February 28, 2007

Appendix B – Initial List of Control Measures	Page B-  PAGE  1

TSD for 2006 OTC Control Measure Evaluation	February 28, 2007

Appendix C – Control Measure Worksheets	Page C-  PAGE  43

TSD for OTC Control Measure Evaluation	February 28, 2007

Appendix D –VOC Emissions by County for 2002 and 2009	Page D-  PAGE  1

TSD for 2006 OTC Control Measure Evaluation	February 28, 2007

Appendix E – NOx Emissions by County for 2002 and 2009	Page E-  PAGE
1

TSD for 2006 OTC Control Measure Evaluation	February 28, 2007

Appendix F – State ICI Boiler Regulations 	Page G-  PAGE  1


SunWise Teacher Interview Guide

One-on-one interviews with SunWise teachers will follow a
semi-structured framework, based on open-ended discussion topics and
themes.  Each interview will take a slightly different direction,
depending on the answers given by participants and their own
experiences, as well as evolving questions and informational needs from
year to year.

Registration and promotion methods, e.g.:

What do you think is the best or easiest way to sign up for SunWise?
Are there improvements that SunWise could be making in registering
teachers and getting materials to them?

How can SunWise promote itself more effectively?

Have you spread the word about SunWise to other teachers? If yes, how
were your efforts received? If not, why?

Use of SunWise activities, e.g.:

Do you use the same activities each year? If you have taught some
activities one year and not the next, why?

Do you use the SunWise activities as-is or adapt them to your
students’ needs?  If so, how?

How could the SunWise activities be improved?

Do you combine SunWise resources with other sun safety activities or
resources? If so, which ones? When you receive sun safety materials from
other programs, do you often like to modify them?

Which activities have you and your students found most effective or
enjoyable? What is it about these activities that your students seem to
enjoy so much?

Making school policy changes and promoting school-wide activities, e.g.:

Have you tried to make any changes in your school’s sun safety
policies (successfully or unsuccessfully)?  If so, what changes?

Did you work with other teachers, parents, or school administrators to
get those policy changes made?  Please tell us about that experience and
any lessons you have learned.

What barriers have you faced to making these changes?  If you were
successful in instituting policies, how did you overcome the barriers?

Have the materials provided in the SunWise Tool Kit been useful in
making policy changes? How could these materials be improved?

Have you organized any school-wide sun safety activities? If so, what
types?

Do you involve parents or guardians in sun safety activities? If yes,
how?  If no, how could their involvement be solicited?

If parents or guardians are involved, have their interest in sun
protection remained the same, increased, or decreased over the past
year?

SunWise recognition program, e.g.:

If SunWise developed a program to recognize levels of SunWise
achievement among educators, how would you want to be recognized?

Probe: for example, plaques, discounts on resources, letters to your
principal.

What incentives would encourage you and other teachers to participate?

Do you think that a recognition program would encourage deeper SunWise
participation among educators?

What SunWise achievements would you like to see recognized?

Probe: for example, teaching SunWise, working to implement school
policies, organizing schoolwide sun safety activities, participating in
the Don’t Fry Day pledge, etc.


MEMORANDUM
DATE:	December 2019
TO:		Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794
FROM:	Barrett Parker
		US EPA / OAQPS / SPPD / MPG
SUBJECT:	Non-mercury Metals Content of Filterable Particulate Matter
As mentioned in the Emission Factor Development for RTR Risk Modeling Dataset for Coal- and Oil-fired EGUs memorandum, available at EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794-0010 at www.regulations.gov, EPA developed ratios of non-mercury metal and filterable particulate matter (PM) emissions for use in estimating emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) without current non-mercury metal emissions data.  These ratios, identified as PM ratios in Tables 2 and 3 of the memorandum, were determined by dividing the fuel-specific averages of the 2010 MATS Information Collection Request (ICR) non-mercury metals data, combined by control technique where possible, by the filterable PM emissions data.  The ratios represent the amount of non-mercury metals present in filterable PM.
By identifying the highest PM ratios for each of the non-mercury metals and then summing those values, one can estimate the largest amount of non-mercury metals expected in an EGU's filterable PM.  The chart below shows the highest PM ratio for each non-mercury metal for coal-fired EGUs.
                               Non-mercury metal
                               Highest PM ratio
                                   Antimony
                                   1.21E-04
                                    Arsenic
                                   2.70E-04
                                   Beryllium
                                   1.61E-05
                                    Cadmium
                                   2.94E-05
                                   Chromium
                                   1.37E-03
                                    Cobalt
                                   1.01E-04
                                     Lead
                                   2.08E-04
                                   Manganese
                                   1.65E-03
                                    Nickel
                                   7.41E-04
                                   Selenium
                                   3.44E-03
Total
                                   7.95E-03

The sum of the highest PM ratios is 7.95E-03, which expressed as a percentage, is less than eight-tenths of a percent.  Using this value, one can estimate that less than eight-tenths of a percent of filterable PM contains non-mercury metals, meaning that 1,000 pounds of filterable PM would contain less than 8 pounds of non-mercury metals.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29652-29654]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12020]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for
Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                      feet (NGVD) +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                                                     (NAVD)
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced     Depth in feet       Communities affected
                                                 elevation             above ground
                                                                    [caret] Elevation
                                                                     in meters (MSL)
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Richland Parish, Louisiana, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Creek..............................  Just upstream of Burke                   +78  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Road.                                         Richland Parish.
                                         Approximately 1 mile                     +84
                                          upstream of Par 1158
                                          Road.
Burns Bayou............................  Approximately 1,860 feet                 +76  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of Collins Lane.                     Richland Parish.
                                         Just upstream of U.S.                    +79
                                          Route 80.
Burns Bayou Tributary No. 1............  At the lower confluence                  +77  Town of Rayville,
                                          with Burns Bayou.                             Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Richland Parish.
                                         At the upper confluence                  +78
                                          with Burns Bayou.
Burns Bayou Tributary No. 2............  Approximately 1,860 feet                 +76  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of Collins Lane.                     Richland Parish.
                                         Approximately 590 feet                   +78
                                          upstream of Linda Street.
Cypress Creek..........................  At the confluence with                   +79  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Big Creek.                                    Richland Parish.
                                         Just upstream of Smalling                +85
                                          Road.
Hurricane Creek........................  Just downstream of I-20..                +79  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Richland Parish.
                                         Just upstream of                         +85
                                          Fortenberry Road.
Little Creek...........................  Just downstream of I-20..                +78  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Richland Parish.
                                         Just upstream of Maple                   +80
                                          Street.
Stream No. 2...........................  Just downstream of Farm                  +78  Town of Rayville,
                                          Road.                                         Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Richland Parish.
                                         Just upstream of Greer                   +80
                                          Road.
West Fork Creek........................  Just downstream of State                 +81  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Highway 183.                            +83   Richland Parish.
                                         Just downstream of
                                          Jaggers Lane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[supcaret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES
Town of Rayville
Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 109 Benedette Street, Rayville, LA 71269.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Richland Parish
Maps are available for inspection at 708 Julia Street, Suite B103C, Rayville, LA 71269.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-12020 Filed 5-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21313-21316]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08419]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71917; File No. SR-EDGA-2014-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGA Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

April 9, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 1, 2014, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rule 15.1(a) and (c)
(``Fee Schedule'') to: (i) Increase the rebate for orders yielding Flag
BY, which routes to the BATS-Y Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'') and removes
liquidity using routing strategies ROUC, ROUE, ROBY, ROBB, or ROCO; \4\
(ii) increase the fee for orders yielding Flag RY, which route to BYX
and adds liquidity; (iii) increase the fee for orders yielding Flag O,
which routes to the listing exchanges opening cross; and (iv) amend
Footnote 5 to increase the fee cap for orders yielding Flag O from
$10,000 to $20,000 per month per Member. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the
Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer, or any person associated with a registered broker or dealer,
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A Member will
have the status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that term is
defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
    \4\ The ROUC, ROUE, ROBY, ROBB, or ROCO routing strategies are
set forth in Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to: (i) Increase
the rebate for orders yielding Flag BY, which routes to BYX and removes
liquidity using routing strategies ROUC, ROUE, ROBY, ROBB, or ROCO;
(ii) increase the fee for orders yielding Flag RY, which route to BYX
and adds liquidity; (iii) increase the fee for orders yielding Flag O,
which routes to the listing exchanges opening cross; and (iv) amend
Footnote 5 to increase the fee cap for orders yielding Flag O from
$10,000 to $20,000 per month per Member.
Flag BY
    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently
provides a rebate of $0.0001 per share for Members' orders that yield
Flag BY, which routes orders to BYX and removes liquidity using routing
strategies ROUC, ROUE, ROBY, ROBB, or ROCO. The Exchange proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule to increase the rebate for orders that yield
Flag BY to $0.0016 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00.\5\
The proposed change represents a pass through of the rate Direct Edge
ECN LLC (d/b/a DE Route) (``DE Route''), the

Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is provided for routing
orders to BYX that remove liquidity. The proposed change is in response
to BYX's April 2014 fee change where BYX increased its rebate from
$0.0001 per share to $0.0016 per share for orders in securities priced
at or above $1.00.\6\ When DE Route routes to and removes liquidity
from BYX, it will now receive a standard rebate of $0.0016 per share.
DE Route will pass through the rebate provided by BYX to the Exchange
and the Exchange, in turn, will pass through this rate to its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange does not propose to amend its fee for orders
that yield Flag BY in securities priced below $1.00.
    \6\ See the BYX Fee Schedule available at http://www.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BYX_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flag RY
    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently
charges a fee of $0.0003 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag
RY, which route to BYX and adds liquidity. The Exchange proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule to increase the fee for orders that yield Flag
BY to $0.0018 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00.\7\ The
proposed change represents a pass through of the rate DE Route, the
Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is charged for routing
orders to BYX that add liquidity. The proposed change is in response to
BYX's April 2014 fee change where BYX increased its standard fee to
$0.0018 per share from $0.0003 per share for orders in securities
priced at or above $1.00.\8\ When DE Route routes to and adds liquidity
on BYX, it will now be charged a standard rate of $0.0018 per share.\9\
DE Route will pass through the rate it is charged on BYX to the
Exchange and the Exchange, in turn, will pass through this rate to its
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange does not propose to amend its fee for orders
that yield Flag RY in securities priced below $1.00.
    \8\ See the BYX Fee Schedule available at http://www.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BYX_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \9\ The Exchange notes that to the extent DE Route does or does
not achieve any volume tiered reduced fee on BYX, its rate for Flag
RY will not change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flag O
    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently
charges a fee of $0.0005 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag
O, which routes to the listing exchange's opening process.\10\ The
Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase the fee for
orders that yield Flag O to $0.0010 per share in securities priced at
or above $1.00.\11\ The proposed change represents an equitable
allocation of routing fees that DE Route, the Exchange's affiliated
routing broker-dealer, is charged for orders routed to the listing
exchange's opening process when it does not qualify for a volume tiered
reduced fee. The proposed change is in response to the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc.'s (``NYSE'') April 2014 fee change where the NYSE
increased its fee to $0.0010 per share from $0.0005 per share for
orders in securities priced at or above $1.00.\12\ When DE Route routes
an order to the NYSE's opening cross, it will now be charged a standard
rate of $0.0010 per share. DE Route will pass through the rate it is
charged on the NYSE to the Exchange and the Exchange, in turn, will
pass through this rate to its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Under Flag O, the Exchange routes to the following listing
exchanges: The New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; The Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC (``Nasdaq''); NYSE MKLT LLC; NYSE Arca Inc. (``NYSE
Arca''), and BATS Exchange, Inc.
    \11\ The Exchange does not propose to amend its fee for orders
that yield Flag O in securities priced below $1.00.
    \12\ See NYSE Trader Update dated March 27, 2014 available at
http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/NYSE%20Client%20Notice%20Fees%2004%202014.pdf. Nasdaq currently
charges $0.0010 per share to participate in its opening cross. See
Nasdaq Price List available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2. NYSE Arca currently charges
$0.0005 per share to participate in its opening cross. See NYSE
Arca's Equity Trading Fees available at http://usequities.nyx.com/sites/usequities.nyx.com/files/nyse_arca_marketplace_fees_for_3-1-14.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote 5
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Footnote 5 to increase the fee
cap for orders yielding Flag O from $10,000 to $20,000 per month per
Member. When the Exchange routes to a listing exchange's opening cross
(Flag O), the Exchange passes through the tier savings that DE Route
achieves on an away exchange to its Members. This tier savings takes
the form of a cap of Members' fees at $10,000 per month for using Flag
O. The proposed increase in the fee cap under Footnote 5 is in response
to April 2014 fee cap changes by Nasdaq and NYSE for orders that
participate in their opening cross processes. First, under the NYSE's
April 2014 fee change, it is increasing its fee cap for orders that
participate in its opening cross from $15,000 to $20,000 per month.\13\
Second, under Nasdaq's April 2014 fee cap increase, it is requiring
that members add, at a minimum, one million shares of liquidity to
Nasdaq, on average per day, during the month to be eligible for its
existing fee cap of $20,000 for orders that participate in the opening
cross.\14\ When DE Route routes to the NYSE or Nasdaq's opening cross,
it will now be subject to the increased fee cap and new tier
requirement. The proposed increase to the fee cap under Footnote 5
would enable the Exchange to equitably allocate its costs among all
Members utilizing Flag O. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend
Footnote 5 to increase the fee cap for orders yielding Flag O from
$10,000 to $20,000 per month per Member in response to the Nasdaq and
the NYSE's April 2014 increased fee caps and related requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NYSE Trader Update dated March 27, 2014 available at
http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/NYSE%20Client%20Notice%20Fees%2004%202014.pdf.
    \14\ See Nasdaq Equity Trader Alert 2014-28 available
at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ETA2014-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee
Schedule on April 1, 2014.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\15\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\16\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flag BY
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the rebate for
orders that yield Flag BY represents an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other
persons using its facilities. Prior to the BYX's April 2014 fee change,
BYX provided DE Route a rebate of $0.0001 per share to remove liquidity
in securities priced at or above $1.00, which DE Route passed through
to the Exchange and the Exchange charged its Members. When DE Route
routes to BYX, it will now be provided a rebate of $0.0016 per share.
The Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates
for orders that it routes to BYX through DE Route. Therefore, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change to Flag BY is equitable and
reasonable because it accounts for the pricing changes on BYX, which
enables the Exchange to charge its Members the applicable pass-through
rate. Lastly, the Exchange notes that routing through DE Route is
voluntary and believes that the proposed change is non-discriminatory
because it applies uniformly to all Members.

Flag RY
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the fees for
orders yielding Flag RY represents an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other
persons using its facilities. Prior to BYX's April 2014 fee change, BYX
charged DE Route a fee of $0.0003 per share to add liquidity in
securities priced at or above $1.00, which DE Route passed through to
the Exchange and the Exchange charged its Members. When DE Route routes
to BYX, it will now be charged a standard rate of $0.0018 per share.
The Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates
for orders that it routes to BYX through DE Route. Therefore, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change to Flag RY is equitable and
reasonable because it accounts for the pricing changes on BYX, which
enables the Exchange to charge its Members the applicable pass-through
rate. Lastly, the Exchange notes that routing through DE Route is
voluntary and believes that the proposed change is non-discriminatory
because it applies uniformly to all Members.
Flag O
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the fees for
orders yielding Flag O represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its
facilities. Prior to NYSE's April 2014 fee change, NYSE charged DE
Route a fee of $0.0005 per share for orders routed to the NYSE's
opening cross, which DE Route passed through to the Exchange and the
Exchange charged its Members. When DE Route routes to the NYSE opening
cross, it will now be charged a rate of $0.0010 per share.\17\ The
Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates for
orders that it routes to the NYSE opening cross through DE Route.
Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to Flag O is
equitable and reasonable because it accounts for the pricing changes on
the NYSE, which enables the Exchange to equitably allocate its costs
among all Members utilizing Flag O. Lastly, the Exchange notes that
routing through DE Route is voluntary and believes that the proposed
change is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange notes that Nasdaq currently charges DE Route
$0.0010 per share to participate in its opening cross. See Nasdaq
Price List available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote 5
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend Footnote 5 to
increase the fee cap for orders yielding Flag O from $10,000 to $20,000
per month per Member represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its
facilities. The proposed increase in the fee cap under Footnote 5 is in
response to April 2014 fee cap updates by Nasdaq and NYSE for orders
that participate in their opening cross processes. Prior to Nasdaq's
April 2014 fee cap increase, Nasdaq capped DE Routes monthly fees for
participating in its opening cross at $20,000, regardless of the volume
it added to Nasdaq. When DE Route routes to the Nasdaq opening cross,
it will now be required to add, at a minimum, one million shares of
liquidity to Nasdaq, on average per day, during the month, to be
eligible for its $20,000 monthly fee cap.\18\ In addition, prior to
NYSE's April 2014 fee change, the NYSE capped DE Routes monthly fees
for participating in its opening cross at $15,000. When DE Route routes
to the NYSE opening cross, it will now be subject to the NYSE's higher
fee cap of $20,000.\19\ The proposed increase to the fee cap under
Footnote 5 would enable the Exchange to equitably allocate its costs
among all Members who utilize Flag O. Therefore, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change to Footnote 5 is equitable and reasonable
because it accounts for the increased NYSE fee cap and Nasdaq
eligibility requirements, which enables the Exchange to apply to its
Members similar fee caps. Lastly, the Exchange notes that routing
through DE Route is voluntary and believes that the proposed change is
non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Nasdaq Equity Trader Alert 2014-28 available
at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ETA2014-28.
    \19\ See NYSE Trader Update dated March 27, 2014 available at
http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/NYSE%20Client%20Notice%20Fees%2004%202014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
does not believe that the proposed change represents a significant
departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing
offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to
disfavor EDGA's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them
better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
    In particular, the Exchange believes that its proposal to pass
through the amended fees for orders that yield Flags BY and RY would
increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an
alternative means to route to BYX for the same price that they would be
charged if they entered orders on those trading centers directly. The
Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket
competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all
Members.
    The Exchange also believes that its proposal to pass through the
amended fees for orders that yield Flag O and its related fee cap under
Footnote 5 would increase intermarket competition because it offers
customers an alternative means to route to a listing exchange's opening
cross for the similar prices that they would be charged if they entered
orders on those trading centers directly. The Exchange believes that
its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the
proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \21\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b 4 (f)(2).

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-EDGA-2014-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2014-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2014-08 and should be
submitted on or before May 6, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08419 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10437]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05382]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 380

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0371]
RIN 2126-AC05

Commercial Driver's License Upgrade From Class B to Class A;
Correction

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA corrects the entry-level driver training (ELDT) final
rule published on March 6, 2019, titled ``Commercial Driver's License
Upgrade from Class B to Class A.'' The March 6, 2019 final rule
contained an error in the amendatory instruction that is being
corrected in order to ensure the regulatory text matches the discussion
of the change being made in the preamble to the document.

DATES: Effective May 6, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and
Carrier Operations (MC-PSD) Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting material
to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2019-04044 appearing on page 8029
in the Federal Register of Wednesday, March 6, 2019, the following
correction is made:

Sec.  380.707   [Corrected]

0
1. On page 8040, in the third column, in part 380, in amendment 2 for
Sec.  380.707, the instruction ``amend paragraph (a) by adding the
words ``or Class A theory instruction upgrade curriculum applicants''
to the end of the final sentence'' is corrected to read ``amend
paragraph (a) by adding the words ``or Class A theory instruction
upgrade curriculum applicants'' after the words ``all accepted BTW
applicants'' in the final sentence.''

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
    Dated: March 15, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-05382 Filed 3-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P