[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57388-57389]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24774]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0073]

Pipeline Safety: Guidance on the Extension of the 7-year
Integrity Management Reassessment Interval by 6 Months

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

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this document to seek public comments on
frequently asked questions (FAQs) developed to provide guidance on what
constitutes sufficient justification for an operator to request a 6-
month extension to a gas pipeline's 7-year integrity management
reassessment interval. This guidance, which consists of one revised and
two new FAQs, will implement authority granted by Congress in Section
5(e) of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act
of 2011 (2011 Act).

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
December 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0073 and may
be submitted in the following ways:
    E-gov website: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the
public to enter comments on any Federal Register document issued by any
agency.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground level of the DOT's West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Monday
through Friday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST),
except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket number, PHMSA-2018-0073, at the
beginning of your comments. Please note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Anyone may search the electronic form of
comments received for PHMSA dockets. You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement, 65 FR 19476, which was published in the Federal
Register on April 11, 2000.
    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time. You may also
visit Room W12-140 on the ground level of the DOT's West Building,
located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Monday
through Friday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, except Federal holidays.
If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written
comments, please include a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
following statement: ``Comments on PHMSA-2018-0073.'' The docket clerk
will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the mail.
Please note that, due to delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to Federal
offices in Washington, DC, we recommend that you consider an
alternative method (internet, fax, or professional delivery service)
for submitting comments to the docket and ensuring their timely
delivery to the DOT.
    Note: Privacy Act Statement: the DOT may solicit comments from the
public regarding certain general notices. The DOT posts these comments
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS). This document can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General: Ms. Nancy White by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at
[email protected].
    Technical: Mr. Kenneth Lee by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress made several amendments to the
pipeline safety statutes in the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty,
and Job Creation Act of 2011 (the 2011 Act). The Secretary of
Transportation (the Secretary) has delegated to PHMSA the
responsibility for implementing the changes resulting from the 2011
Act. Section 5, ``Integrity Management,'' paragraph (e), of the 2011
Act made a technical correction to the Federal pipeline safety statutes
regarding the performance of integrity management assessments. As part
of an operator's integrity management program, operators must assess
pipelines in high-consequence areas for defects and anomalies at a
minimum of once every 7 years. The technical correction clarified that
the Secretary may extend such deadlines by an additional 6 months if
the operator submits written notice to the Secretary with sufficient

justification of the need for the extension.
    To implement this authority, PHMSA is issuing guidance on what
constitutes sufficient justification to extend a gas pipeline
operator's 7-year integrity management reassessment interval by up to 6
months if the operator submits written notice. PHMSA invites interested
individuals to participate by reviewing the FAQs provided below and
submitting written comments, data, or other information. Please include
any comments on potential safety and environmental impacts that may
result from issuance of the FAQs. Before finalizing the FAQs, PHMSA
will evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing
date. PHMSA will consider all relevant comments we receive prior to the
deadline when making changes to the final FAQs. Comments received after
the closing date will be evaluated to the extent practicable.
    Once finalized, PHMSA's FAQs will be posted on PHMSA's public
website at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/gasimp/faqs.htm:
    Guidance on the Extension of the 7-year Integrity Management
Reassessment Interval by 6 Months (FAQs):
     NEW FAQ-281. How do I extend the assessment schedule
beyond 7 years?
    Notify PHMSA, in accordance with 49 CFR 192.949, of the need for an
extension, which may not exceed 6 months. The notification must be made
180 days prior to end of the 7-year assessment date and include
sufficient information to justify the extension.
     NEW FAQ-282. What constitutes sufficient information to
justify extension of the assessment interval?
    Documentation is required to comply with 49 CFR 192.943 and
include:

--An explanation as to why the deadline could not be met and how it
will not compromise safety, and
--Identification of any additional actions necessary to ensure public
safety during the extension time period.

     REVISED FAQ-207. Table 3 of ASME/ANSI B31.8S indicates
that reassessment intervals must be 5 years for some instances in which
test pressure was higher than would be required by subpart J. If I
conduct my assessments in accordance with Subpart J, must I reassess
more frequently than once every 7 years?
    Section 192.939(a)(1) specifies requirements for establishing
reassessment intervals. Two options are allowed: (i) Basing the
interval on identified threats, assessment results, data integration,
and risk analysis, or (ii) using the intervals specified in Table 3 of
ASME/ANSI B31.8S. An operator using the former option (Sec.
192.939(a)(1)(i)) could establish intervals longer than those in Table
3. The intervals that can be established by either method are limited
to the maximum intervals in the table in Sec.  192.939.
    Pressure tests used as integrity management assessments must meet
the requirements of Subpart J, including required test pressures.
Higher test pressures must be used to justify extended reassessment
intervals (Sec.  192.937(c)(2)). As used here ``extended reassessment
intervals'' refers to any interval longer than 7 years as required by
Sec. Sec.  192.937(a) and 192.939(a) and (b).
    Operators conducting assessments by pressure testing and who use
test pressures meeting Subpart J requirements may establish a
reassessment interval of 7 years, unless their analysis under Sec.
192.939(a)(i) indicates a need for a shorter interval. This is true
even if Table 3 would lead to a shorter interval.
    Operators who use Table 3 test pressures may establish reassessment
intervals in accordance with Table 3 up to the maximums listed in the
table in Sec.  192.939, again unless their analysis under Sec.
192.939(a)(i) indicates a need for a shorter interval. Operators who
establish intervals longer than 7 years must conduct a confirmatory
direct assessment within the 7-year period. (For segments operating at
less than 30% specified maximum yield strength, a low-stress
reassessment per Sec.  192.941 may be conducted in lieu of confirmatory
direct assessment--see Sec.  192.939(b)(1)).
    PHMSA may extend the 7-year interval for an additional 6 months if
the operator submits written notice that includes sufficient
justification regarding the need for an extension (Reference FAQ-281
and 282).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 7, 2018, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2018-24774 Filed 11-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14193-14197]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0122]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Nanticoke River, Sharptown, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary special
local regulation for certain waters of the Nanticoke River. This action
is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable
waters located at Sharptown, MD, during a high-speed power boat racing
event on May 13, 2022, May 14, 2022, and May 15, 2022. This proposed
rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Event Patrol Commander. We
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0122 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PATCOM Coast Guard Patrol Commander
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Carolina Virginia Racing Association of Newport News, VA,
notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Sharptown
Regatta from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on May 14, 2022 and those same hours on
May 15, 2022. The high-speed power boat racing event consists of
approximately 100 participating racing boats--including hydroplanes and
runabouts of various classes--9 to 12 feet in length. The vessels will
be competing in a counter-clockwise direction along a marked
approximately 1-mile long course located on the Nanticoke River,
adjacent to the Cherry Beach Park and Boat Ramp at Sharptown, MD. In
addition, a non-race day of practice and testing will be conducted in
the waterway from noon to 5 p.m. on May 13, 2022. Event planners have
stated they will not have any spectators areas identified on the water
for this 3-day event. Hazards from

the power boat racing event include risks of injury or death resulting
from near or actual contact among participant vessels and waterway
users if normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event.
Additionally, such hazards include participants operating within
designated navigation channels, as well as operating near approaches to
a local public boat ramps, public recreation and fishing areas, and
waterfront businesses and residences. The COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with
the power boat races would be a safety concern for anyone intending to
participate in this event and for vessels that operate within specified
waters of the Nanticoke River.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants,
non-participants and transiting vessels before, during, and after the
scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region is proposing to establish
special local regulation from 11 a.m. on May 13, 2022, through 6 p.m.
on May 15, 2022. The regulations would be enforced from 11 a.m. to 6
p.m. on May 13, 2022, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on May 14, 2022, and from 9
a.m. to 6 p.m. on May 15, 2022. The regulated area would cover all
navigable waters of the Nanticoke River within an area bounded by a
line connecting the following points: From the shoreline downriver from
the Maryland S.R. 313 (Sharptown Road) Highway Bridge, at position
latitude 38[deg]32'42'' N, longitude 075[deg]43'19'' W, thence
southeast across the Nanticoke River to the shoreline at latitude
38[deg]32'38'' N, longitude 075[deg]43'12'' W, thence north and east
along the shoreline to latitude 38[deg]33'08'' N, longitude
075[deg]42'33'' W, thence northwest across the Nanticoke River to the
shoreline at latitude 38[deg]33'13'' N, longitude 075[deg]42'42'' W,
thence south and west along the shoreline to and terminating at the
point of origin. The regulated area is approximately 1,500 yards in
length and 300 yards in width.
    This proposed rule provides additional information about areas
within the regulated area, their definitions, and the restrictions that
would apply to mariners. These areas include ``Race Area,'' ``Buffer
Area,'' and ``Milling Area.''
    The proposed duration of the special local regulation and size of
the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of life on these
navigable waters before, during, and after the high-speed power boat
racing event, scheduled to take place from noon to 5 p.m. on May 13,
2022, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on May 14, 2022, and, from 10 a.m. to 5
p.m. on May 15, 2022. The COTP and the Coast Guard Event PATCOM would
have authority to forbid and control the movement of all vessels and
persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When
hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the
regulated area would be required to immediately comply with the
directions given by the COTP or Event PATCOM. If a person or vessel
fails to follow such directions, the Coast Guard may expel them from
the area, issue them a citation for failure to comply, or both.
    Except for Sharptown Regatta participants and vessels already at
berth, a vessel or person would be required to get permission from the
COTP or Event PATCOM before entering the regulated area. Vessel
operators would be able to request permission to enter and transit
through the regulated area by contacting the Event PATCOM on VHF-FM
channel 16. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the
regulated area once the Event PATCOM deems it safe to do so. A vessel
within the regulated area must operate at safe speed that minimizes
wake. A person or vessel not registered with the event sponsor as a
participant or assigned as official patrols would be considered a
spectator. Official Patrols are any vessel assigned or approved by the
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer onboard and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign. Official Patrols enforcing this regulated area can be
contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 and channel 22A.
    If permission is granted by the COTP or Event PATCOM, a person or
vessel would be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly
through the regulated area as instructed. Vessels would be required to
operate at a safe speed that minimizes wake while within the regulated
area in a manner that would not endanger event participants or any
other craft. A spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable
channel while within the regulated area. Only participant vessels and
official patrol vessels would be allowed to enter the race area and
milling area. The Coast Guard would publish a notice in the Fifth Coast
Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates
and times.
    The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this
document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and
duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated
area of the Nanticoke River for 25 total enforcement hours. This
waterway supports tug and barge traffic year round and recreational
vessel traffic, which at its peak, occurs during the summer season.
Although this regulated area extends across the entire width of the
waterway, the rule would allow vessels and persons to seek permission
to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic able to do so safely
would be able to transit the regulated area as instructed by the Event
PATCOM. Such vessels must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake and
not loiter within the navigable channel while within the regulated
area. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated
area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the

reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves
implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to
organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States
that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore
side activities in the event area for 25 total enforcement hours.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0122 in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Next, look for this document in
the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T05-0122 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T05-0122   Sharptown Regatta, Nanticoke River, Sharptown, MD.

    (a) Locations. All coordinates are based on datum NAD 1983.
    (1) Regulated area. All navigable waters of the Nanticoke River,
within an area bounded by a line connecting the following points: From
the shoreline downriver from the Maryland S.R. 313 (Sharptown Road)
Highway Bridge, at position latitude 38[deg]32'42'' N, longitude
075[deg]43'19'' W, thence southeast across the Nanticoke River to the
shoreline at latitude 38[deg]32'38'' N, longitude 075[deg]43'12'' W,
thence north and east along the shoreline to latitude 38[deg]33'08'' N,
longitude 075[deg]42'33'' W, thence northwest across the Nanticoke
River to the shoreline at latitude 38[deg]33'13'' N, longitude
075[deg]42'42'' W, thence south and west along the shoreline to and
terminating at the point of origin. The race area, buffer area, and
milling area are within the regulated area.
    (2) Race area. Located within the waters of the Nanticoke River,
between the Maryland S.R. 313 (Sharptown Road) Highway Bridge and
Nanticoke River Channel Light 43 (LLNR 24175) in position
38[deg]33'07.79'' N, 075[deg]42'44.93'' W, at Sharptown, MD. The race
area is within the buffer area.
    (3) Buffer area. The buffer area is a polygon in shape measuring
approximately 300 feet in all directions surrounding the entire race
area described in the preceding paragraph of this section. The area is
bounded by a line commencing at the shoreline at position latitude
38[deg]32'47'' N, longitude 075[deg]43'13'' W, thence southeast along
the northern extent of the Maryland S.R. 313 (Sharptown Road) Highway
Bridge to latitude 38[deg]32'41'' N, longitude 075[deg]43'06'' W,
thence northeast to latitude 38[deg]33'01'' N, longitude
075[deg]42'39'' W, thence northwest to latitude 38[deg]33'08'' N,
longitude 075[deg]42'44'' W, thence southwest to and terminating at the
point of origin.
    (4) Milling area. The milling area is a polygon in shape measuring
approximately 200 yards in length by 200 yards in width. The area is
southwest and down river from the Maryland S.R. 313 (Sharptown Road)
Highway Bridge, bounded by a line commencing at the shoreline at
position latitude 38[deg]32'47'' N, longitude 075[deg]43'13'' W, thence
southeast along the northern extent of the Maryland S.R. 313 (Sharptown
Road) Highway Bridge to latitude 38[deg]32'42'' N, longitude
075[deg]43'07'' W, thence southeast to latitude 38[deg]32'38'' N,
longitude 075[deg]43'12'' W, thence northwest to latitude
38[deg]32'42'' N, longitude 075[deg]43'19'' W, thence northeast to and
terminating at the point of origin.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Buffer area is a neutral area that surrounds the perimeter of the
race area within the regulated area described by this section. The
purpose of a buffer area is to minimize potential collision conflicts
with marine event participants or high-speed power boats and nearby
transiting vessels. This area provides separation between a race area
and other vessels that are operating in the vicinity of the regulated
area established by the special local regulations in this section.
    Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means
the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region
or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.
    Event Patrol Commander or Event PATCOM means a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region.
    Milling area is an area described by a line bound by coordinates
provided in latitude and longitude that outlines the boundary of a
milling area within the regulated area defined by this section. The
area is used before a race start to assemble teams and warm up the
participating boats engines while operating off plane.
    Official patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as participating in the ``Sharptown Regatta'' event, or
otherwise designated by the event sponsor as having a function tied to
the event.
    Race area is an area described by a line bound by coordinates
provided in latitude and longitude that outlines the boundary of a race
area within the regulated area defined by this section.
    Spectator means a person or vessel not registered with the event
sponsor as a participant or assigned as official patrols.
    (c) Special local regulations. (1) The COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region or Event PATCOM may forbid and control the movement of
all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated
area described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. When hailed or
signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated
area shall immediately comply with the directions given by the patrol.
Failure to do so may result in the Coast Guard expelling the person or
vessel from the area, issuing a citation for failure to comply, or
both. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM may
terminate the event, or a participant's operations at any time the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM believes it necessary
to do so for the protection of life or property.
    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, a person
or vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this
section must immediately depart the regulated area.
    (3) A spectator must contact the Event PATCOM to request permission
to either enter or pass through the regulated area. The Event PATCOM,
and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area, can be
contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and
channel 22A (157.1 MHz). If permission is granted, the spectator must
pass directly through the regulated area as instructed by Event PATCOM.
A vessel within the regulated area must operate at safe speed that
minimizes wake. A spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable
channel while within the regulated area.
    (4) Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are
allowed to enter and remain within the race area and milling area.
    (5) Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are
allowed to enter and transit directly through the buffer area in order
to arrive at or depart from the race area.
    (6) A person or vessel that desires to transit, moor, or anchor
within the regulated area must obtain authorization from the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM. A person or vessel
seeking such permission can contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital
Region at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the Event PATCOM on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (7) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates
and times.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast Guard may be assisted with
marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other
federal, state, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 11 a.m.
to 6 p.m. on May 13, 2022, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.

on May 14, 2022, and from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on May 15, 2022.

    Dated: March 8, 2022.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-05258 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


                    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
              OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

        EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Antimicrobials Division (AD)
Meeting with the Trichloromelamine (TCM) Task Force
May 5, 2020
3:30 PM  -  4:30 PM EST
                                Teleconference
                                 Arlington, VA
Attendees:
Industry (via teleconference):
Julia Brotton, Project Manager for TCM Task Force
Dave Lewis, Lewis and Harrison
Thoms Osimitiz, Science Strategies
Eric Brown, Diversey
Kurt Jones, Iofina
EPA:
Melissa Panger, EPA-AD-RASSB
Laura Parsons, EPA-AD-RASSB
Diana Hsieh, EPA-AD-RASSB
Tim Leighton, EPA-AD-RASSB
Danielle McShan, EPA-AD-RASSB
Rick Fehir, EPA-AD-RMBII
Kendall Ziner, EPA-AD-RMBII

Meeting Discussion:

The agenda topics discussed at the May 5, 2020 meeting are presented below.

 Next steps in the trichloromelamine (TCM) registration review process
 Updates to TCM data submissions and potential waiver requests
 Discussion on proposed label changes in lieu of submitting data

EPA is reviewing TCM in the registration review program. EPA Antimicrobials Division staff and industry representatives, a part of the TCM Task Force, met via teleconference to discuss updates regarding data needed that will be used in the upcoming Draft Risk Assessment. Updates on submitting waiver requests were discussed as well as proposed label changes to be submitted to the Agency. The Draft Risk Assessment has not yet been scheduled.


[Federal Register: February 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5874]
[DOCID:fr02fe09-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of: Leading Edge Packaging, Inc., Leadingside,
Inc., Lecstar Corp., and Legal Club of America, Inc.; Order of
Suspension of Trading

January 29, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Leading Edge Packaging, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended December 31, 1999.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Leadingside, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Lecstar Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Legal Club of America, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended March 31, 2004.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST
on January 29, 2009, through 11:59 p.m. EST on February 11, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2211 Filed 1-29-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57767]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24418]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1147]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Butler County,
Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations
for Butler County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions).

DATES: This withdrawal is effective on September 25, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1147, to 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>
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: On October 5, 2010, FEMA published a
proposed rule at 75 FR 61382, proposing flood elevation determinations
along one or more flooding sources in Butler County, Pennsylvania (All
Jurisdictions). FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: September 10, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-24418 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 86919]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28940]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9054-6]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed December 17, 2020 10 a.m. EST Through December 23, 2020 10 a.m.
EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20200263, Draft, DOE, ID, Draft Versatile Test Reactor
Environment Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 02/16/2021, Contact:
James Lovejoy<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200264, Draft, NMFS, ME, Regulatory Impact Review, and
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Amending the Atlantic Large
Whale Take Reduction Plan: Risk Reduction Rule, Comment Period Ends:
03/01/2021, Contact: Colleen Coogan<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notice

EIS No. 20200199, Draft, USA, AK, Heat and Electrical Upgrades at Fort
Wainwright, Alaska, Comment Period Ends: 02/22/2021, Contact: Laura
Sample<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR Notice Published 10/09/2020;
Extending the Comment Period from 12/08/2020 to 02/22/2021.

    Dated: December 23, 2020.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2020-28940 Filed 12-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91201-91204]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30288]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2016-0022]

Bay Area Compliance Laboratories Corp.: Application for
Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Bay Area
Compliance Laboratories Corp. for recognition as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's
preliminary finding to grant this recognition.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before January 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    1. Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically
at

http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    2. Facsimile: If submissions, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, commenters may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    3. Regular or express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments, requests, and any attachments to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2016-0022, Technical Data Center, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3653,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY number: (877) 889-
5627). Note that security procedures may result in significant delays
in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures concerning delivery of materials by express mail, hand
delivery, or messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA
Docket Office are 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., e.t.
    4. Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2016-0022). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    5. Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the
OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.
    6. Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before January 17, 2017 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Many of OSHA's workplace standards require that an NRTL test and
certify certain types of equipment as safe for use in the workplace.
NRTLs are independent laboratories that meet OSHA's requirements for
performing safety testing and certification of products used in the
workplace. To obtain and retain OSHA recognition, NRTLs must meet the
requirements in the NRTL Program regulations at 29 CFR 1910.7. More
specifically, to be recognized by OSHA, an organization must: (1) Have
the appropriate capability to test, evaluate, and approve products to
assure their safe use in the workplace; (2) be completely independent
of employers subject to the tested equipment requirements, and
manufacturers and vendors of products for which OSHA requires
certification; (3) have internal programs that ensure proper control of
the testing and certification process; and (4) have effective reporting
and complaint handling procedures. Recognition is an acknowledgement by
OSHA that the NRTL has the capabilities to perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
NRTL's scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of
government authority. Recognition of an NRTL by OSHA also allows
employers to use products certified by that NRTL to meet those OSHA
standards that require product testing and certification.
    The Agency processes applications for initial recognition following
requirements in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
OSHA to publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an
application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application,
provides its preliminary finding, and solicits comments on its
preliminary findings. In the second notice, the Agency provides its
final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's
scope of recognition.

II. Notice of the Application for Recognition

    OSHA is providing notice that Bay Area Compliance Laboratories
Corp. (BACL) is applying for recognition as an NRTL. According to its
application, BACL was incorporated in 1996 to provide product
compliance testing services to customers in the areas of Product
Safety, Electromagnetic Compatibility and Telecommunications, testing
for Emissions, Immunity, Radio, Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure and
Telecommunications. The non-profit, third-party, non-governmental
accreditation body A2LA accredited BACL for UL 60950-1, the standard
for which BACL requests NRTL recognition. In its application, BACL
lists the current address of its headquarters as: Bay Area Compliance
Laboratories Corp., 1274 Anvilwood Avenue, Sunnyvale, California 94089.
    OSHA recognizes each NRTL for a scope of recognition that includes
the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard, and the recognized site(s) that have the
technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for the applicable test standards within the
NRTL's scope of recognition. BACL applied for initial recognition as an
NRTL on May 1, 2015, and revised its application on May 12, 2016. In
its application and subsequent revision, BACL requested recognition for
one test standard and one site (OSHA-2016-0022-0001 and 0002). The
following sections set forth the requested scope of recognition
included in BACL's application.

A. Standards Requested for Recognition

    Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standard found in BACL's
application for testing and certification of products under the NRTL
Program.

Table 1--Proposed Appropriate Test Standard for Inclusion in BACL's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 60950-1................................  Information Technology
                                             Equipment-Safety-Part 1:
                                             General Requirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test standard listed above may be approved as a U.S. test
standard by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However,
for convenience, the Agency may use the designation of the standards-
developing organization for the test standard instead of the ANSI
designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL
1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular
test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test
standard or the ANSI version of that standard.

B. Sites Requested for Recognition

    The current address of BACL's site included in its application for
recognition as an NRTL is:
    1. Bay Area Compliance Laboratories Corp., 1274 Anvilwood Avenue,
Sunnyvale, California 94089.
    The NRTL Program requires that the recognized site listed above has
the capability to conduct the product testing in accordance with the
appropriate test standard for the equipment or material being tested
and certified.

III. Preliminary Finding on the Application for Recognition as an NRTL

    OSHA's NRTL Program recognition process involves a thorough
analysis of an NRTL applicant's policies and procedures, and a
comprehensive on-site review of the applicant's testing and
certification activities to ensure that the applicant meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis
of BACL's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information.
OSHA staff also performed a comprehensive on-site assessment of BACL's
testing facility, located at 1274 Anvilwood Avenue, Sunnyvale,
California 94089, on May 9-11, 2016. An overview of OSHA's assessment
of the four requirements for recognition (i.e., capability, control
procedures, independence, and creditable reports and complaint
handling) is provided below.

A. Capability

    Section 1910.7(b)(1) states that, for each specified item of
equipment or material to be listed, labeled, or accepted, the NRTL must
have the capability (including proper testing equipment and facilities,
trained staff, written testing procedures, and calibration and quality-
control programs) to perform appropriate testing. OSHA staff performed
a detailed analysis of BACL's application packet and reviewed other
pertinent information to assess its capabilities to perform test and
certification activities. OSHA determined that BACL has demonstrated
these capabilities through the following:
     The BACL facility has adequate test areas, energy sources,
and procedures for controlling incompatible activities.
     BACL provided a detailed list of its testing equipment.
Review of the application shows that the equipment listed is available
and adequate for the standards for which it seeks recognition.
     BACL has detailed procedures for conducting testing,
review, and evaluation, and for capturing the test and other data
required by the test standards for which it seeks recognition.
     BACL has detailed procedures addressing the maintenance
and calibration of equipment, and the types of records maintained for,
or supporting laboratory activities.
     BACL has sufficient qualified personnel to perform the
proposed scope of testing based on their education, training, technical
knowledge, and experience.
     BACL has an adequate quality-control system in place to
conduct internal audits, as well as track and resolve nonconformances.
    OSHA's on-site assessment of BACL's facility confirmed the
capabilities described in its application packet.

B. Control Procedures

    Section 1910.7(b)(2) requires that the NRTL provide controls and
services, to the extent necessary, for the particular equipment or
material to be listed, labeled, or accepted. These controls and
services include procedures for identifying the listed or labeled
equipment or materials, inspections of production runs at factories to
assure conformance with test standards, and field inspections to
monitor and assure the proper use of identifying marks or labels. OSHA
staff performed a detailed analysis of BACL's application packet and
reviewed other pertinent information to assess its control procedures.
OSHA determined that BACL has demonstrated these control procedures
through the following:
     BACL has a quality-control manual and detailed procedures
to address the steps involved to list and certify products.
     BACL has a registered certification mark.
     BACL has certification procedures to address the
authorization of certifications and audits of factory facilities. The
audits apply to both the initial evaluations and the follow-up
inspections of manufacturers' facilities.
    OSHA's on-site assessment of BACL's facility confirmed the control
procedures described in its application packet.

C. Independence

    Section 1910.7(b)(3) requires that the NRTL be completely
independent of employers that are subject to the testing requirements,
and of any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or materials tested
under the NRTL Program. OSHA has a policy for the independence of NRTLs
that specifies the criteria used for determining whether an
organization meets the above requirement (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-
0.3, Appendix C, paragraph V). This policy contains a non-exhaustive
list of relationships that would cause an organization to fail to meet
the specified criteria. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of
BACL's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to
assess its independence. OSHA determined that BACL has demonstrated
independence through the following:
     BACL is a privately-owned organization, and OSHA found no
information regarding ownership that would qualify as a conflict under
OSHA's independence policy.
     BACL shows that it has none of the relationships described
above or any other relationship that could subject it to undue
influence when testing for product safety.

D. Credible Reports and Complaint Handling

    Section 1910.7(b)(4) specifies that a NRTL must maintain effective
procedures for producing credible findings and reports that are
objective and free of bias. The NRTL must also have procedures for
handling complaints and disputes under a fair and reasonable system.
OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of BACL's application packet
and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its ability to
produce credible results and handle complaints. OSHA determined that
BACL has demonstrated these capabilities through the following.
     BACL has detailed procedures describing the content of the
test reports, and other detailed procedures

describing the preparation and approval of these reports.
     BACL has procedures for recording, analyzing, and
processing complaints from users, manufacturers, and other parties in a
fair manner.
    OSHA's on-site assessment of BACL's facility confirmed the credible
reports and complaint handling described in its application packet.
    OSHA's review of the application file and pertinent documentation,
as well as the results of the on-site assessment, indicate that BACL
can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition
as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory for its site located in
Sunnyvale, California. The OSHA staff, therefore, preliminarily
recommended that the Assistant Secretary approve the application. This
preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary
approval of BACL's application.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether BACL meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition as an NRTL. Comments
should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters
needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating
the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request
for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any
extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period.
OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately
justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in
this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the
Docket Office, Room N-3653, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These
materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. OSHA-2016-0022.
    OSHA staff will review all comments submitted to the docket in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary whether to grant
BACL's application for recognition as an NRTL. The Assistant Secretary
will make the final decision on granting the application. In making
this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings
prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
Federal Register.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 12, 2016.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2016-30288 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47027-47029]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17035]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0650]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Houma Navigation Canal Miles 23 to 23.5, Dulac, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters surface to bottom, of the Houma Navigation Canal
from mile marker 23 to 23.5. The safety zone is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
created by replacement work of the Falgout Canal Pontoon Bridge. Entry
of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Morgan City or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from 7:00 a.m.
until 7:00 p.m. daily from July 20, 2016 through July 27, 2016. For the
purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 7:00 a.m.
until 7:00 p.m. daily from July 7, 2016 through July 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0650 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact MSTC Justin Helton, Marine Safety Unit Houma, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive
notice of the bridge repairs until June 21, 2016. Completing the NPRM
process would delay the immediate action needed to protect the public
from hazards associated with the Falgout Canal Pontoon Bridge
replacement. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must
establish this safety zone by July 7, 2016.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Providing 30 days
notice for this occurrence would unnecessarily delay the effective date
and would be impracticable based on the limited time frame, as well as
be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the replacement
of the Falgout Canal Pontoon Bridge.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Morgan City (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the Falgout Canal Pontoon Bridge
replacement between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. from July 7 through July
27, 2016 will be a safety concern for anyone within the area extending
from MM 23 to 23.5 of the Houma Navigation Canal. This rule is needed
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone while the Falgout Canal Pontoon
Bridge is being replaced.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.
from July 7 through July 27, 2016. The safety zone will cover all
navigable waters, surface to bottom, of the Houma Navigation Canal from
MM 23 to 23.5. The duration of the zone is intended to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable
waters while the Falgout Canal Pontoon Bridge is being repaired. No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and specific times of enforcement for the temporary
safety zone. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the
Falgout Canal Pontoon Bridge is being replaced. This temporary safety
zone will be enforced during specific times during daylight hours for
bridge replacement operations only, and limits access to a small area
on the waterway covering one-half mile. Vessels will be able to request
passage through area from the COTP. Additionally, there will be a break
in operation allowing any build up of traffic to pass on a once daily
basis.
    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule
allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone, during daylight hours, lasting less than
13 hours per day for 21 days that will prohibit entry into or transit
within MM 23 to 23.5 of the Houma Navigation Canal. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0650 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0650  Safety zone; Houma Navigation Canal between mile 23
to 23.5, Dulac, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
waters of the Houma Navigation Canal, surface to bottom, between mile
23 and mile 23.5, Dulac, LA.
    (b) Enforcement period. This safety zone will be enforced from 7:00
a.m. until 7:00 p.m. daily from July 7 through July 27, 2016.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Morgan City (COTP) or designated
personnel. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through
the zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM radio channel 13 and 16
or phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) Persons and vessels permitted to deviate from this safety zone
regulation and enter the restricted area must transit at the slowest
safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or
the designated representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to
mariners of the enforcement period for the temporary safety zone as
well as any changes in the planned schedule.

    Dated: July 1, 2016.
B.E. Welborn,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Morgan City.
[FR Doc. 2016-17035 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 38013-38015]
[DOCID:fr30jy09-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0180; FRL-8426-1]

Product Stewardship Program for Six Siloxanes Conducted Under a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Signed by EPA and The Dow Corning
Corporation; Notice of Receipt and Availability of the MOU Data

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  This document announces the receipt of toxicity and exposure
data and information that were developed through a Product Stewardship
Program (PSP) agreed upon under a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by EPA and Dow Corning
Corporation. The MOU covered six siloxanes deemed representative of a
broad class of siloxanes that have widespread use in a variety of
industrial and consumer applications. A docket has been established to
make data and information developed through this MOU available to the
public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For general information contact:
Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance
Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Robert Jones, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to those persons who are or may be interested in
the information developed on the six siloxane chemicals subject to the
PSP MOU. If you have any questions regarding the completion of the MOU
or the availability of the information from this effort, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0180. All documents
in the docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located
in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors are required to show
photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray
machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC
badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned
upon departure.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

    The 30th Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) to
the EPA Administrator recommended 56 silicone chemicals for health
effects testing to meet data needs expressed by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (57 FR 30608, July 9, 1992). The six siloxanes covered
by this MOU between EPA and the Dow Corning Corporation are included
among the 56 silicone chemicals recommended by the ITC in its 30th
Report to EPA. In response to that ITC recommendation, EPA issued a
final TSCA section 8(d) information reporting rule (58 FR 28511, May
14, 1993) requiring manufacturers, importers, and processors of the 56
silicone chemicals to submit to EPA unpublished health and safety data
on those chemicals; information concerning the uses of and exposure to
the chemicals was submitted voluntarily by industry directly to the
ITC. On review of the TSCA section 8(d) information materials received,
the ITC considered the need for formal designations for testing under
section 4 of TSCA. EPA issued a notice titled Testing Consent
Agreement; Development for Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (OMCTS);
Solicitation of Interested Parties (53 FR 11341, April 6, 1988) and a
final rule titled Testing Consent Order for
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (54 FR 818, January 10, 1989) docket
number OPTS-42071B.
    These actions lead to the more broadly based discussion of an
appropriate PSP based on the Responsible Care principles developed by
the Chemical Manufacturers Association--now the American Chemistry
Council. Dow Corning Corporation agreed to develop a specific PSP for
six siloxane chemicals including: Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) CAS
No. 556-67-2; decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) CAS No. 541-02-6;
dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6) CAS No. 540-97-6;
hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDS) CAS No. 107-46-0; polydimethylsiloxane
(PDMS 10 cst) CAS No. 63148-62-9; and polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS 350
cst) CAS No. 63148-62-9. These were selected because they are
representative of the broad class of siloxane materials that have
widespread use in industrial and consumer applications. Dow Corning
Corporation and EPA signed the formal PSP MOU on April 9, 1996. The MOU
was initiated in 1996 with a baseline report, and a Project Plan for
assessing exposure. The MOU was monitored through annual progress
reports and regular scientific briefings with EPA.
    This notice acknowledges that work agreed upon in the MOU has been
received and announces that the data and information produced under the
MOU is available in the public docket at http://www.regulations.gov at
docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0180. Materials include annual progress
reports, over 88 reports assessing potential toxicity and exposures
concerning the six siloxanes, and related TSCA section 8(e) notices and
FYI submissions. The MOU and a baseline report describe the PSP based
on ``Implementing Product Stewardship: a Resource Guide,'' Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA), 1992. The program included a
description of the PSP goals, plans for communicating health and safety
information, toxicity testing, exposure assessment and monitoring,
identifying any additional data needs for risk assessment, development
and implementation of pollution prevention, waste minimization, and
exposure reduction plans, and exercising its environmental
responsibility through design of processes, products, packaging, etc.
to minimize the consumption of natural resources and energy and
eliminate, where feasible, generation of waste materials and releases
to the environment.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Hazardous chemicals, Siloxanes.

    Dated: July 21, 2009.
Jim Willis,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. E9-18195 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: September 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 55381]
[DOCID:fr10se10-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62823, File No. 4-51]

Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving Amendment To Add EDGA
Exchange, Inc. and EDGX Exchange, Inc. as Participants to National
Market System Plan Establishing Procedures Under Rule 605 of Regulation
NMS

September 1, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On March 30, 2010, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'') and EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') in accordance with Section 11A
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS,\2\ a proposed amendment to the national market system
plan establishing procedures under Rule 605 of Regulation NMS (``Joint-
SRO Plan'' or ``Plan'').\3\ Under the proposed amendment, EGDA and EDGX
would be added as participants to the Joint-SRO Plan. Notice of filing
and an order granting temporary effectiveness of the proposal were
published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2010.\4\ The Commission
did not receive any comments on the proposed amendment. This order
approves the amendment on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ 17 CFR 242.605. On April 12, 2001, the Commission approved a
national market system plan for the purpose of establishing
procedures for market centers to follow in making their monthly
reports available to the public under Rule 11Ac1-5 under the Act (n/
k/a Rule 605 of Regulation NMS). See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 44177 (April 12, 2001), 66 FR 19814 (April 17, 2001).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61824 (April 1,
2010), 75 FR 18246 (April 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    The Joint-SRO Plan establishes procedures for market centers to
follow in making their monthly reports required pursuant to Rule 605 of
Regulation NMS, available to the public in a uniform, readily
accessible, and usable electronic format. The current participants to
the Joint-SRO Plan are the American Stock Exchange LLC (n/k/a NYSE
Amex, Inc.), BATS Exchange, Inc., Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated,
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a
National Stock Exchange\SM\), International Securities Exchange, LLC,
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (n/k/a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.),
New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a New York Stock Exchange LLC),
Pacific Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Arca, Inc.), and Philadelphia Stock
Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.). The proposed amendment
would add EDGA and EDGX as participants to the Joint-SRO Plan.
    Section III(b) of the Joint-SRO Plan provides that a national
securities exchange or national securities association may become a
party to the Plan by: (i) Executing a copy of the Plan, as then in
effect (with the only changes being the addition of the new
participant's name in Section 11(a) of the Plan and the new
participant's single-digit code in Section VI(a)(1) of the Plan) and
(ii) submitting such executed plan to the Commission for approval. Each
of EDGA and EDGX has submitted a signed copy of the Joint-SRO Plan to
the Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Plan
regarding new participants.
    The Commission finds that the amendment to the Joint-SRO Plan is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds that the
proposed amendment, which permits EDGA and EDGX to become participants
to the Joint-SRO Plan, is consistent with the requirements of Section
11A of the Act,\5\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS.\6\ The Plan
established appropriate procedures for market centers to follow in
making their monthly reports required pursuant to Rule 605 of
Regulation NMS, available to the public in a uniform, readily
accessible, and usable electronic format. The amendment to include EDGA
and EDGX as participants in the Joint-SRO Plan should contribute to the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets and remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a national market system by facilitating the
uniform public disclosure of order execution information by all market
centers. The Commission believes that it is necessary and appropriate
in the public interest, for the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect mechanisms of, a
national market system to allow EDGA and EDGX to become participants in
the Joint-SRO Plan. The Commission finds, therefore, that approving
amendment to the Joint-SRO Plan is appropriate and consistent with
Section 11A of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \6\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the
Act \8\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS,\9\ that the amendment to the
Joint-SRO Plan to add EDGA and EDGX as participants to the Joint-SRO
Plan is approved and EDGA and EDGX are authorized to each act jointly
with the other participants to the Joint-SRO Plan in planning,
developing, operating, or regulating the Plan as a means of
facilitating a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3)(B).
    \9\ 17 CFR 242.608.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22552 Filed 9-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P