[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15019-15020]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04872]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0105; FRL-10559-01-OCSPP]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal
Collection and Request for Comment; Regulation of Persistent,
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces the availability of and solicits public comment on
the following Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA is planning
to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): ``Regulation of
Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals under TSCA Section
6(h),'' identified by EPA ICR No. 2599.03 and OMB Control No. 2070-
0213. This ICR represents a renewal of an existing ICR that is
currently approved through January 31, 2024. Before submitting the ICR
to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments on specific aspects of the information collection that is
summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are
available in the docket for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0105 through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Sleasman (7602M), Office of
Program Support, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25 people) on
examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce
the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this
collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
Chemicals under TSCA Section 6(h).
    EPA ICR No.: 2599.03.
    OMB Control No.: 2070-0213.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently approved through January 31,
2024. Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers
for EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are
displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other
appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or
form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR covers the information collection activities
associated with the prohibitions and restrictions on the following five
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemical substances:
decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) (Chemical Abstract Services Number
(CASRN) 1163-19-5), phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1))
(CASRN 68937-41-7), 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6-TTBP) (CASRN
732-26-3), pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP) (CASRN 133-49-3), and
hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) (CASRN 87-68-3). Specifically, the
information collection activities associated with the downstream
notification of the prohibitions in the rule for PIP (3:1) and the rule
familiarization activities and recordkeeping requirement for all five
PBT chemicals.
    Burden statement: The average annual public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to
0.74 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected are
those that manufacture, process, distribute in commerce or use
decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE), phenol, isopropylated phosphate
(3:1) (PIP (3:1)), 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6-TTBP),
pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP), hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), or

products or articles containing these chemicals.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory per TSCA section 6(h)
and 40 CFR part 751.
    Frequency of response: Occasional.
    Total estimated number of potential respondents: 73.
    Total estimated average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Total estimated annual burden hours: 53 hours.
    Total estimated annual costs: $4,299 (includes an estimated burden
cost of $4,299 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or
maintenance and operational costs).

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is decrease of 33 hours in the total estimated annual
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease reflects EPA's updating of burden
estimates and represents an adjustment. It results from the fact that
some firms are no longer expected to incur recordkeeping and downstream
notification costs since they are prohibited from using the chemical
during the period this ICR covers.
    In addition, EPA has updated this Supporting Statement to reflect
the OMB request that EPA move towards using the 18-question format for
ICR Supporting Statements that is used by other federal agencies and
departments based on the submission instructions established by OMB in
1995. The 18-question format will replace the alternate format
developed by EPA and OMB prior to 1995. The Agency does not expect the
change in format to result in substantive changes to the presentation
of the information collection activities or related estimated burden
and costs. EPA welcomes comment on this new format in the context of
this ICR.

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: March 6, 2023.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2023-04872 Filed 3-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 10112]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03289]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4490-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Missouri; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4490-DR), dated March 26, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 10, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kathy Fields,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Paul Taylor as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-03289 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29126-29127]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09608]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-1757-000]

Montevue Lane Solar LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Montevue Lane Solar LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 22, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor

must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 1, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09608 Filed 5-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 8084]
[DOCID:fr23fe09-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-595-000]

Gotham Energy Marketing LP; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

February 12, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Gotham Energy Marketing LP's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 4, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-3682 Filed 2-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Technical Support Document Methodology Used for the Initial Selection of Chemicals for the Inventory Update Rule Amendments ( IURA) " Low Current Interest" Partial Reporting Exemption U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics August 27, 2002 1 Background In the Inventory Update Rule Amendments ( IURA) proposed rule, EPA specifically sought comment on a partial reporting exemption for " low priority" chemicals. This partial exemption was envisioned to remove processing and use information reporting requirements for certain chemicals manufactured or imported in quantities of 300,000 lbs./ yr. or more at a single site. In the proposal, EPA requested comment on the criteria the Agency might use to establish such an exemption, as well as the specific chemicals that might qualify for such an exemption. A number of commenters supported the creation of a partial exemption, and several provided suggestions for chemical substances or classes of substances that they wanted EPA to consider including in this or in an expanded partial exemption in the final rulemaking.

In response to the comments received, EPA has established a partial exemption that applies when EPA has determined that there is a low current interest in a listed chemical's IURA processing and use information. In the final rule, EPA is also establishing a process for revising the list of exempted chemical substances over time.

Because IURA reporting is chemical specific, this low current interest partial exemption applies to specific, listed chemical substances. The methodology that EPA used to identify the chemicals initially qualifying for this partial exemption is described in detail below. The inclusion of a chemical substance under this partial exemption, whether on the initial list or as a subsequent change to the list, should not be interpreted to indicate low potential risks for that chemical.

This partial exemption is intended to provide a tool to assist the Agency in better managing the collection of processing and use information under the IURA. Developed primarily as an effort to improve IURA's efficiency and effectiveness, this partial exemption also provides benefits in reducing the potential reporting burden of the IURA for certain manufacturers of these chemicals. The Agency still intends to collect IURA processing and use information across a relatively broad set of chemicals on the TSCA Inventory.

IURA to Include Process to Revise List of Exempted Chemicals The need for EPA's collection of the IURA processing and use information related to a particular chemical substance can change over time. To address this situation, EPA has established a process that will allow for revisions ( additions and deletions) to the list of exempted chemical substances. The process allows anyone to submit a written request for EPA to consider revising the list of chemical substances covered under this partial exemption. EPA may also revise the list on its own initiative. When a list revision is necessary, EPA's preferred approach will be to issue a direct final rule, which affords an opportunity for public comment, while providing an efficient mechanism for revising the list.

In determining whether there is a low current interest in the IURA processing and use information related to a specific chemical substance, EPA will look to the specific circumstances surrounding the chemical in question, and may use one or more of the considerations identified below, and/ or considerations not identified below, to make an informed decision. EPA will consider the totality of information available for the chemical substance, including but not limited to the following:

( A) Whether the chemical qualifies or has qualified in past IUR collections for the reporting of 2 the information described in 40 CFR 710.52( c)( 4) ( i. e., at least one site manufactures 300,000 pounds or more of the chemical).

( B) The chemical substance's chemical and physical properties or potential for persistence, bioaccumulation, health effects, or environmental effects ( considered independently or together).

( C) The information needs of EPA ( including as evidenced by ongoing EPA activities), other federal agencies, tribes, states, and local governments, as well as members of the public.

( D) The availability of other complementary risk screening information.

( E) The availability of comparable processing and use information.

( F) Whether the potential risks of the chemical substance are adequately managed by EPA or another Agency or authority.

It is important to reiterate that the inclusion of these chemical substances under this partial exemption is not based on the potential risks of the chemicals, but is based on the Agency's current determination of the need for collecting IURA processing and use information. Additionally, some of the chemicals included under the exemption may present issues that will renew interest in them in the future, at which time EPA will reconsider the applicability of this partial exemption for those chemicals.

Any person may use the process established in 40 CFR 710.46( b)( 2) to submit a request for the Agency to consider other chemical substances for inclusion under or removal from this partial exemption. Requests should contain sufficient information to enable EPA to make the necessary determination after considering the totality of available information.

Under the list revision process, EPA intends to provide a written response to requests within 120 days of receipt, and will maintain copies of these responses in a public docket that will be established for each reporting cycle. In order to assist the Agency in completing any necessary revisions to the list before the reporting period, any request for revising the list of chemicals under this partial exemption must be received by the Agency no later than January 1 of the year before the reporting period in question ( i. e., 12 months prior to the reporting period). For example, any request for inclusion under this partial exemption must be submitted to EPA no later than January 1, 2004, i. e., 12 months prior to the next reporting period, which begins on January 1, 2005 for the 2006 submission period. If the request is submitted after this date, during an actual reporting period, or during the submission period, EPA is less likely to have sufficient time to complete its evaluation and make a determination, or issue the necessary rulemaking such that the decision can be effective for that reporting period. IURA submitters should check the Federal Register for list revisions or may check the electronic CFR to identify what chemicals are on the partial exemption list prior to each reporting period. 3 Development of an Initial List of Exempted Chemicals To create an initial list of specific chemical substances covered by this partial exemption, EPA started with:

( 1) The list of chemical substances identified as part of the U. S. HPV Challenge Program as of June 1, 2002, for which, based upon a preliminary review of known hazard information, it was determined that the SIDS data set would not further our understanding of the chemical's properties ( see Table 1 below).

Chemical manufacturers and importers participating in the HPV Challenge Program have voluntarily agreed to provide basic toxicity and environmental fate information on their sponsored high production volume ( HPV) chemicals. HPV chemicals are those chemicals which are produced in/ imported into the U. S. in amounts of 1 million pounds per year or more. The HPV chemicals that were originally included in the HPV Challenge Program are those chemicals which were HPV according to 1990 IUR data. The information generated through the voluntary HPV Challenge Program will be made available to the public. The HPV Challenge Program uses the same endpoints, testing protocols, and basic information summary formats employed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's ( OECD's) HPV Screening Information Data Set ( SIDS) program. More information on the HPV Challenge Program can be found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ chemrtk/ volchall. htm.

The OECD HPV SIDS Program is a cooperative, international effort to develop basic toxicity and environmental fate information resulting in the creation of hazard based, screening level assessments for review by participating OECD member countries. The International Council of Chemical Associations ( ICCA) administers a complementary initiative in which 1,000 high priority chemicals are to be assessed by the year 2004 within the framework of the OECD HPV SIDS Program. The ICCA consists of representatives chemical associations from the United States, Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, New Zealand, and Argentina. Based on assembled data ( dossiers), screening level risk assessments are prepared by industry and submitted via the sponsor country to the OECD through the SIDS Program for review and concurrence. Agreed upon documents are then made publicly available at: http:// irptc. unep. ch/ irptc/ sids/ sidspub. html Through these voluntary efforts, the HPV Challenge Program and the OECD work ( including the ICCA initiative), industry, governments and others are working to collect agreed upon information and accelerate the pace of making data available to the public. Because these efforts are largely complementary of one another, EPA does not plan to address, under the U. S. HPV Challenge Program, chemicals which are sponsored under the OECD SIDS Program ( including the ICCA initiative).

( 2) The list of the chemical substances that the European Union ( EU) exempted from provisions of its Existing Chemicals Program.

In 1993 the EU Council adopted Council Regulation ( EEC) 793/ 9, known as the Existing Substances Regulation ( ESR), thereby introducing a comprehensive framework for the 4 evaluation and control of " existing" chemical substances. An " existing" chemical substance in the EU is defined as any chemical substance listed in the European INventory of Existing Commercial Substances ( EINECS), an inventory containing approximately 100,195 substances. Regulation 793/ 93 foresees that the evaluation and control of the risks posed by existing chemicals will be carried out in four steps: data collection, priority setting, risk assessment, and risk reduction. Annex II to this regulation exempts certain chemicals from certain data reporting provisions of the regulation ( see Table 3 below). These data reporting provisions are similar to those of the HPV Challenge Program. More information on the EU Existing Chemical program may be found at: http:// ecb. jrc. it/ existing chemicals/

( 3) Certain other chemicals identified during the E. O. 12866 interagency review, for which EPA was able to quickly determine, based on a review of their chemical structures, properties, existing hazard information, and available exposure information, that IURA processing and use information is of low current interest.

The above lists were then adjusted based upon the totality of information available to EPA during the EO 12866 interagency review period to ensure that the chemicals included in this partial exemption were those for which EPA determined that the IURA processing and use information is of low current interest. EPA chose these initial lists of chemicals because almost all had previously undergone a review prior to their inclusion on these lists and, considering the limited time available during the EO 12866 interagency review, the Agency was able to utilize these lists, along with the Agency's current knowledge and understanding of the individual chemical's structure, properties, indications of hazards and potential exposures, to inform its determination that there is a low current interest in the IURA processing and use information for these specific chemicals. As indicated previously, EPA has established a process for revising the list of chemicals covered by this partial exemption, and intends to reconsider this set of chemicals as well as others identified in comments for applicability under this partial exemption in the context of the first reporting cycle for IURA processing and use information.

Adjustments to List of Chemical Substances Identified as Part of the HPV Challenge Program for Which It Was Determined that the SIDS Data Set Would Not Further Our Understanding of the Chemical's Properties During the development and launch of the HPV Challenge Program, EPA identified a list of chemical substances for which it was determined that the SIDS Data Set would not further the understanding of the chemical's properties. Therefore, these chemicals are not considered candidates for testing under the HPV Challenge Program, although their sponsorship in the HPV Challenge Program by their manufacturers is welcome. Table 1 is a list of these chemical substances.

Table 1 also notes two chemicals that are sponsored by their manufacturers under the HPV Challenge or the complementary initiative administered by the ICCA. EPA views the sponsorship of chemicals in the HPV Challenge Program ( and the OECD SIDS Program, including the ICCA initiative) as significant commitments and an indication of ongoing interest in the chemical. In addition, because these sponsorships will result in the availability of complementary risk screening information, EPA believes that the two chemicals noted in Table 1 as sponsored under the HPV Challenge Program and the ICCA Initiative should not be considered low current interest chemicals for purposes of IURA processing and use information reporting. 5 Therefore, EPA has determined that the chemicals listed in Table 2 for which it had been determined that the SIDS data set would not further our understanding of the chemical's properties, and are not otherwise sponsored under the HPV Challenge Program, are chemicals that are of low current interest, and are to be excluded from IURA processing and use information reporting requirements.

Table 1 Chemical Substances Identified as Part of the HPV Challenge Program for Which It Was Determined that the SIDS Data Set Would Not Further Our Understanding of the Chemical's Properties CAS Number Chemical Name 50 70 4 Glucitol, D 50 99 7 D Glucose ( note 1) 56 81 5 Glycerol 57 50 1 Sucrose 59 02 9 2H 1 Benzopyran 6 ol, 3,4 dihydro 2,5,7,8 tetramethyl 2( 4,8,12 trimethyltridecyl), [ 2R[ 2R*( 4R*, 8R*)]] 69 65 8 Mannitol, D 124 38 9 Carbon dioxide 142 47 2 Glutamic acid, monosodium salt, L 1592 23 0 Stearic acid, calcium salt 7440 44 0 Carbon 8001 21 6 Sunflower oil 8001 22 7 Soybean oil 8001 26 1 Linseed oil 8001 29 4 Cottonseed oil 8001 30 7 Corn oil 8001 31 8 Coconut oil 8001 78 3 Castor oil, hydrogenated 8001 79 4 Castor oil 8002 03 7 Peanut oil 8002 75 3 Palm oil 8006 54 0 Lanolin 8016 28 2 Lard oil 8016 70 4 Soybean oil, hydrogenated 8021 99 6 Charcoal, bone 8029 43 4 Syrups, hydrolyzed starch 9050 36 6 Maltodextrin 16291 96 6 Charcoal ( note 2) 61788 61 2 Fatty acids, tallow, Me esters 61789 97 7 Tallow 61789 99 9 Lard 64147 40 6 Castor oil, dehydrated 64755 01 7 Fatty acids, tallow, calcium salts 65996 63 6 Starch, acid hydrolyzed 65996 64 7 Starch, enzyme hydrolyzed 68188 81 8 Grease, poultry 68334 00 9 Cottonseed oil, hydrogenated 68334 28 1 Fats and Glyceridic oils, vegetable, hydrogenated 68409 76 7 Bone meal, steamed 68425 17 2 Syrups, hydrolyzed starch, hydrogenated 68439 86 1 Bone, ash 68476 78 8 Molasses 68514 27 2 Grease, catch basin 68514 74 9 Palm oil, hydrogenated 68525 87 1 Corn oil, hydrogenated 68918 42 3 Soaps, stocks, soya 68952 94 3 Soaps, stocks, vegetable oil 68989 98 0 Fats and Glyceridic oils, vegetable, residues 73138 67 7 Lard, hydrogenated _______________________ note 1 = this chemical was sponsored under the ICCA Program note 2 = this chemical was sponsored under the HPV Challenge Program 6 Table 2 Chemical Substances Identified as Part of the HPV Challenge Program for Which It Was Determined that the SIDS Data Set Would Not Further Our Understanding of the Chemical's Properties and Which Are Not Otherwise Sponsored Under the HPV Challenge Program ( Included in the Initial IURA Low Current Interest Exemption) ( note  alternate name in parentheses)

CAS Number Chemical Name 50 70 4 Glucitol, D 50 99 7 D Glucose 57 50 1 Sucrose ( . alpha. D Glucopyranoside, . beta. D fructofuranosyl ) 59 02 9 2H 1 Benzopyran 6 ol, 3,4 dihydro 2,5,7,8 tetramethyl 2( 4,8,12 trimethyltridecyl), [ 2R[ 2R*( 4R*, 8R*)]] 69 65 8 Mannitol, D 124 38 9 Carbon dioxide 142 47 2 Glutamic acid, monosodium salt, L 1592 23 0 Stearic acid, calcium salt ( Octadecanoic acid, calcium salt ) 7440 44 0 Carbon 8001 21 6 Sunflower oil 8001 22 7 Soybean oil 8001 26 1 Linseed oil 8001 29 4 Cottonseed oil 8001 30 7 Corn oil 8001 31 8 Coconut oil 8001 78 3 Castor oil, hydrogenated 8001 79 4 Castor oil 8002 03 7 Peanut oil 8002 75 3 Palm oil 8006 54 0 Lanolin 8016 28 2 Lard oil 8016 70 4 Soybean oil, hydrogenated 8021 99 6 Charcoal, bone 8029 43 4 Syrups, hydrolyzed starch 9050 36 6 Maltodextrin 16291 96 6 Charcoal 61789 97 7 Tallow 61789 99 9 Lard 64147 40 6 Castor oil, dehydrated 64755 01 7 Fatty acids, tallow, calcium salts 65996 63 6 Starch, acid hydrolyzed 65996 64 7 Starch, enzyme hydrolyzed 68188 81 8 Grease, poultry 68334 00 9 Cottonseed oil, hydrogenated 68334 28 1 Fats and Glyceridic oils, vegetable, hydrogenated 68409 76 7 Bone meal, steamed 68425 17 2 Syrups, hydrolyzed starch, hydrogenated 68439 86 1 Bone, ash 68476 78 8 Molasses 68514 27 2 Grease, catch basin 68514 74 9 Palm oil, hydrogenated 68525 87 1 Corn oil, hydrogenated 68918 42 3 Soaps, stocks, soya 68952 94 3 Soaps, stocks, vegetable oil 68989 98 0 Fats and Glyceridic oils, vegetable, residues 73138 67 7 Lard, hydrogenated 7 Adjustments to the List of Chemical Substances that the European Union ( EU) Exempted from Provisions of Its Existing Chemicals Program Table 3 is Annex II to the EU Council Regulation ( EEC) 793/ 93 or the Existing Substances Regulation ( ESR). These chemicals are exempt from certain data reporting provisions of the ESR. After consulting with EU officials managing their Existing Chemicals program, EPA believes that the EU made judgements similar in nature to those used by EPA to develop the list of chemical substances identified as part of the HPV Challenge Program for which, based upon a preliminary review of known hazard information, it was determined that the SIDS data set would not further our understanding of the chemical's properties ( Table 1 chemicals). EPA did not have time to evaluate Table 3 chemicals in detail during the EO 12866 interagency review period. In order to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of IURA, and in recognition of the work completed by the EU, and because a process to revise the list of low current interest chemicals not subject to IURA processing and use information reporting has been developed, EPA believes the chemicals displayed in Table 3 should be a starting point for identifying additional chemicals for the IURA partial exemption.

The following adjustments were made to Table 3. Table 4 contains the resulting list of chemical substances from the EU Chemicals Program exempted list that are not otherwise sponsored under the HPV Challenge Program, such that EPA has provisionally determined that the chemicals are of low current interest chemicals. EPA intends to confirm this determination prior to the first IURA processing and use information reporting cycle.

° Chemicals from Table 2 were removed from Table 3 so that a chemical would not be double counted in the low current interest partial exemption.

° A number of chemicals sponsored in the HPV Challenge or OECD SIDS Program ( including the ICCA initiative) were removed because EPA views the sponsorship of chemicals in the HPV Challenge ( and the OECD SIDS Program, including the ICCA initiative) as significant commitments and an indication of ongoing interest in the chemical. In addition, because these sponsorships will result in the availability of complementary risk screening information, EPA believes that these should not be considered low current interest chemicals for purposes of IURA processing and use information reporting. The CAS numbers of these chemicals are: 57 10 3, 57 11 4, 112 80 1, 143 07 7, 143 18 0, 527 07 1, 822 16 2, 1338 43 8, 8030 12 4, 61788 59 8, 61788 61 2, 61790 37 2, 67701 03 5, 67701 05 7, 67701 06 8, 67701 08 0, 67701 30 8, 67762 26 9, 67762 36 1,68308 53 2, and 68424 37 3.

° Chemicals that are not on the TSCA Inventory of Chemical Substances were removed from Table 3. Premanufacture Notices under TSCA Section 5 will need to be submitted to EPA before they can be manufactured in or imported to the United States. The CAS numbers of these chemicals were: 85665 33 4, 90990 10 6, 90990 15 1, and 93165 31 2. ° Chemicals that are included in an exemption or partial exemption under the IURA were removed from Table 3. CAS number 7732 18 5 is included in the petroleum streams partial exemption. 8 Table 3 9 10 11 Table 4 Chemicals from the EU Chemicals Program Exempted List That Are Not Otherwise Sponsored Under the HPV Challenge Program ( Included in the Initial IURA Low Current Interest Exemption)* ( note  alternate name in parentheses)

CAS Number Chemical Name 50 81 7 ascorbic acid ( L Ascorbic acid) 56 87 1 L lysine 58 95 7 a cocphenyl acetate ( 2H 1 Benzopyran 6 ol, 3,4 dihydro 2,5,7,8 tetramethyl 2[( 4R, 8R) 4,8,12 trimethyltridecyl], acetate, ( 2R) ) 59 51 8 DL methionine 87 79 6 l Sorbose 123 94 4 glycerol stearate, pure ( Octadecanoic acid, 2,3 dihydroxypropyl ester ) 137 08 6 calcium pantothenate, D form ( . beta. Alanine, N[( 2R) 2,4 dihydroxy 3,3 dimethyl 1 oxobutyl], calcium alt ( 2: 1) ) 150 30 1 DL phenylalanine 1317 65 3 Limestone 7440 37 1 Argon 7727 37 9 Nitrogen 7732 18 5 Water, distilled, conductivity or of similar purity 7782 42 5 graphite 8001 23 8 Safflower oil 8002 13 9 Rape oil 8002 43 5 Lecithins 9004 53 9 Dextrin 9005 25 8 Starch 11103 57 4 Vitamin A 26836 47 5 D glucitol monostearate ( D Glucitol, monooctadecanoate ) 61789 44 4 fatty acids, castor oil 67701 01 3 fatty acids, C12  18 68002 85 7 fatty acids, C14 22 and C16 22 unsatd. 68131 37 3 syrups, corn, dehydrated ( Syrups, hydrolyzed starch, dehydrated ) 68308 54 3 glycerides, tallow mono, di and tri, hydrogenated 68424 45 3 fatty acids, linseed oil 68424 61 3 glycerides, C16 18 and C18unsatd. mono and di

* Note  CAS No. 7732 18 5 is NOT included in the initial low current interest partial exemption list due to the fact that it is already included in the petroleum process streams partial exemption. 12 Chemicals otherwise identified by EPA for inclusion in the initial IURA low current interest exemption based on consideration of the chemical's structure, properties, existing hazard information, and available information concerning the extent of exposure, and which are not currently a part of another Agency program such as the HPV Challenge Program During the E. O. 12866 interagency review, EPA was able to quickly determine, based on a review of their chemical structures, properties, existing hazard information, and available exposure information, that IURA processing and use information is of low current interest for certain other chemicals. These chemicals were:

1333 74 0 hydrogen 7782 44 7 oxygen and several alkyl benzenes listed below for which EPA has received detailed exposure information from manufacturers and which had been screened in the OECD HPV SIDS Program.

68442 69 3 benzene, mono C10 14 alkyl derivs. 68648 86 2 benzene, C14 16 alkyl derivs. 68648 87 3 benzene, C10 16 alkyl derivs. 129813 58 7 benzene, mono C10 13 alkyl derivs 129813 59 8 benzene, mono C12 14 alkyl derivs. 129813 60 1 benzene, mono C14 16 alkyl derivs.

EPA believes that there is little likelihood that these chemicals will need to be evaluated again in the near future and that IURA processing and use information is of low current interest. EPA will endeavor to identify additional chemicals that can be determined to be of low current interest and will so revise the list of chemicals exempt from IURA processing and use information reporting requirements.


1 Jeff Herzog 01/ 23/ 2004 04: 23 PM To: MELeister@ MAPLLC. com, Andrea. Grant@ piperrudnick. com, sallen@ gwec. com, JRobinson@ AMREF. com, ddoane@ ilta. org, jhuber@ nora oilheat. org>, EGustafson@ Buckeye. com, BBrown@ ColPipe. com cc:

Subject: Latest thinking on definition of Northeast exclusion area ( re the NR heating oil marker issue)

Gentlefolk, Following is my latest draft concept re how we might balance terminal operator concerns re limiting the need to install additional injection equipment to add a marker to heating oil ( as well as concerns regarding limiting the volume of heating oil that must be marked) and our desire to maintain the intended small refiner flexibilities under EPA's upcoming non highway diesel ( nonroad, loco, and # 2 marine) rule:

Under the current draft, the areas that would be excluded from the marker requirement and thus in which the sale of fuel manufactured under the credit and hardship provision of today's rule would be prohibited are: North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Washington D. C., New York ( except for the counties of Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, and Allegany), and Pennsylvania ( except for the counties of Erie, Warren, Mc Kean, Potter, Cameron, Elk, Jefferson, Clarion, Forest, Venango, Mercer, and Crawford).

The area in which the heating oil marker would be required to be added at terminals ( and at refinery racks), and consequently in which small refiner and credit fuel could be sold is the unshaded area in the attached map. I would appreciate any input that you might have on this draft concept.

There is two specific issues that I would appreciate input on >>> If it is unlikely that refiners would market small refiner or credit fuel in South Carolina, I would like to designate SC as an exclusion area State. The current draft has SC outside of the exclusion area because heating oil use drops off significantly as you move South from North Carolina to South Carolina. However, there is still a sizeable ( albeit relatively much smaller) volume of heating oil used in South Carolina. Also, would it be more appropriate to assign the Eastern most ~ 8 counties in the " handle" of Western Virginia to the exclusion area.

Please let me know if there is anyone else that you think it would be good to have input from on this issue.

Thanks for your consideration 2 Draft Northeast Heating Oil Marker and Small Refiner/ Credit NRLM Exclusion Area Jeffrey A. Herzog, Mechanical Engineer United States Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory Assessment and Standards Division 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105 Phone: ( 734) 214 4227 Fax: ( 734) 214 4816 E Mail: herzog. jeff@ epa. gov


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 159 (Tuesday, August 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50017-50018]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20378]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0673]

Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee will meet in
Seattle, Washington to discuss various issues relating to safety in the
commercial fishing industry. This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 15 and Wednesday,
September 16, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The meeting may close
early if all business is finished.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at the United States District Court
House located at 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, Washington, Room 19205.
http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/visitors/seattle-courthouse
    If you are planning to attend the meeting, you will be required to
pass through a security checkpoint. You will be required to show valid
government identification. Please arrive at least 30 minutes before the
planned start of the meeting in order to pass through security.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, as
soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the
``Agenda'' section below. Written comments must be submitted no later
than September 4, 2015 if you want Committee members to be able to
review your comments before the meeting. Comments must be identified by
docket number USCG-2015-0673, and submitted by one of the following
methods:
     Federal Electronic Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov (preferred method to avoid delays in processing).
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), United States
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, South East, Washington, District of Columbia
20590-0001.
     Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and docket number for this action.
Comments received will be posted without alteration at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments
related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, enter the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box, press Enter and then click on the
item you wish to view.
    Public oral comment periods will be held during the meeting after
each presentation and at the end of each day. Speakers are requested to
limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public oral
comment periods may end before the prescribed ending time following the
last call for comments. Contact Jack Kemerer as indicated below to
register as a speaker.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Kemerer, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer of Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee,
Commandant (CG-CVC-3), United States Coast Guard Headquarters, 2703
Martin Luther King Junior Avenue, South East, Mail Stop 7501,
Washington, DC 20593-7501; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile 202-372-
8376, electronic mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have any
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl
Collins, Program Manager, Docket

Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 United States Code, Appendix.
    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is authorized by
Title 46 United States Code Section 4508. The Committee's purpose is to
provide advice and recommendations to the United States Coast Guard and
the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to the safety
of commercial fishing industry vessels.
    A copy of available meeting documentation should be posted to the
docket, as noted above, and at http://fishsafe.info/ by August 31,
2015. Post-meeting documentation will be posted to the Web site within
30 days after the meeting, or as soon as possible. Alternatively, you
may contact Jack Kemerer as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above.

Agenda

    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee will meet to
review, discuss and formulate recommendations on topics contained in
the agenda:

DAY 1

    The meeting will include administrative matters, reports,
presentations, discussions, and Subcommittee/working group sessions as
follows:
    (1) Swearing-in of new members, election of Chair and Vice-Chair,
and completion of Department of Homeland Security Form 420 by Special
Government Employee members.
    (2) Status of Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Rulemaking projects
resulting from requirements set forth in the Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 2010 and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of
2012.
    (3) Coast Guard District Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety
Coordinator reports on activities and initiatives.
    (4) Industry Representative updates on safety and survival
equipment, and classification of fishing vessels.
    (5) Presentation and discussion on casualties by regions and
fisheries and update on safety and risk reduction-related projects by
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    (6) Presentation and discussion on tonnage and documentation
issues.
    (7) Subcommittee/working group sessions, as time allows, on (a)
standards for alternative safety compliance program(s) development, (b)
definitions and safety equipment requirements that should be considered
in future rulemaking projects, and (c) requirements of the
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel, 1995.
    (8) Public comment period.
    (9) Adjournment of meeting.
    There will be a comment period for Commercial Fishing Safety
Advisory Committee members and a comment period for the public after
each presentation and discussion. The Committee will review the
information presented on any issues, deliberate on any recommendations
presented in Subcommittee reports, and formulate recommendations for
the Department's consideration.

DAY 2

    The meeting will primarily be dedicated to continuing Subcommittee/
working group sessions, but will also include:
    (1) Reports and recommendations from Subcommittees/working groups
to the full committee for discussion, deliberation, and adoption for
presentation to the Coast Guard as determined by committee voting. The
public will have opportunity to comment on reports and discussions
prior to the committee taking action on such reports or
recommendations.
    (2) Other safety recommendations and safety program strategies from
the Committee.
    (3) Public comment period.
    (4) Future plans and goals for the Committee.
    (5) Adjournment of meeting.

    Dated: August 12, 2015.
V.B. Gifford,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-20378 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 46460-46461]
[DOCID:fr20au07-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

August 10, 2007.
    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part

of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication
will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision.
Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any
facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication,
and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication
and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will
grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires.
Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using

the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date
          Docket number              received    Presenter or requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. RP07-34-000...............      7-31-07  James Keegan.
Exempt:
    1. CP06-54-000, CP07-55-000..       8-7-07  James Martin for Lavinia
                                                 DiSanto (Entrix, Inc.).
    2. CP07-62-000, et al........      7-25-07  Hon. C.A. Dutch
                                                 Ruppersberger.
    3. CP07-208-000..............       8-6-07  Hon. Charles A. Wilson.
    4. ER07-1141-000.............       8-6-07  Hon. Patricia L.
                                                 Birkholz.
    5. ER07-1141-000.............       8-6-07  Hon. Jeff Mayes.
    6. ER07-1141-000.............       8-6-07  Hon. Jennifer M.
                                                 Granholm.
    7. Project No. 1971-079......       8-3-07  Craig Jones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-16251 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 53688]
[DOCID:fr01se10-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP10-829-000]

Southern LNG Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Technical Conference

August 25, 2010.
    Take notice that Commission Staff will convene a technical
conference in the above-referenced proceeding on Tuesday, September 14,
2010, at 9 a.m. (EST), in a room to be designated at the offices of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    On June 7, 2010, Southern LNG Company, L.L.C. (Southern LNG) filed
a tariff sheet to revise its tariff with respect to gas quality and
interchangeability. On July 28, 2010, the Commission accepted and
suspended Southern LNG's proposed tariff sheet, to become effective
January 1, 2011, or an earlier date set by subsequent Commission order,
subject to conditions and the outcome of a technical conference.\1\
During the technical conference, Commission Staff and interested
persons will have the opportunity to discuss all of the issues raised
by Southern LNG's filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 132 FERC ] 61,076 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Southern LNG should be prepared to address all concerns raised by
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company in its protest to the filing, and
to provide additional technical, engineering, and operational support
for its proposed gas quality and interchangeability standards.
Consistent with the Commission's policy statement on gas quality
issues, Southern LNG should also be prepared to explain how its
proposal conforms with or differs from the Interim Guidelines and
principles. See Natural Gas Interchangeability, Policy Statement on
Provisions Governing Natural Gas Quality and Interchangeability in
Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Company Tariffs, 115 FERC ] 61,325 at P
34, 37 (2006).
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further
information please contact Jennifer Kunz at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21793 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 96527-96530]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31681]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79690; File No. SR-BX-2016-073]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend the
Exchange's Transaction Fees at Rule 7019 (Market Data Distributor Fees)

December 23, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 20, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Rule 7019 (Market Data Distributor Fees) to (i) increase the Monthly
Internal Distributor Fee from $500 to $750 for BX TotalView, and (ii)
increase the Monthly External Distributor Fee from $1,250 to $1,500 for
BX TotalView, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase the Monthly
Internal Distributor Fee from $500 to $750 for BX TotalView, and to
increase the Monthly External Distributor Fee from $1,250 to $1,500 for
BX TotalView.
    TotalView is a proprietary feed that provides subscribers with full
depth-of-book data on BX for Nasdaq-listed securities and securities
not listed on Nasdaq. TotalView allows customers to view all displayed
quotes and orders attributed to specific market participants at every
price level on BX, access total displayed anonymous interest at every
price level on BX, and to see the total size of all displayed quotes
and orders on BX. TotalView also offers trade data for BX executions
that occur on BX.
    Customers may access TotalView as either a Distributor, or through
Direct Access. Rule 7019(b) defines a ``distributor'' of Exchange data
as ``any entity that receives a feed or data file of Exchange data
directly from the Exchange or indirectly through another entity and
then distributes it either internally (within that entity) or
externally (outside that entity).'' \3\ Rule 7019(c) defines ``Direct
Access'' as ``a telecommunications interface with the Exchange for
receiving Exchange data, or receiving an Exchange data feed within the
Exchange co-location facility, or receiving Exchange data via an
Extranet access provider or other such provider that is fee-liable
under 7025.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 7019(b). The Rule also provides that all
distributors shall execute an Exchange distributor agreement, and
states that the Exchange itself is a vendor of its data feed(s) and
has executed an Exchange distributor agreement and pays the
distributor charge. Id.
    \4\ See Rule 7019(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposed the TotalView fees, among others, in 2009,
following its acquisition by Nasdaq, Inc. and the resumption of its
cash equities trading business.\5\ The Exchange proposed that
Distributors of TotalView would pay a $500 monthly fee to distribute
the data feed internally (i.e., to employees) and a $1,250 monthly fee
to distribute to external customers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59307 (January 28,
2009), 74 FR 6069 (February 4, 2009) (Notice of filing of SR-BX-
2009-005). BX proposed, for the first year of BX's operation, to
make TotalView available free of charge. Id.
    \6\ Id. The Exchange also proposed that Distributors pay a
$1,000 monthly fee to receive the data directly from the Exchange,
since the Exchange incurs costs to support the connection to each
direct Distributor; indirect Distributors (i.e., those receiving
data from a direct Distributor) would not pay this charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of these fees, the Exchange noted that the TotalView fee
structure is similar to the structure for the TotalView data product
offered by The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), but that the
overall level of fees is lower than for Nasdaq TotalView. The lower fee
levels for BX TotalView reflected the start-up nature of the Exchange's
new equities trading platform, and was designed help to attract order
flow to the Exchange, since, at its inception, the Exchange had zero
market share and therefore set its fees, including data fees, with a
view to attracting order flow. Finally, the Exchange noted that the
alternatives that exist for market participants to determine market
depth--such as other depth of book products that may be associated with
markets with more liquidity, or order routing strategies designed to
ascertain market depth--provided incentives for the Exchange to ensure
that its fees for BX TotalView were set reasonably.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this proposal, BX proposes to increase the Monthly Internal
Distributor Fee from $500 to $750 for BX TotalView, and increase the
Monthly External Distributor Fee from

$1,250 to $1,500 for BX TotalView. BX is only changing the fee for the
Monthly Internal and External Distributor Fees. The terms of access for
TotalView, and the definition of ``Direct Access'' and ``Distributor,''
remain the same.
    This fee increase is justified because BX has not increased the
Distributor fees for TotalView since they were initially proposed in
2009, although the value of BX TotalView has increased since that time.
Since 2009, BX's market share for quoting and trading of Nasdaq-listed
securities and securities not listed on Nasdaq has increased, which
has, in turn, increased the content and therefore the value of the
TotalView product. In addition, various technical changes have enhanced
TotalView by improving the performance and the resiliency of the BX
matching engine, which, in turn, has improved outbound messaging
through TotalView, especially during peak times of messaging
traffic.\8\ BX also notes that the proposed new TotalView fees remain
consistent with fees for comparable products offered by other
exchanges. This fee increase therefore reflects the increased value of
the TotalView product and the comparative cost of other similar
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Specifically, in 2016, BX split its matching engine into
four matching engines to improve the handling and execution of
orders by increasing system resiliency and reduce the impact of
peaks in messaging traffic. In anticipation of this change, BX
implemented a series of system upgrades in 2015, including upgrading
the servers for the BX matching engine, upgrading the matching
engine to the newest and most efficient version, and upgrading the
necessary tools to effectively monitor the Nasdaq BX marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\12\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\13\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \13\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \14\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the SEC recognized the importance of competition
in setting fees for non-core market data products when approving the
TotalView fees in 2009.\16\ The SEC noted that TotalView related to the
distribution of non-core, depth of book market data products, and the
SEC was therefore able to use a market-based approach in analyzing the
appropriateness of the fees.\17\ Accordingly, the SEC recognized both
BX's compelling need to attract order flow from market participants;
and the availability to market participants of alternatives to
purchasing BX's depth-of-book order data.\18\ The SEC stated that,
given the competitive landscape of trading in cash equities, BX must
compete vigorously for order flow to maintain its share of trading
volume.\19\ This compelling need to attract order flow imposed
significant pressure on BX to act reasonably in setting its fees for BX
market data, particularly given that the market participants that must
pay such fees often will be the same market participants from whom BX
must attract order flow. The SEC also noted that, in setting the fees
for its TotalView data, BX must consider the extent to which market
participants would choose one or more alternatives instead of
purchasing the Exchange's data.\20\ The Commission stated that the
availability of those alternatives, as well as the BX's compelling need
to attract order flow, imposed significant competitive pressure on the
BX to act equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the terms of its
proposal.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59615 (March 20,
2009), 74 FR 14604 (March 31, 2009) (Order approving SR-BX-2009-
005). Core data is the best-priced quotations and comprehensive
last-sale reports of all markets that the Commission, pursuant to
Rule 603(b), requires a central processor to consolidate and
distribute to the public pursuant to joint-SRO plans. In contrast,
individual exchanges and other market participants distribute non-
core data voluntarily. Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id. In approving the TotalView fees, the Commission also
did not find a substantial countervailing basis to conclude that the
proposal nevertheless failed to meet an applicable requirement of
the Act or the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same arguments apply with respect to the proposed fee increase
here. Although BX is a more mature market than in 2009, competition for
order flow remains fierce, and some of the market participants that
purchase TotalView are the same market participants from whom BX must
attract order flow. Additionally, market participants continue to have
a range of other market data products that they could purchase as
alternatives to TotalView. As with the initial TotalView fees, the
significant competitive pressure with respect to order flow and market
data products therefore requires BX to act equitably, fairly, and
reasonably in setting the terms of its proposed TotalView fees.
    The Exchange also believes that the increase in the Monthly
Internal Distributor Fee from $500 to $750 and the increase in the
Monthly External Distributor Fee from $1,250 to $1,500 is reasonable
because these fee increases reflect the current value of the TotalView
product. TotalView provides comprehensive order and trade information
for Nasdaq-listed securities and securities not listed on Nasdaq, and
the value of a product that offers such information increases as BX's
market share increases. As noted above, when TotalView was initially
proposed, BX was seeking to resume its cash equities trading business,
which was reflected in the initial TotalView fees. Given that BX's
market share in those securities

has increased since 2009, and given the technical enhancements to
TotalView since that time, the proposed increase reasonably reflects
the increased value of TotalView to market participants. The proposed
fees are also fair and reasonable in that they compare favorably to
fees charged by other exchanges for comparable products.
    The Exchange believes that these fees are an equitable allocation
and are not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fees for
subscribers are uniform for all subscribers within a particular
category, e.g., external Distributors will all pay the same Monthly
External Distributor Fee. The proposal maintains the current
distinction between internal and external Distributors in that external
Distributors will continue to be charged a higher amount. Although the
amount of the fee increase is proportionally greater for internal
Distributors than external Distributors, the Exchange believes that
this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the fee
increase better aligns the value of TotalView for purposes of internal
distribution to the value of TotalView for purposes of external
distribution. Under the proposal, the Exchange notes that internal
Distributors will still pay a fee that is 50% less than external
Distributors.
    The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to increase the fee for internal and external
distribution, and not for Direct Access. Rule 7019 provides that a
distributor may distribute data either internally (within that entity)
or externally (outside that entity), whereas a Direct Access subscriber
is not permitted to distribute TotalView data. To the extent that the
value of TotalView has increased since 2009 as the BX market has grown,
the fee increase for internal and external distribution reflects this
increased value and the fact that Distributors, by definition, have
more ways than Direct Access subscribers to benefit from this increased
value, e.g., through distribution.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or fee levels available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In
sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
    Here, the proposed changes to the charges assessed for internal and
external Distributors of TotalView do not impose a burden on
competition because TotalView is completely voluntary and subject to
extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange
venues. As is discussed in greater detail below, competition for order
flow remains fierce, and some of the market participants that purchase
TotalView are the same market participants from whom BX must attract
order flow. Firms make decisions regarding TotalView and other
proprietary data based on the total cost of interacting with the
Exchange, and order flow would be harmed by the supracompetitive
pricing of any proprietary data product. Additionally, market
participants continue to have a range of other proprietary market data
products that they could purchase as alternatives to TotalView. Third,
competition among Distributors for customers will further constrain the
cost of TotalView. There is therefore significant competitive pressure
with respect to order flow and market data products that requires BX to
act equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the terms of its
proposed TotalView fees.
Competition for Order Flow
    Fees related to TotalView are constrained by competition among
exchanges and other entities seeking to attract order flow. Order flow
is the ``life blood'' of the exchanges. Broker-dealers currently have
numerous alternative venues for their order flow, including self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') markets, as well as internalizing
broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various forms of alternative trading
systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools and electronic communication
networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction
reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting
Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to attract internalized transaction
reports. The existence of fierce competition for order flow implies a
high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs, which may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market for order
flow is demonstrated by the numerous examples of entrants that swiftly
grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and
proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island,
RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume. For a variety of
reasons, competition from new entrants, especially for order execution,
has increased dramatically over the last decade.
    Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD that competes for order flow is
permitted to produce proprietary data products. Many currently do or
have announced plans to do so, including NYSE, NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca,
BATS, and IEX. This is because Regulation NMS deregulated the market
for proprietary data. While BDs had previously published their
proprietary data individually, Regulation NMS encourages market data
vendors and BDs to produce proprietary products cooperatively in a
manner never before possible. Order routers and market data vendors can
facilitate production of proprietary data products for single or
multiple BDs. The potential sources of proprietary products are
virtually limitless.
    The markets for order flow and proprietary data are inextricably
linked: a trading platform cannot generate market information unless it
receives trade orders. As a result, the competition for order flow
constrains the prices that platforms can charge for proprietary data
products. Firms make decisions on how much and what types of data to
consume based on the total cost of interacting with BX and other
exchanges. Data fees are but one factor in a total platform analysis.
If the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the broker-
dealer will choose not to buy it. A supracompetitive increase in the
fees charged for either transactions or proprietary data has the

potential to impair revenues from both products. In this manner, the
competition for order flow will constrain prices for proprietary data
products.
Substitute Products
    The price of depth-of-book data is constrained by the existence of
competition from other exchanges, such as NYSE and BATS, which sell
proprietary depth-of-book data. While a small number of highly
sophisticated traders purchase depth-of-book products from multiple
exchanges, most customers do not. Because most customers would not pay
an excessive price for TotalView when substitute data is available from
other proprietary sources, the Exchange is constrained in its pricing
decisions.
Competition Among Distributors
    Competition among Distributors provides another form of price
discipline for proprietary data products. If the price of TotalView
were set above competitive levels, Distributors purchasing TotalView
would be at a disadvantage relative to their competitors, and would
therefore either purchase a substitute or forego the product
altogether.
    In summary, market forces constrain the price of depth-of-book data
such as TotalView through competition for order flow, competition from
substitute products, and in the competition among vendors for
customers. For these reasons, the Exchange has provided a substantial
basis demonstrating that the fee is equitable, fair, reasonable, and
not unreasonably discriminatory, and therefore consistent with and in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2016-073 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-BX-2016-073. 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-BX-2016-073, and should be
submitted on or before January 20, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31681 Filed 12-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P