Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks dozens of different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my feelings and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours examining these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all affected citizens have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of this request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Respectfully,

Pedro M. Delgado


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 168 (Friday, August 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53366-53367]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18956]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0280; FRL-10013-84-Region 5]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Notice of Issuance of
Title V Federal Operating Permit to Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that the Environmental Protection Agency
issued a final permit decision under Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
to Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC (Veolia) for the operation of
Veolia's Sauget, Illinois, hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facility.

DATES: EPA issued Title V Permit to Operate No. V-IL-1716300103-2014-10
to Veolia on June 17, 2019 under 40 CFR part 71. EPA issued the final
permit decision as to the contested portions of this permit on August
10, 2020. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of
EPA's final permit decision, to the extent it is available, may be
sought by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by October 27, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Ogulei, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0280. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at

the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID 19. We
recommend that you telephone David Ogulei, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 353-0987 before visiting the Region 5 office.

II. What is the background information?

    The 1990 amendments to the CAA established a comprehensive air
quality permit program under the authority of Title V of the CAA. Title
V requires certain facilities that emit large amounts of air pollution,
or that meet other specified criteria, to obtain an operating permit,
known as a Title V permit, after the source has begun to operate. This
permit is an enforceable compilation of all enforceable terms,
conditions and limitations that are applicable to the source and is
designed to improve compliance by clarifying what facilities must do to
control air pollution. EPA regulations implementing Title V are
codified at 40 CFR part 71 for permits issued by EPA or its delegatees
and at 40 CFR part 70 for permits issued by states and local agencies
pursuant to approved programs. A Title V permit is valid for no more
than five years and may be renewed in five-year term increments.
    EPA issued the initial Title V permit to Veolia on September 12,
2008 pursuant to 40 CFR part 71. Veolia operates a hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal facility in Sauget, Illinois. At the
facility, containers and bulk shipments of hazardous and solid wastes
are received, analyzed and transferred to temporary storage facilities,
processed and incinerated in one of three combustion units.
    On June 17, 2019, EPA renewed Veolia's Title V permit for a new
five-year term. See Title V Permit to Operate No. V-IL-1716300103-2014-
10, Docket ID. EPAR05OAR2014-0280 to Veolia on June 17, 2019 under 40
CFR part 71. By its own terms, and consistent with 40 CFR 71.11(i)(2),
most provisions of the renewal permit became effective on July 18,
2019.
    On July 17, 2019, the American Bottom Conservancy petitioned the
EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to review certain terms and
conditions of the June 2019 Title V permit. Consequently, consistent
with 40 CFR 71.11(i)(2)(ii), the effective date of the contested terms
and conditions of the permit was delayed. On July 21, 2020, the EAB
denied the petition for review. See In re Veolia ES Technical
Solutions, L.L.C., CAA Appeal No. 19-01 (EAB, July 21, 2020), 18 E.A.D.
(Order Denying Review).
    Following the EAB's action, pursuant to 40 CFR 71.11(l)(5)(i), EPA
issued a final permit decision as to the contested portions of the
permit on August 10, 2020. All contested conditions of Title V Permit
No. V-IL-1716300103-2014-10, as issued by EPA on June 17, 2019, were
therefore final and effective as of August 10, 2020. Except as provided
in the permit, the final Title V permit will expire on July 18, 2024.

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

    Dated: August 24, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2020-18956 Filed 8-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43875-43876]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1281-000.

    Applicants: Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Massachusetts Electric Company submits Refund Report
Regarding Interconnection Agreement with Quarry Energy Corp. to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130715-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/5.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1515-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
07-15-13 RSP Amendment to be effective 7/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130715-5212.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1673-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1793-001.
    Applicants: Hazle Spindle, LLC.
    Description: Hazle Spindle, LLC submits Hazle MBR Tariff Amendment
to be effective 8/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130715-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1972-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: CLGIA and Distribution Service Agmt RE
Columbia to be effective 7/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130715-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1973-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC submits
Filing of CIAC Agreement with Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative to be
effective 9/13/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130715-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1974-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits Queue Position X4-
016; Original Service Agreement No. 3597 to be effective 6/13/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130715-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1975-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.
    Description: AEP Texas North Company submits TNC-First Solar
Development PDA to be effective 6/26/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130715-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1976-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: AEP Texas Central Company submits TCC-Sendero Wind
Energy IA to be effective 6/26/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130715-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1977-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: AEP Texas Central Company submits TCC-Patriot Wind
Farm IA to be effective 7/2/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130715-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1978-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: AEP Texas Central Company submits TCC-SP-
BrackettvilleSolar PDA to be effective 7/2/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130715-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1979-000.
    Applicants: Lake Erie CleanPower Connector.
    Description: Application for Authority to Sell Transmission Rights
at Negotiated Rates and Request for Expedited Action of Lake Erie
CleanPower Connector.
    Filed Date: 7/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130715-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/5/13.

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

    Dated: July 15, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17483 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61037]
[DOCID:fr17oc06-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP05-413-002]

East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 11, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 28, 2006, East Tennessee Natural Gas,
LLC (East Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheet listed in Appendix
A to the filing with an effective date of September 16, 2006, or the
date the Jewell Ridge Lateral Project facilities are placed into
service.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 18, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-17222 Filed 10-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27945-27947]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10008]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0281]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Celebrate Our Stars and Stripes Fireworks, Raritan
Bay, Perth Amboy, NJ

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

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of Raritan Bay near Perth Amboy, NJ, for a fireworks
display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators
and vessel from the hazards associated with the fireworks display. This
rule is intended to restrict all vessels from a portion of Raritan Bay
during the fireworks unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) New York or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. on July 2, 2022, until 10
p.m. on July 3, 2022. This rule will be enforced either on July 2,
2022, from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. or on July 3, 2022, from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0281 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST1 Gutierrez, Lizette, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
(718) 354-4154, 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
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

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 event sponsor was late in
submitting the marine event application. This late submission did not
give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM followed by a final
rule before the effective date thus making it impracticable to publish
an NPRM. The event sponsor advised that the event is in correlation
with a festival bringing together Perth Amboy and South Amboy, NJ, to
honor Independence Day. Any change to the date of the event would cause
economic hardship on the event sponsor, negatively impacting other
activities being held in conjunction with the event.
    The location of the event is centrally located between both Perth
Amboy and South Amboy which is more advantageous for the event
spectators and sponsors. In addition it has less of an impact on vessel
traffic within Raritan Bay because the location is out of the major
shipping lanes.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP New York has determined
this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with the fireworks
display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the waters of
Raritan Bay near Perth Amboy, NJ, for a fireworks event on July 2,
2022. If the event is unable to happen on July 2, 2022, due to
inclement weather, the fireworks event will instead occur on July 3,
2022. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instruction of the
COTP New York or a designated representative during the enforcement of
the temporary safety zone. Entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within the temporary safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the COTP New York or a designated representative.
    Based on the inherent hazards associated with fireworks, the COTP
New York has determined that fireworks launches in close proximity to
water crafts pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The
combination of increased number of recreational vessels, congested
waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and debris,
especially burning debris falling on passing or spectator vessels, has
the potential to result in serious injuries or fatalities. This
temporary safety zone will restrict vessels from a portion of Raritan
Bay around the location of the fireworks launch platform before, during
and immediately after the fireworks display.
    The Coast Guard determined that this regulated area will not have
significant impact on vessel traffic due to its temporary nature and
limited size and the fact that vessels are allowed to transit the
navigable waters outside of the regulated area.

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. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    The Coast Guard's implementation of this temporary safety zone will
be of short duration and is designed to minimize the impact to vessel
traffic on the navigable waters. This temporary safety zone will only
be enforced for approximately 60 minutes. Due to the location, vessels
will be able to transit around the safety zone in a safe manner.

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
call or email 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.

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
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 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
establishment of a temporary safety zone lasting only 1 hour that will
prohibit entry within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks barges located
in approximate position 40[deg]29'28'' N, 074[deg]15'45'' W. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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.

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 AREA

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0281 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0281  Safety Zone; Raritan Bay, Perth Amboy, NJ.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of Raritan Bay within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks barge
located in approximate position 40[deg]29'28'' N, 074[deg]15'45'' W, in
the vicinity of Perth Amboy, NJ, approximately 1,110 yards southeast of
Ferry Point, Perth Amboy, NJ.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port New York (COTP) in
the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative via VHF channel 16 or<PHONE_NUMBER> (Sector New York
command center). Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful
orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the COTP or a designated representative. Upon being hailed by a U.S.
Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashlight or other means, the
operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure to comply
with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation
for failure to comply, or both.
    (4) Spectators or other vessels shall not anchor, block, loiter, or
impede the transit of the event participants or official patrol vessels
in the regulated areas during the effective dates and times unless
authorized by COTP or designated representative.
    (5) The COTP or designated representative may delay or terminate
any marine event in this subpart at any time if it is deemed necessary
to ensure the safety of life or property.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be subject to enforcement
on either July 2, 2022, from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. or on July 3, 2022, from
9 p.m. through 10 p.m.

    Dated: May 4, 2022.
Z.E. Merchant,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, New York.
[FR Doc. 2022-10008 Filed 5-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73387-73388]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25771]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0612; FRL-9954-48-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA''), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree
to address a lawsuit filed by Air Alliance Houston, Community In-Power
and Development Association, Inc., Louisiana Bucket Brigade and Texas
Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (``Plaintiffs''), in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia: Air Alliance
Houston, et al. v. McCarthy, No. 1:16-cv-01998 (D.D.C.). On October 6,
2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint that EPA failed to perform
nondiscretionary duties under Clean Air Act. Specifically, Plaintiffs
allege that EPA failed to review and, if necessary, revise the
emissions factor for volatile organic compounds (``VOCs'') from flares
at natural gas production facilities at least once every three years.
The consent decree would require EPA to propose action by June 5, 2017,
and take final action by February 5, 2018.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by November 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2016-0612, online at www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
www.regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Stahle, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would settle Plaintiffs' claims in a
deadline suit alleging EPA failed to perform nondiscretionary duties
pursuant to CAA section 130 to review, and, if necessary, revise the
VOC emission factor for elevated flares and enclosed ground flares at
natural gas production sites in the source category entitled ``Crude
Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution'' (ONG
source category) at least once every three years (``Natural Gas VOC
emissions factor''). The proposed consent decree would require EPA, by
June 5, 2017, to review and either propose revisions to the Natural Gas
VOC emissions factor under CAA section 130, or propose a determination
under CAA section 130 that revision of the Natural Gas VOC emissions
factor is not necessary. The proposed consent decree would also require
EPA, by February 5, 2018, to issue final revisions to the Natural Gas
VOC emissions factor under CAA section 130, or issue a final
determination under CAA section 130 that revision of the Natural Gas
VOC emissions factor is not necessary. EPA will post each proposed
revision or determination (or combination thereof), and each final
revision or determination (or combination thereof), on its AP-42 Web
site (located at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors) on the dates
indicated above. In addition, EPA will provide a copy of each such
action to Plaintiffs' counsel within seven days of posting. Under the
proposed consent decree, once EPA has met these obligations, and any
claims by Plaintiffs for costs of litigation have been resolved
pursuant to the process provided in the proposed consent decree, the
court would dismiss the suit with prejudice.
    For a period of 30 days following the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to the consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OGC-2016-0612 contains a copy of the consent decree. The official
public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public

docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: October 17, 2016.
Gautam Srinivasan,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-25771 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


These  files  were  previously  submitted  to  the  docket  for  the  Section 316( b)  Phase  II  Existing  Facilities  Notice  of  Data  Availability.

See  DCN  5 3013.


[Federal Register: February 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6299-6300]
[DOCID:fr09fe07-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55229; File No. SR-Amex-2007-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to a Clarification to the Exchange's Payment for Order Flow
Plan

February 2, 2007.
    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 January 22, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. Amex has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by Amex under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to clarify the current Payment for Order Flow
Plan with respect to funds collected from Supplemental Registered
Options Traders (``SROTs'').

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. Amex has substantially prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange adopted its current Payment for Order Flow Plan in
February of 2006.\5\ Under the current plan, the Exchange charges an
equity options marketing fee of $0.75 per contract \6\ solely to
customer orders that are from payment accepting firms with whom a
specialist or a Supplemental Registered Options Trader (``SROT''), has
negotiated a payment for order flow arrangement.\7\ This fee solely
applies to those orders which are executed electronically through the
Exchange's ANTE system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53341 (February 21,
2006), 71 FR 10085 (February 28, 2006) (approving SR-Amex 2006-15).
    \6\ The fee is $1.00 for SPDR contracts.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54324 (August 16,
2006), 71 FR 50110 (August 24, 2006) (SR-Amex 2006-63); and 54486
(September 22, 2006), 71 FR 57009 (September 28, 2006) (SR-Amex
2006-79).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the Exchange's previous Payment for Order Flow filings,
fees are collected from any SROT, specialist or ROT who participates in
a trade with a payment accepting firm with whom a specialist has
negotiated a payment for order flow arrangement, or with whom an SROT
has negotiated a payment with an affiliated SROT.
    The Exchange proposes to clarify the current Payment for Order Flow
Plan to limit the spending of funds collected from SROTs, which are
allocated to a specialist, when the SROT participates in a trade where
the specialist has negotiated a payment for order flow arrangement. In
these instances, the Exchange proposes to require that the specialist
be limited to spending any SROT collected funds only in those options
classes in which the SROT is able to trade.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \9\ in particular, because it is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among exchange members and
other persons using exchange facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \11\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal
will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60
days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-Amex-2007-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Amex. 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-Amex-2007-12 and should be submitted on or before March 2, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2150 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55555-55556]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22313]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0280; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-16]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Shelby, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace at Shelby, NC, to
accommodate the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures serving Shelby-Cleveland
County Regional Airport. This action enhances the safety and airspace
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the
National Airspace System. This action also changes the airport name.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 20, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On June 20, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace at Shelby, NC
(76 FR 35799) Docket No. FAA-2011-0280. Interested parties were invited
to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U dated
August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Shelby, NC, to provide the controlled airspace required
to accommodate the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed for Shelby-
Cleveland County Regional Airport. This action is necessary for the
safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. This action
also recognizes the airport name change from Shelby Municipal Airport
to Shelby-Cleveland County Regional Airport, Shelby, NC.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Shelby-Cleveland County Regional
Airport, Shelby, NC.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective September 15, 2010, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO NC E5 Shelby, NC [Amended]

Shelby-Cleveland County Regional Airport, NC
    (Lat. 35[deg]15'21'' N., long. 81[deg]36'02'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.8-mile radius of the Shelby-Cleveland County Regional
Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 19, 2011.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011-22313 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Mary Dominiak 10/ 14/ 2003 03: 56 PM To: Mary Dominiak/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: ( bcc: Mary Dominiak/ DC/ USEPA/ US) Subject: Summaries of PFOA ECA Technical Workgroup Meetings, Sep. 16, 17, and 22, 2003 You are receiving this message because you have expressed an interest in receiving information concerning the Agency's enforceable consent agreement ( ECA) process on perfluorooctanoic acid ( PFOA) and the fluorinated telomers, OPPT 2003 0012. If you no longer wish to receive this information, please reply to dominiak. mary@ epa. gov requesting that you be removed from this notification list.

**************************************************************************************** TO: PFOA ECA Technical Workgroup and Plenary Meeting Attendees The summaries of the PFOA ECA Telomer, Fluoropolymer, and Monitoring Technical Workgroup meetings held on September 16, 17, and 22, 2003, respectively, are attached for your information and review.

Copies of these summaries have been submitted to the docket with this email message. If you have any comments on the accuracy of the summaries, please direct them to me. If corrections to a meeting summary are necessary, we will place the comments together with a corrected version of the summary in the docket. The materials that were used and distributed at the meetings, including agendas, attendance lists, and presentation documents, appear in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0197 through 0201.

Please contact me if you have any difficulty opening the attached files, or if you have any questions or comments concerning the PFOA ECA process.

Sincerely,

Mary F. Dominiak U. S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA East, Mail Code 7405M 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 564 8104 Fax: 202 564 4775 Courier deliveries: 1201 Constitution Ave., NW, Room 4410; 564 4760 Telomer Workgroup 09 16 03. pFluoropolymer Workgroup 09 17 03 Monitoring Workgroup 09 22 03. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary October 8, 2003 PFOA ECA Telomer Technical Workgroup Meeting Summary, 9/ 16/ 03 66 participants; Attendance list and presentation materials in docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0198.

The meeting included five sections: I. Fire Fighting Foam Coalition Presentation II. EPA Data Needs Review III. Telomer Degradation Technical Expert Subgroup Progress Report and Discussion IV. Telomer Incineration Technical Expert Subgroup Progress Report and Discussion V. Next Steps I. Fire Fighting Foam Coalition Presentation In response to Item # 11 on EPA's draft ECA Preliminary Framework Document ( OPPT 2003 0012 0056) section on telomers, the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition ( FFFC) gave a presentation on telomer based Aqueous Film Forming Foams ( AFFFs). AFFFs were described as the most effective agents currently available to fight hydrocarbon fuel fires in military, industrial and municipal settings. Background information on the chemical nature of the compounds was presented with an emphasis that AFFFs are not made with PFOA and no PFOAbased products are added. At the request of FFFC, a report was prepared by Dr. Jennifer Field using AFFF data independently collected for groundwater at 3 multiple use application military bases as well as a single application crash site. FFFC presented a summary of the Field report, detailed important study considerations, and summarized conclusions derived from the study. The presentation can be located in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0201. Because this presentation contains pre publication information from the Field report which is subject to copyright, the presentation is not available online, but it can be reviewed in the docket public reading room.

EPA agreed to review the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition information on AFFF and prepare to discuss this information at the PFOA ECA Telomer Technical Workgroup meeting in October. At the October meeting, a brief discussion will take place to develop a Workgroup proposal for presentation to the Plenary concerning whether or not AFFF chemicals should continue to be a consideration in the PFOA ECA process.

II. EPA Data Needs Review EPA presented individual tables summarizing the data needs for telomers and telomer degradation from the Preliminary Framework Document ( OPPT 2003 0012 0056) that have not yet been satisfied as part of the Letter of Intent ( LOI) commitments or in discussions for a proposed ECA. Telomer information included ECA Framework Items 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Degradation and Incineration data needs were addressed separately. The tables are in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0198. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary October 8, 2003 2 In addition, EPA presented draft Telomer Selection Criteria that it proposes to use for determining the representativeness and sufficiency of the chemicals which the Telomer Research Program ( TRP) has proposed to test in the TRP LOI and in proposed PFOA ECA activities. The criteria include category of use; structure information; fluorochemical production volume; Rf composition; degradation pathways and likelihood; and exposure likelihood. The proposed criteria are in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0198. EPA suggested that within two weeks ( by October 10, 2003), industry and interested parties submit comments/ suggestions on EPA's proposed chemical selection criteria. Thoughts on the relative weighting factors that may be applied to the various criteria are particularly of interest. A meeting may be arranged if warranted after EPA makes chemical selections.

III. Telomer Degradation Technical Expert Subgroup Progress Report TRP presented information on a Telomer Based Polymeric Products ( TBPP) Biodegradation Study strategy including the objective of biodegradation studies for TBPPs; analytical capabilities for measuring biodegradation ( e. g., measurement of formation of PFOA, loss of Total Organic Fluorine ( TOF), production of fluoride ion, analysis for 8 2 Telomer B alcohol); other analytical considerations and limitations; biodegradation in sludge and soil; and summary and conclusions. The presentation is in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0198.

Discussions on degradation testing yielded agreements on the importance of ultimate degradation tests ( Zahn Wellens and SCAS); importance of degradation in soil ( OECD 307); importance of mass balance; analysis of TBPPs and isolated polymers; analysis of volatiles in SCAS and soil tests; and a duration of at least 6 months for soil testing.

The workgroup defined areas where issues still exist. EPA raised concerns that the measurement of PFOA alone or the use of nonspecific analytical techniques as proposed by the TRP would make it difficult to determine whether all PFOA precursors remaining in the test system would be identified. Other issues included rate constant determination; extension of soil test duration beyond 6 months possibly to 1 year; analysis of degradants; chemical selection; sludge and soil sources for degradation testing; meaningfulness of level of detection ( LOD) and level of quantification ( LOQ) values as triggers; and addressing data quality.

Duration of soil testing was discussed and concluded with the workgroup agreeing that the 6 month time period would be initially sufficient; however, the group asked TRP to consider extending the duration to up to 1 year. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the time for degradation to PFOA, workgroup participants felt that there could possibly be key degradation products detected in the 6 month period, but not enough time for PFOA formation TRP agreed to consider the request. EPA has agreed to provide a list of priorities for determining key analytes to look for from degradation testing. This could help to determine whether a longer test duration period may be necessary, should key degradation products but not PFOA be detected at the 6 month period. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary October 8, 2003 3 EPA requested TRP provide the identities of the 2 chemicals selected for initial degradation testing ( SCAS and soil) and the criteria used to select those chemicals to demonstrate that they are representative of the overall group of 12 chemicals being sponsored by TRP. EPA also has asked TRP to consider 4 initial chemicals for analysis rather than just the 2 proposed.

The group discussed the meaningfulness of LOD and LOQ values of triggers for continuation of SCAS and Soil testing. The concern is that these yet undetermined values make discussions and agreement difficult. TRP agreed to develop a draft testing protocol with specific concentrations and triggers for consideration of possible next steps in the SCAS and soil tests.

IV. Telomer Incineration Technical Expert Subgroup Progress Report The workgroup participants discussed the TRP Incineration Testing Protocol Outline and agreed that the next step was to form a Drafting Committee. The committee would be comprised of technical experts from industry, EPA, and other registered interested parties to draft the protocol for an ECA proposal to go to the Plenary in October for approval.

TRP prepared a presentation on Telomer Based Polymeric Paper and Textile Products Incineration Testing Protocol Outline; however, the presentation was not given because the group considered it unnecessary. Interested parties can locate the presentation in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0198.

V. Identification of Workgroup Next Steps ° Within two weeks ( by October 10, 2003), industry and interested parties should submit comments/ suggestions on EPA's proposed chemical selection criteria. Thoughts on the relative weighting factors that may be applied to the various criteria are particularly of interest. A meeting may be arranged if warranted after EPA makes chemical selections. Comments on the proposed criteria should be submitted either by email to Mary Dominiak at dominiak. mary@ epa. gov or directly to the electronic docket. You can make docket submissions by going to www. epa. gov/ edocket/, and using the " Quick Search" feature to locate and open docket OPPT 2003 0012. ° The Drafting Committee formed to address the telomer incineration testing protocol should complete the draft protocol for presentation to the October Plenary meeting.

TRP ° TRP will provide EPA with the identities of the 2 chemicals selected for initial degradation testing ( SCAS and soil) and the criteria used to select those chemicals to demonstrate that they are representative of the overall group of 12 chemicals being sponsored by TRP. EPA has asked that TRP consider 4 initial chemicals rather than 2. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary October 8, 2003 4 ° TRP will develop a draft testing protocol with specific concentrations and triggers for consideration of possible next steps ( SCAS and Soil). ° TRP to consider extending testing duration of soil testing to 1 year.

EPA ° EPA will review the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition information on AFFF and prepare to discuss this information at the PFOA ECA Telomer Technical Workgroup meeting in October. At the October meeting, a brief discussion will take place to develop a Workgroup proposal for presentation to the Plenary concerning whether or not AFFF chemicals should continue to be a consideration in the PFOA ECA process. ° EPA to provide list of priorities for determining key analytes to look for from degradation testing. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary October 6, 2003 PFOA ECA Fluoropolymer Technical Workgroup Meeting Summary, 9/ 17/ 03 52 participants; Attendance list and presentation materials in docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0199.

The meeting included five sections: I. EPA data needs review II. Fluoropolymer Incineration Technical Expert Subgroup Progress Report and Discussion III. Fluoropolymer Aged Articles Technical Expert Subgroup Progress Report and Discussion IV. Discussion on QA of Stack Sampling V. Next Steps I. EPA Data Needs Review EPA presented a table summarizing the data needs identified in the Preliminary Framework Document ( OPPT 2003 0012 0056) that have not yet been satisfied as part of the Letter of Intent ( LOI) commitments or in discussions on a proposed ECA. The information includes ECA Framework Items 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. The presentation is in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0199.

EPA suggested tasking a Subgroup to develop language for Item # 3, concerning the elucidation of degradation pathways and the identification of degradation products, with particular attention to thermal degradation issues.

II. Fluoropolymer Incineration Technical Expert Subgroup Progress Report The Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group ( FMG) made a brief presentation detailing their incineration test protocol outline. The presentation included information on the testing objective; explanation of experimental approach; test materials and methods; description of testing apparatus; combustion test sampling and analysis; and reporting of results. The presentation is in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0199.

The workgroup participants discussed the FMG Incineration Testing Protocol Outline and agreed that the next step was to form a Drafting Committee to address the fluoropolymer incineration testing protocol. The committee would be comprised of technical experts from industry, EPA, and other registered interested parties. The committee would draft the ECA proposal for presentation to the October Plenary meeting. FMG stated that Robert Girard and David Menotti would represent industry on this committee.

III. Fluoropolymer Aged Articles Technical Expert Subgroup Progress Report FMG provided a presentation on their Aged Articles of Commerce ( AAOC) Testing Program. The presentation included discussion of the objectives and definitions; aged article U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary October 6, 2003 2 selection process; test condition considerations; proposed test conditions; and proposed next steps. The presentation is in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0199.

Discussions on aged articles yielded agreements on the need for discussion on development of methods to determine whether water is an appropriate solvent.

The workgroup defined areas where issues still exist including selection of aged articles; representativeness of articles chosen; water as an effective solvent to release PFOA from polymer; determination of initial amounts of PFOA prior to migration; amount of plenum cable to be used in testing; submersion in solvent as a useful simulation of aging; important factors to consider when aging; test duration; test temperature; and mass balance.

Workgroup participants discussed the aged articles selected for testing ( plenum cable, membranes for apparel, and cookware) and questioned their representativeness. EPA agreed to have a response on aged article selection within 2 weeks and send e mail communications to the group. Another meeting may be held if further discussion is necessary.

Discussions concerning solvent selection were extensive. Members of the workgroup questioned the appropriateness of water as a solvent for testing. The proposed FMG protocols utilize water as a solvent to dissolve any PFOA that has migrated to the surface during aging. Members of the group suggested the initial determination of the total content of PFOA contained in the article by using chloroform as the solvent. Chloroform has been shown to " swell" the polymer and allow extraction of available PFOA. EPA asked FMG to provide a written explanation on the appropriateness of water as the solvent selected for aged article testing.

The workgroup participants discussed the appropriateness of the aged article testing protocols with regards to representativeness of samples to be tested, test duration, test temperature, and testing techniques. The group requested a level of detail of how the samples for testing would be chosen, including batches, lots, different manufacturers, etc. The group questioned the amount of sample to be tested; the test duration as related to simulation of 5 10 years of use; the proposed submersion of samples in solvent rather than air during aging; and the appropriateness of the temperatures selected with regards to adequate simulation of normal use or foreseeable misuse of the articles. EPA requested that FMG answer the " quick" questions regarding proposed accelerated aging testing, including what facts document that the proposed solvents, temperatures, and techniques are appropriate. EPA agreed to list key factors for consideration in designing testing to simulate article aging, and to provide a more thoughtful response on aged articles testing proposal and to develop a side by side comparison on data gaps.

The group questioned whether the use of a mass balance approach would be utilized to find what is being emitted and where it is being emitted, or whether analysis would take place only in the solvent. The group noted that there might be emissions from a solid to air during U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary October 6, 2003 3 aging and use, and queried whether such emissions would be taken into account in a testing program that assessed only emissions from a solid into a solvent.

IV. Discussion of QA Stack Sampling FMG proposed a brief discussion regarding the quality assurance issues associated with stack sampling. Concerns are that there is no approved EPA methodology guideline for high temperature stack sampling and that method development would be necessary to meet the QAPP ( Quality Assurance Project Plan) guidelines. EPA stated that it is not necessary to use approved methodology but to develop a method with an appropriate level of quality control that can be documented in the QAPP.

V. Identification of Workgroup Next Steps ° Task a Subgroup to develop language for Item # 3, concerning the elucidation of degradation pathways and the identification of degradation products, with particular attention to thermal degradation issues. ° The Drafting Committee formed to address the fluoropolymer incineration testing protocol should complete the draft protocol for presentation to the October Plenary meeting.

FMG ° FMG to provide written explanation on confidence/ appropriateness of solvent selection for aged article testing. ° FMG to answer the " quick" questions regarding proposed accelerated aging testing. ° What facts document that the proposed solvents, temperatures, and techniques are appropriate?

EPA ° EPA to have response on aged article selection within 2 weeks and send e mail communications to the group. Another meeting may be held if further discussion is necessary. ° EPA to list key factors for consideration in designing testing to simulate article aging. ° EPA to provide more thoughtful response on aged articles testing proposal and develop side by side comparison on data gaps. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary October 6, 2003 PFOA ECA Monitoring Technical Workgroup Meeting Summary, 9/ 22/ 03 58 participants; Attendance list and presentation materials in docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0200.

The meeting included five sections: I. EPA Data Needs Review II. Presentation by 3M on results of environmental sampling and monitoring ( including biota) for PFOA III. Telomer Monitoring Discussion IV. Fluoropolymer Monitoring Discussion V. Next Steps I. EPA Data Needs Review EPA presented individual tables summarizing the data needs expressed in the Preliminary Framework Document ( OPPT 2003 0012 0056) that have not yet been satisfied as part of Letter of Intent ( LOI) commitments or in proposed ECA discussions concerning monitoring relating to fluoropolymers and telomers. Information included monitoring needs for manufacturing releases, manufacturing sites, off site locations from manufacturing facilities, user releases, user sites, and off site locations from use facilities. EPA emphasized that the need is for screening level, baseline monitoring to establish a background against which to measure future trends rather than for attributing the PFOA contamination to any particular source. The tables are in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0200.

II. Presentation by 3M on results of environmental sampling and monitoring ( including biota) for PFOA 3M presented a report on the results of environmental monitoring programs for PFOA. The presentation included background information, the purpose of the 3M sponsored monitoring programs, discussion of results on 3 monitoring programs, and a summary of results. The 3 studies included monitoring of the Tennessee River Valley for surface water, sediment, fish and clams; a multi city study analysis of drinking water, surface water, quiet water, POTW effluent and sludge, landfill leachate, sediment and foodstuffs; and a biosphere environmental monitoring of a wide variety of wildlife species. The presentation is in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0200.

The group inquired whether additional information may be available on some of the studies, particularly including the source of the samples used in the market basket study and data concerning storage stability for the stored samples from the Geisy studies. 3M agreed to investigate and to provide any additional available information.

III. Telomer Monitoring Discussion With regard to the EPA presented table for Telomer Monitoring data needs, the Telomer research Program ( TRP) questioned how the proposed baseline information would be used and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary October 6, 2003 2 how the findings would be handled. EPA stated their intention as finding where sufficient quantities of PFOA and PFOA precursors are for further investigation opportunities.

Concerns were expressed regarding the " legacy" of PFOA contamination from sources other than telomers, and the need for feedback on the acceptability of the Mill Pilot study as a way to establish attribution from telomers. TRP suggested providing written certification of laboratory scale equipment if necessary. EPA expressed concerns regarding the Mill Pilot study including uncertainty with the proposed scale up representation for industry, and suggested monitoring to verify the use of modeling.

The group questioned whether the appropriate parties were present for discussion of monitoring at customer user sites. One area of concern was the willingness of customers to participate in such monitoring activities and what avenues would be explored to foster participation. Suggestions were made to blind the results monitoring as a means of participation, so that monitoring results themselves would be public, but specific facility names and locations would not be publicly disclosed.

After consideration, TRP suggested consulting with 3M concerning possible joint monitoring at customer sites. EPA will conduct parallel work in consideration of a legal vehicle ( LOI, ECA, MOU) that would allow monitoring of customer sites not under the control of the monitoring party. A tentative meeting with EPA and other interested parties concerning this discussion is scheduled for October 9, 2003.

IV. Fluoropolymer Monitoring Discussion FMG presented information on the status of the Dispersion Mass Balance work proposed as part of the LOI commitment. FMG expressed concerns with making their work deadline due to other work streams associated with the PFOA ECA meetings. The current status of the process is that the letters are ready to be sent out to sites for participation, and the draft study protocol is ready for approval. One problem FMG noted is the reluctance for participation due to confidentiality concerns. FMG proposed that EPA be given all relevant individual site survey information with the exception of company name and specific location to satisfy the CBI concerns. This would serve to protect the identities of the participants while informing EPA of the representativeness of the sites selected for evaluation. EPA asked FMG to provide information on representativeness of aqueous dispersion sites selected for mass balance work and that FMG report on the site selection criteria.

FMG presented information on Fluoropolymer Environmental Monitoring. The presentation included a brief program overview detailing the various LOI work streams including time lines for completion; a landfill discussion; and information on soil sampling. The presentation can be located in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0200. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary October 6, 2003 3 Discussions for Fluoropolymer monitoring covered the topics of air modeling, air sampling, landfill sampling, adsorption/ desorption test results relating to soil sampling, and biota monitoring. The group agreed that, based on the data presented, landfill monitoring would not be a high priority at this time, although some questions were raised concerning whether different landfill conditions from those specifically presented could produce different impacts. The group also agreed that groundwater monitoring is important and should be conducted. FMG agreed to provide a start/ stop/ stage gate approach for each criteria for testing.

Concerns were expressed with regard to the proposed use of air modeling as a predictor for where air monitoring samples would be taken. FMG agreed provide a detailed protocol for air sample collection for verification of the air dispersion model. EPA will comment on the air dispersion model and any inconsistency between submitted data and model output.

The group suggested that soil sampling also be considered as a way of verifying air deposition modeling. FMG requested that EPA review the adsorption/ desorption results and provide feedback.. EPA requested that FMG provide written justification as to why no further soil sampling would be necessary based on the results of the adsorption/ desorption data presented at the meeting. FMG expressed the opinion that because PFOA does not adsorb to soil, rain would carry it quickly down from the surface to the groundwater, and that groundwater measurements would be more significant. EPA noted that soil samples would assist in the verification of air deposition assumptions, and expressed concern about the potential for PFOA deposited on soil to be taken up by plants and herbivores.

The group discussed the possibility of additional sampling of biota other than fish based upon concerns for plants, herbivores, etc, identified in the EPA data needs table. EPA requested that FMG provide written justification as to why no further biota testing would be necessary. FMG requested that EPA review the 3M soil and biota data and provide feedback regarding sufficiency. ( Need to determine what is needed, what is missing, what is considered sufficient, and representativeness of the data.)

V. Identification of Workgroup Next Steps TRP ° TRP to consult with 3M concerning possible joint monitoring at customer sites. A tentative meeting with EPA and other interested parties concerning this discussion is scheduled for October 9, 2003.

FMG ° FMG will provide a detailed protocol for air sample collection for verification of the air dispersion model. ° FMG to provide written justification as to why no further soil sampling is necessary based on the results of the adsorption/ desorption data presented at the meeting. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary October 6, 2003 4 ° FMG to provide written justification as to why no further biota testing is necessary. ° FMG to provide information on representativeness of aqueous dispersion sites selected for mass balance work. ° FMG to provide a start/ stop/ stage gate approach for each criteria for testing.

EPA ° EPA to conduct parallel work in consideration of a legal vehicle ( LOI, ECA, MOU) that would allow monitoring of customer sites not under the control of the monitoring party. ° EPA to review adsorption/ desorption results and provide feedback. ° EPA to review 3M soil and biota data and provide feedback regarding sufficiency. ( Need to determine what is needed, what is missing, what is considered sufficient, and representativeness of the data.) ° EPA to comment on the air dispersion model and any inconsistency between submitted data and model output.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33696]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13755]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0438]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal,
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Montlake Bridge across the Lake
Washington Ship Canal, mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. This deviation is
necessary to accommodate the University of Washington, and University
of Washington Bothell commencement ceremony traffic. This deviation
allows the bridge to remain in the closed position to allow timely
movement of commencement traffic.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9:30 a.m. on June 14, 2014 to 6
p.m. on June 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0438] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The University of Washington through the
Washington Department of Transportation has requested that the Montlake
Bridge bascule span remain closed and need not open to vessel traffic
to facilitate timely movement of Commencement traffic. The Montlake
Bridge crosses the Lake Washington Ship Canal at mile 5.2 and while in
the closed position provides 30 feet of vertical clearance throughout
the navigation channel and 46 feet of vertical clearance throughout the
center 60-feet of the bridge; vertical clearance referenced to the Mean
Water Level of Lake Washington. Vessels which do not require a bridge
opening may continue to transit beneath the bridge during this closure
period. Under normal conditions this bridge opens on signal, subject to
the list of exceptions provided in 33 CFR 117.1051(e).
    This deviation period is from 9:30 a.m. on June 14, 2014 to 6 p.m.
on June 15, 2014. The deviation allows the bascule span of the Montlake
Bridge to remain in the closed position and need not open for maritime
traffic from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on June
14, 2014 and from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 15, 2014. The bridge shall
operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1051(e) at all other times.
Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial
tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Mariners will be notified and
kept informed of the bridge's operational status via the Coast Guard
Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as
appropriate. The draw span will be required to open, if needed, for
vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure
period.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 30, 2014.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-13755 Filed 6-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 54664-54665]
[DOCID:fr08se10-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62816; File No. SR-BATS-2010-022]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Name of a BATS Exchange Routing Strategy

September 1, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 30, 2010, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal a proposed
rule change to amend BATS Rule 11.13(a)(3)(E) to rename the routing
strategy identified as ``DART'' to ``DRT''.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 parts 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 change the references
in Rule 11.13(a)(3)(E) from ``DART'' to ``DRT,'' consistent with the
Exchange's re-branding of this routing strategy as the ``Dark Routing
Technique.'' The name change from DART to DRT is a non-substantive
change. No changes to the functionality of this routing strategy have
taken place.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\3\ In particular, the
Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\4\ because it would promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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

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

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

    Because it is concerned solely with the administration of the
Exchange, the foregoing proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(3) thereunder.\6\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2010-022 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2010-022. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices 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-BATS-2010-022, and should be submitted on or before
September 29, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22294 Filed 9-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P