                       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                      NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY
                                   2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD
                                   ANN ARBOR, MI  48105

May 4, 2012
                                                         OFFICE OF
                                                      AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	NOX Emissions from DPF Regeneration

FROM:	Lauren Steele, Office of Transportation and Air Quality

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-1032

 Estimates of Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Regulated Emergency Vehicles
      The Heavy-Duty Highway Rule was projected to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOX) exhaust emissions from the heavy-duty on-road fleet by 1.76 million tons in 2020, and by 2.48 million tons in 2030.  In that rule's final Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA projected that in 2010 the controlled heavy-duty fleet would emit approximately 2 million tons of NOX emissions, decreasing to about 600,000 tons in 2020 and about 300,000 tons in 2030, as a result of that rule.  For purposes of this memo, we are considering that rule's control case as the current fleet baseline scenario.
      As noted in Section VII.B of the proposed rule preamble, class 3 through 8 fire apparatus and ambulances represent about 0.8 percent of annual new heavy-duty truck registrations.  If we assume these vehicles have the same emissions profile over time as other vehicles, we could estimate that their annual emissions collectively may also represent a comparable fraction of the fleet emissions in a given year.  For the years projected in the RIA for the Heavy-Duty Highway Rule, this would indicate emergency vehicles may have emitted on the order of 16,000 tons of NOX in 2010, may emit about 5,000 tons in 2020, and may emit about 2,000 tons in 2030.
      However, we have information that these vehicles have longer than average useful lives, leading to a slower fleet turnover rate.  We also have information that these vehicles have below average vehicle miles traveled, with a large fraction of their engine hours at low load or idle.  While these two factors would affect the emissions inventory in opposite directions, they are unlikely to cancel each other out.  Because we do not have enough data to quantify how these factors affect the emission estimates, we will use the values presented above for purposes of the current analysis.
      On a per-truck basis, we can estimate what the NOX exhaust emissions from a certified engine would be if it emitted NOX at the level of the standard, 0.2 gram per brake-horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr). As an illustration, we have estimated what that might represent in terms of emissions from a truck operating at 200 horsepower over a typical year with 1,200 operating hours. This would be representative of a 500-hp pumper truck with an average engine operating load of 40 percent of capacity.  This illustration would yield a hypothetical fire truck that would emit about 100 pounds of NOX exhaust emissions in a year, or 0.05 ton per year.
      These estimates are provided as a basis for comparison, as the following sections explore some different scenarios.
 Estimates of NOX Emissions from Regeneration
      The estimates of NOX emissions for certified engines generally include emissions during periods when the diesel particulate filter (DPF) is regenerating.  During both active automatic and parked manual regenerations, emission rates may increase for some pollutants, especially NOX when NOX-reducing aftertreatment devices are not present downstream of the DPF. The higher than normal temperatures during active regeneration with high rates of oxidation occurring across the catalyst create conditions conducive to NOX formation.
      Because of the potential effect on emissions, engine manufacturers are allowed to provide adjustment factors that account for the excess emissions during DPF regeneration, as part of the certification process. During a series of certification tests, the High NOX Emission Factor (EFHNOX) represents the NOX emission rate during an active regeneration, and the DPF regeneration frequency represents the fraction of tests during which an automatic active regeneration occurs. Passive regenerations would not be expected to increase NOX emissions, thus they are not counted in the DPF regeneration frequency for testing purposes.  Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the EFHNOX and DPF regeneration frequency, based on EPA certification data for MY 2008 engines over the transient test cycle.

Figure 1: High NOX Emission Factor and DPF Regeneration Frequency
      As noted above, excess emissions from DPF regenerations are generally accounted for as part of the engine certification process. Thus, during DPF soot accumulation mode the NOX emissions may be lower than the standard for some engines, and we see a general inverse relationship between DPF regeneration frequency and the EFHNOX. We can also observe from Figure 1 that the NOX emission rate during a regeneration may be many times higher than the standard.
      The amount of excess NOX emissions due to DPF regeneration would generally be expected to be small on a vehicle whose engine is equipped with downstream NOX emissions control, such as selective catalytic reduction. EPA's certification data for MY 2011 engines indicate the EFHNOX are generally below 1.0 g/bhp-hr, with some outliers. DPF regeneration frequencies for MY 2011 engines do not differ substantially from those of MY 2008 engines. For more information on DPF regeneration frequencies, see the docket memo entitled Fuel Use with Dosing for DPF Regeneration, submitted to the docket for this rulemaking.
 Estimates of Excess NOX Emissions from Emergency Vehicles with More Frequent Regenerations and Higher Emission Rates
      As noted in the memorandum to the docket on fuel dosing, it is possible that some manufacturers will submit applications for AECD's or field modifications for engines on emergency vehicles with liberalized parameters under which automatic active and/or parked manual regenerations may occur, potentially increasing the NOX emissions from those vehicles.  It is also possible that manufacturers may submit requests for engine recalibrations that enable more frequent passive regeneration and rely less on active regeneration, potentially changing the NOX emissions in more complex ways.  It is thus difficult to predict the effects this rule may have on the NOX emissions from emergency vehicles.
      As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA has proposed that engines with approved emergency vehicle AECD's would not need to include these excess emissions during certification. In other words, the engines would be tested with emergency vehicle AECD settings inactive. For purposes of this illustration, we assume the regeneration NOX in the base case is included in the certified emission level, and excess regeneration NOX due to the AECD would be above the certified emission level.
      Without speculating what fraction of the emergency vehicle fleet may receive AECD's or field modifications with NOX recalibrations, for this illustration we will focus on a per-truck emissions estimate.  For this hypothetical truck, we are assuming that the current certified configuration (the base case) includes a DPF regeneration frequency (FREQDPF) of 5 percent, a high NOX emission rate of 2.5 g/bhp/hr (EFHNOX during regeneration), and a low NOX emission rate of 0.2 g/bhp-hr (EFLNOX when not regenerating). This example is purely hypothetical  -  EPA is not aware of an engine with these specific emissions characteristics.  The alternate cases explore the emissions effects when the DPF regeneration frequency (FREQDPF) increases to 20 percent, and when the EFHNOX increases to 5.0 g/bhp-hr, while holding other parameters the same.
      The values presented in Table 1 have been calculated using the following formula for the average NOX emission rate (EFA):
                EFA = (FREQDPF)(EFHNOX) + (1- FREQDPF)(EFLNOX)

      Where
      FREQDPF = Base 5% or Alternate 20%
      EFHNOX = Base 2.5 g/bhp-hr or Alternate 5.0 g/bhp-hr
      EFLNOX =  0.2 g/bhp-hr in all cases
      To extrapolate the average emission rate (EFA) to an annual value, we are continuing with the example of a truck with a 500-hp engine operating at an average load of 40%, for a working power of 200 hp and average of 1,200 engine operating hours in a year.
Table 1:  Per-Truck NOX Emission Estimates by Regeneration Percent
Scenario
                                      EFA
                                Pounds per Year
                                 Tons Per Year
Base Case
                                     0.32
                                      170
                                     0.08
Base FREQDPF
Increased EFHNOX to 5g/bhp-hr
                                     0.44
                                      230
                                     0.12
Increased FREQDPF to 20 Percent
Base EFHNOX
                                     0.66
                                      350
                                     0.17
Increased FREQDPF to 20 Percent
Increased EFHNOX to 5g/bhp-hr
                                     1.16
                                      610
                                     0.31
      As shown in the table, if the both regeneration frequency and the high NOX emission rate were to increase as described, the annual NOX emissions from this truck could increase fourfold.  We believe this is a highly conservative estimate. As shown in Figure 1, these parameters have an inverse relationship, so it is highly unlikely that both parameters would be maximized in the same engine configuration.
      We present below in Table 2 the emissions estimates using an alternate calculation method that is based on the regeneration interval. Similar to the method used in the docket memo entitled PM Emissions Impacts, we have estimated in the base case that a single regeneration event has a duration of 30 minutes, and the interval between regenerations is 25 engine hours.  In the alternate cases we explore the emissions effects if the regeneration interval is reduced to 12 or 8 engine hours, and each case uses the same EFHNOX and EFLNOX as in the previous illustration.

Table 2:  Per-Truck NOX Emission Estimates by Regeneration Interval
                             Regeneration Interval
                          Operating Time Regenerating
                               EFHNOX (g/bhp-hr)
                              NOX Emissions (TPY)
                                                                       25 hours
                                                                           2.0%
                                                                            2.5
                                                                           0.06
                                                                       25 hours
                                                                           2.0%
                                                                            5.0
                                                                           0.08
                                                                       12 hours
                                                                           4.0%
                                                                            2.5
                                                                           0.08
                                                                       12 hours
                                                                           4.0%
                                                                            5.0
                                                                           0.10
                                                                        8 hours
                                                                           5.9%
                                                                            2.5
                                                                           0.09
                                                                        8 hours
                                                                           5.9%
                                                                            5.0
                                                                           0.13
      The values in Table 2 indicate that if regenerations were to occur at 8 engine-hour intervals instead of 25 engine-hour intervals, with the EFHNOX emission rate doubling from 2.5 to 5 g/bhp-hr, then the annual NOX emissions from this hypothetical fire truck could double.
      All of the above examples assume that no additional NOX control occurs downstream of the DPF.  However, the majority of the heavy-duty fleet of MY 2010 and later is equipped with selective catalytic reduction NOX aftertreatment systems. When active, this technology reduces NOX emissions dramatically, including any excess NOX emissions due to DPF regeneration.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24492-24493]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2003-14408]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated January 15, 2014, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) has petitioned the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of its waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained in 49 CFR part 218, Subpart B, Blue Signal
Protection of Workers. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-
2003-14408.
    UP seeks a 10-year extension of its relief from 49 CFR
218.22(c)(5), Utility employee. This section lists the functions
allowed to be performed by a utility employee without establishing Blue
Signal Protection. Although the employee under this section is allowed
to remove or replace an end-of-train (EOT) telemetry device, FRA has
maintained that removing or replacing a battery in an EOT, while the
device is in place on the rear of the train, requires blue signal
protection because this task is a service and repair to the device. The
present relief allows operating craft utility employees to change out
EOT batteries as long as the changeout does not require the use of a
tool.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by June 16, 2014 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-09789 Filed 4-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8103-8104]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04060]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1398]

Mitigation Strategies To Protect Food Against Intentional
Adulteration; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is
announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional
Adulteration: Guidance for Industry.'' The revised draft guidance
supersedes the version of the intentional adulteration draft guidance
that we announced on June 20, 2018. This draft guidance document, when
finalized, will help food facilities that manufacture, process, pack,
or hold food, and that are required to register under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) comply with the requirements of our
regulation entitled ``Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against
Intentional Adulteration.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by July 5, 2019 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-D-1398 for ``Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against
Intentional Adulteration: Guidance for Industry.'' Received comments
will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-
addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Newkirk, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-005), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353)
enables FDA to better protect public health by helping to ensure the
safety and security of the food supply. FSMA enables FDA to focus more
on preventing food safety problems rather than relying primarily on
reacting to problems after they occur.
    FSMA added to the FD&C Act several new sections that reference
intentional adulteration. For example, section 418 of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 350g) addresses intentional adulteration in the context of
facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food, and that are
required to register under section 415 (21 U.S.C. 350d). Section 420 of
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350i) addresses intentional adulteration in the
context of high-risk foods and exempts farms except for farms that
produce milk.
    We are announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for
industry entitled ``Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against
Intentional Adulteration: Guidance for Industry.'' This revised draft
guidance supersedes the version of

the intentional adulteration draft guidance that we announced on June
20, 2018 (83 FR 28651). This multi-chapter draft guidance for industry
is intended to help food facilities required to comply develop and
implement some of the components of a food defense plan, including
conducting vulnerability assessments, and meet other requirements under
21 CFR part 121. We are announcing the availability of the following
chapters:

 Introduction
 Chapter One--The Food Defense Plan
 Chapter Two--Vulnerability Assessment to Identify Significant
Vulnerabilities and Actionable Process Steps
 Chapter Three--Mitigation Strategies for Actionable Process
Steps
 Chapter Four--Mitigation Strategies Management Components:
Food Defense Monitoring
 Chapter Eight--Education, Training, or Experience
 Appendix 1--Food Defense Plan Worksheets
 Appendix 4-- Vulnerability Assessment Examples

    We have indicated new content, mostly located in Chapter Two,
Chapter Eight, Appendix 1 and Appendix 4, with brackets stating, ``[New
March 2019] or [Updated March 2019].'' We have also made minor changes
to previously published sections for clarity and consistency with the
new content. We intend to announce the availability for public comment
of the final portion of the draft guidance once it is complete.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance,
when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on food
defense measures against intentional adulteration for the regulation
``Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional
Adulteration.'' It does not establish any rights for any person and is
not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach
if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and
regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 507 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0789.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed
in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the
guidance.

    Dated: February 28, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-04060 Filed 3-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81107-81108]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25691]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0013]

SolarPTL, LLC: Application for Expansion of Recognition

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of SolarPTL,
LLC, for expansion of the scope of recognition as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's
preliminary finding to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before December 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted as follows:
    Electronically: You may submit comments, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0013). All
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting information they do not want made available to the public,
or submitting materials that contain personal information (either about
themselves or others), such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket
(including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through the
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before December 6, 2023 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-1911 or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    OSHA is providing notice that SolarPTL, LLC (PTL), is applying for
an expansion of current recognition as a NRTL. PTL requests the
addition of two test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is

not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition
enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA
standards that require product testing and certification.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial
recognition, as well as for an expansion or renewal of recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides the preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides the final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including PTL, which details that NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    PTL currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification, with the headquarters located at:
SolarPTL, LLC, 1107 West Fairmont Drive, Tempe, Arizona 85282. A
complete listing of PTL's scope of recognition is available at https:/
www.osha.gov/nationally-recognized-testing-laboratory-program/solarptl.

II. General Background on the Application

    PTL submitted an application, dated December 21, 2018 (OSHA-2010-
0013-0007) to request one additional standard to the NRTL scope of
recognition. The standard requested UL 61730 was referenced in the
application as a single standard, however this standard has two parts.
This application was amended on October 30, 2023 (OSHA-2010-0013-0008),
clarifying that the expansion request was for both parts of the
standard. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application
packets and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA performed an on-
site assessment related to this application on August 16-17, 2022,
where OSHA found nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.
PTL has addressed the nonconformances adequately. OSHA has no objection
to the addition of this standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
    Table 1 shows the test standards found in PTL's amended application
for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL
Program.

 Table 1--Proposed Appropriate Test Standard for Inclusion in PTL's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 61730...............................  Photovoltaic (PV) Module Safety
                                          Qualification--Part 1:
                                          Requirements for Construction;
                                          and
                                         Photovoltaic (PV) Module Safety
                                          Qualification--Part 2:
                                          Requirements for Testing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Finding on the Application

    PTL submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the scope
of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and pertinent
documentation, together with the results of the on-site assessment and
follow-up information, preliminarily indicate that PTL can meet the
requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition
to include the addition of the test standard shown in Table 1, above,
for NRTL testing and certification. This preliminary finding does not
constitute an interim or temporary approval of PTL's application.
    OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.

V. Public Participation

    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether PTL meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL.
Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
    Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in
writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for
comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester
justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an
extension if it is not adequately justified.
    To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well
as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor. These materials also are generally available online at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2010-0013 (for further
information, see the ``Docket'' heading in the section of this notice
titled ADDRESSES).
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments,
staff will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of Labor
for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant PTL's
application for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant
Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In
making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other
proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
Federal Register.

VI. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020),
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-25691 Filed 11-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14659-14661]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05444]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91303; File No. SR-PEARL-2021-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange
Rule 2300, Supervision, and Exchange Rule 2301, Supervisory Control
System

March 11, 2021.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 February 25, 2021, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX
PEARL'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposed rule change to amend Exchange
Rules 2300 and 2301 to incorporate the provisions of Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority Rules 3110 and 3120 regarding supervision and
supervisory controls.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
PEARL's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Exchange Rules
2300 and 2301 to incorporate the provisions of Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') Rules 3110 and 3120 regarding
supervision and supervisory controls.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The proposed rule change is based on Investors Exchange,
Inc. (``IEX'') Rules 5.110 and 5.120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 2300, Supervision
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 2300 to incorporate
the provisions of FINRA Rule 3110. Exchange Rule 2300 would be
identical to the FINRA Rule with the only differences being replacing
references to ``FINRA'' with the ``Exchange'' and to replacing
references to the following FINRA Rules with the applicable Exchange
Rule:

 FINRA Rule 3110 would be replaced with Exchange Rule 2300

 FINRA Rule 3210 would be replaced with Exchange Rule 2305
 FINRA Rule 2210(b)(1) would be replaced with Exchange Rule
2104

    Like FINRA Rule 3110, Exchange Rule 2300 would require a firm to
establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of its
associated persons that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance
with the applicable securities laws and regulations and Exchange rules.
    Exchange Rule 2300 would detail requirements for a firm to have
reasonably designed written supervisory procedures (``WSPs'') to
supervise the activities of its associated persons and the types of
businesses in which it engages. Among other things, a firm's WSPs must
address supervision of supervisory personnel and provide for the review
of a firm's investment banking and securities business, correspondence
and internal communications, and customer complaints. WSPs should
describe:
     The specific individual(s) responsible for each review,
     the supervisory activities such persons will perform,
     the frequency of the review, and
     the manner of documentation.
    The rule further sets forth requirements to designate and register
branch offices and offices of supervisory jurisdiction (OSJs), conduct
internal inspections and review transactions for insider trading.
    Firms must also adopt procedures that include a means of customer
confirmation for certain transactions such as transmittal of customer
funds, changes in address, and changes in investment objectives.
Exchange Rule 2301, Supervisory Control System
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 2301 to incorporate
the provisions of FINRA Rule 3120. Exchange Rule 2301 would be
identical to FINRA Rule 3120 with the only differences being replacing
references to ``FINRA'' with the ``Exchange''.
    Like FINRA Rule 3120, Exchange Rule 2301 would require a firm to
have a system of supervisory control policies and procedures (``SCPs'')
that tests and verifies a firm's supervisory procedures. It is
essential for a firm to recognize that FINRA Rule 3120's requirement to
have specific SCPs differs from the requirement for WSPs. A firm not
only needs to maintain WSPs, but the firm also must have SCPs to test
and verify, at least annually, that its WSPs are reasonably designed
with respect to the firm's and its associated persons' activities to
achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and
Exchange Rules, and to create additional or amend WSPs as identified by
such testing and verification. Risk-based methodologies and sampling
may be used to determine the scope of testing. The testing ensures that
a firm's supervisory procedures are reviewed and amended regularly in
light of changing business and regulatory environments.
    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 2301, like FINRA Rule 3120, a firm must
designate principal(s) to be responsible for establishing, maintaining
and enforcing a firm's SCPs. The designated principal(s) also must
prepare, at least annually, a report detailing the firm's supervisory
control system and submit it to senior management (Rule 2301 Report).
The Rule 2301 Report must include a summary of the test results and
significant identified exceptions, and any additional or amended
supervisory procedures created in response to the test results.
    If a firm has reported $200 million or more in gross revenue on its
FOCUS report in the prior calendar year, like FINRA Rule 3120, Exchange
Rule 2301 would require that the firm's annual report include specified
additional content, to the extent applicable to the firm's business.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\5\
in particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change would remove impediments to and promote just and equitable
principles of trade because it would memorialize within the Exchange's
rules supervisory requirements identical to those set forth in FINRA
Rules 3110 and 3120. Doing so would explicitly set forth Member's
supervisory requirements within the Exchange Rules without setting
forth additional supervisory requirements or undue burden on Members.
The Exchange notes the proposed rule change would also align the
Exchange's supervisory rules with those of IEX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ IEX Rules 5.110 and 5.120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The proposed rule change is
not designed to have a competitive impact because it is not intended to
attract additional business to the Exchange. It is simply intended to
incorporate the provisions of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
Rules 3110 and 3120 regarding supervision and supervisory controls
within Exchange Rules 2300 and 2301.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2021-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2021-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2021-04 and
should be submitted on or before April 7, 2021. For the Commission, by
the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05444 Filed 3-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45517-45520]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF15-20-000]

Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC; Rio Grande LNG, LLC; Notice of
Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Rio
Grande LNG Project and Rio Bravo Pipeline Project, Request for Comments
on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental impacts of the Rio Grande LNG Project
and Rio Bravo Pipeline Project (Rio Grande LNG Project) involving
construction and operation of natural gas pipeline and liquefaction
facilities by Rio Grande LNG, LLC, and Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC,
collectively the Rio Grande Developers (RG Developers), in Kleberg,
Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron Counties, Texas. The Commission will use
this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether the
project is in the public interest.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EIS. To ensure that your comments are timely
and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before August 24, 2015.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on March 20, 2015, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. PF15-20-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these instructions so that
your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site

(www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(PF15-20-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the
Commission invites you to attend one of the public scoping meetings its
staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows.

           FERC Public Scoping Meetings Rio Grande LNG Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date and time                           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, August 10, 2015, 3:00-8:00 p.m.  Raymondville High School
                                          Auditorium, 419 FM 3168,
                                          Raymondville, TX 78580, (956)
                                          689-8170.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015, 12:00-8:00     Port Isabel Event and Cultural
 p.m.                                     Center, 309 E. Railroad St.,
                                          Port Isabel, TX 78578, (956)
                                          943-0719.
Thursday, August 13, 2015, 3:00-8:00     Helen Kleberg Community Center,
 p.m.                                     230 W. Yoakum Ave, Kingsville,
                                          TX 78363,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You may attend at any time during the meetings, as the primary goal
of a scoping meeting is for us to have your verbal environmental
concerns documented. There will not be a formal presentation by
Commission staff, but FERC staff will be available to answer your
questions about the FERC environmental review process. Representatives
of the RG Developers will also be present to answer questions about the
project.
    For your convenience, FERC staff will hold a joint scoping meeting
on Tuesday, August 11, for the Rio Grande LNG Project, the Texas LNG
Brownsville LNG Project (PF15-14), and Annova LNG Brownsville Project
(PF15-15). This joint scoping meeting will give you the opportunity to
provide your verbal comments on one or all three of the planned
liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects along the Brownsville Ship
Channel currently in our pre-filing process. In addition to the RG
Developers, representatives from the Texas LNG Brownsville LNG Project
and Annova LNG Brownsville Project will be present at the joint scoping
meeting on Tuesday to answer questions about their respective projects.
    Verbal comments will be recorded by a stenographer and transcripts
will be placed into the appropriate docket(s) for the project, and made
available for public viewing on FERC's eLibrary system (see page 8
``Additional Information'' for instruction on using eLibrary). It is
important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written
or electronically submitted comments. If a significant number of people
are interested in providing verbal comments, a time limit of 3 to 5
minutes may be implemented for each commenter to ensure all those
wishing to comment have the opportunity to do so within the designated
meeting time. Time limits will be strictly enforced if they are
implemented.
    Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; please
refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the Planned Project

    The RG Developers plan to construct and operate interrelated LNG
terminal and natural gas infrastructure projects. The Rio Grande LNG
Terminal (Terminal) would involve an LNG export terminal and marine
facilities to accommodate LNG vessels along the Brownsville Ship
Channel in Cameron County, Texas. The Rio Bravo Pipeline Project would
include two new natural gas pipelines capable of transporting 4.5
billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) of natural gas from Kleberg County,
Texas, to the planned Terminal. The Rio Grande LNG Project would be
constructed in two phases and, when complete, would export the LNG
equivalent of about 3.8 bcf/d of natural gas. According to the RG
Developers, their project would provide an additional source of firm,
long-term, and competitively priced liquefied natural gas.
    The Rio Grande LNG Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     An export liquefaction terminal that includes:
    [cir] Six liquefaction trains and natural gas treatment facilities;
    [cir] a marine facility, including two LNG berths and a turning
basin;
    [cir] a 600-megawatt electrical power generation station;
    [cir] truck loading/unloading facilities for LNG, natural gas
liquid condensate, and refrigerant;
    [cir] a marine construction dock; and
    [cir] four full-containment LNG storage tanks;
     two parallel 140-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter pipelines
extending northerly from the Terminal to Kleberg County, Texas;
     three compressor stations;
     two meter stations;
     multiple pipeline interconnects with third-party
pipelines;
     mainline valves;
     pig launcher and receiver facilities; \2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     other pipeline-related facilities (e.g., access roads,
contractor and pipe yards).
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
2.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction and operation of the planned Terminal would disturb
about 750 acres of land within a 1,000-acre parcel to accommodate the
liquefaction facilities, marine berth, and turning basin. The RG
Developers are assessing the total land requirements for construction
of the planned pipelines but currently plan to maintain a permanent
easement of up to 120 feet

centered on the pipelines; the remaining acreage would be restored and
would revert to former uses. About 64 percent of the planned pipeline
routes parallel existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.

The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     socioeconomics;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.
    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We
will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the
comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the
document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have
the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning
on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EIS.\4\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Texas State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their
views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes,
and the public on the project's potential effects on historic
properties.\5\ We will define the project-specific Area of Potential
Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project develops. On
natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all
areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction
right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and
access roads). Our EIS for this project will document our findings on
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities,
comments received by the public to date, and the environmental
information provided by RG Developers. This preliminary list of issues
may change based on your comments and our analysis.
     Public health and safety;
     air quality;
     special status species, including the ocelot and aplomado
falcon;
     biological diversity and wildlife preserves, including the
Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, and the Lower Rio Grande
Valley National Wildlife Refuge;
     impacts on vegetation and habitat, including wetlands;
     economic impacts on fishing and tourism industries;
     environmental justice;
     visual impacts of the Terminal; and
     cumulative effects, including the effects of multiple
planned LNG projects along the Brownsville Ship Channel.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to
receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Information Request (appendix 3).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once the RG Developers file their application with the Commission,
you may want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to
the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site. Please note that

the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this
time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application
for the project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF15-
20). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: July 23, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18684 Filed 7-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Memo to the File RE: Part 9 table amendments for the final Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule and LT2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule FROM: Tracy Bone DATE: 12/ 12/ 05 EPA has included in the Final rules changes to the 40 CFR Part 9 Table of OMB ICR approval numbers. In addition to adding the newly approved OMB ICR numbers for these two final rules, EPA has also changed previous entries in the Part 9 table in order to correct redundant and outdated ICR entries. EPA only changed previous OMB ICR numbers associated with the entries affected by these two rules ( i. e., fi142.14, and 142.15).

EPA failed to keep the OMB approvals current in the Part 9. These updates allow EPA to incorporate the newly approved OMB ICR numbers correctly. All OMB ICR numbers were approved by OMB through the normal OMB review process


[Federal Register: September 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 52598-52600]
[DOCID:fr06se06-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54381; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-50]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Extending Its Pilot Programs
for Dividend, Merger, and Short Stock Interest Strategies

August 29, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 9, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' 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 prepared by Phlx. Phlx has designated the proposed rule
change as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge,
pursuant to 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. On August 14, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended,
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).
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, Phlx revised the proposed rule text to
state that the pilot program would end on March 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Phlx proposes to extend for a period of six months, until March 1,
2007, the pilot programs for: (1) Fee caps of either $1,000 or $1,750,
as described below, on equity option transaction and comparison charges
on dividend,\6\ merger,\7\ and short stock interest \8\ strategies; and
(2) the license fee of $0.05 per contract side imposed on dividend and
short stock interest strategies. The current fee caps on equity option
transaction and comparison charges on dividend, merger, and short stock
interest strategies and $0.05 per contract side license fee for
dividend and short stock interest strategies are in effect as a pilot
program that is currently scheduled to expire on September 1, 2006.
Other than extending the pilot program for an additional six-month
period until March 1, 2007, no other changes to the Exchange's current
dividend, merger, and short stock interest strategy programs are being
proposed at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For purposes of this proposal, the Exchange defines a
``dividend strategy'' as transactions done to achieve a dividend
arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money
options of the same class, executed prior to the date on which the
underlying stock goes ex-dividend. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 54174 (July 19, 2006), 71 FR 42156 (July 25, 2006) (SR-
Phlx-2006-40) and Phlx Fee Schedule.
    \7\ For purposes of this proposal, the Exchange defines a
``merger strategy'' as transactions done to achieve a merger
arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of options of
the same class and expiration date, executed prior to the date on
which shareholders of record are required to elect their respective
form of consideration, i.e., cash or stock. See id.
    \8\ For purposes of this proposal, the Exchange defines a
``short stock interest strategy'' as transactions done to achieve a
short stock interest arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and
exercise of in-the-money options of the same class. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on Phlx's Web
site at http://www.phlx.com, at the Office of the Secretary at Phlx,

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, as
amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, the Exchange provides a rebate for certain contracts
executed in connection with transactions occurring as part of a
dividend, merger or short stock interest strategy. Specifically, for
these option contracts executed pursuant to a dividend or merger
strategy, the Exchange rebates $0.08 per contract side for Registered
Options Trader (``ROT'') executions and $0.07 per contract side for
specialist executions transacted on the business day before the
underlying stock's ex-date. The ex-date is the date on or after which a
security is traded without a previously declared dividend or
distribution. The Exchange also provides for a rebate of $0.08 per
contract side for ROT executions and $0.07 per contract side for
specialist executions made pursuant to a short stock interest strategy.
    The net transaction and comparison charges after the rebate is
applied are capped at $1,000 for short stock interest strategies
executed on the same trading day in the same options class and at
$1,750 for merger strategies executed on the same trading day in the
same options class.\9\ The net transaction and comparison charges are
capped at $1,750 for dividend strategies executed on the same trading
day in the same options class, except for a security with a declared
dividend or distribution of less than $0.25. In that instance, the net
transaction and comparison charges, after any applicable rebate is
applied, are capped at $1,000 for dividend strategies executed on the
same trading day in the same options class.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54174 (July 19,
2006), 71 FR 42156 (July 25, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-40); 53529 (March
21, 2006), 71 FR 15508 (March 28, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-16); 53115
(January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3600 (January 23, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2005-82);
51657 (May 5, 2005), 70 FR 24851 (May 11, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-22);
and 51596 (April 21, 2005), 70 FR 22381 (April 29, 2005) (SR-Phlx-
2005-19).
    \10\ The fee caps are implemented after any applicable rebates
are applied to ROT and specialist equity option transaction and
comparison charges. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54174
(July 19, 2006), 71 FR 42156 (July 25, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-40) and
53529 (March 21, 2006), 71 FR 15508 (March 28, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-
16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange assesses a license fee of $0.05 per
contract side for dividend and short stock interest strategies in
connection with certain products that carry license fees.\11\ The
license fee is assessed on every transaction and is not subject to the
$1,750 or $1,000 fee caps described above, nor does it count towards
reaching the $1,750 or $1,000 fee caps. The $1,000 and $1,750 fee caps
and the $0.05 per contract license fee are subject to a pilot program
that is scheduled to expire on September 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a complete list of these product symbols, see the
Exchange's $60,000 Firm-Related Equity Option and Index Option Cap
Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that the purpose of extending the pilot
program for the Exchange's $1,000 or $1,750 fee caps on equity option
transaction and comparison charges on dividend, merger, and short stock
interest strategies and its $0.05 per contract side license fee imposed
for dividend and short stock interest strategies until March 1, 2007 is
to continue to attract additional liquidity to the Exchange and to
remain competitive. In addition, the Exchange represents that the
purpose of this proposal is to recoup the license fees owed in
connection with the trading of products that carry license fees. Even
with the assessment of the $0.05 license fee per contract side, the
Exchange believes that the fee caps and rebates should continue to
encourage specialists and ROTs to provide liquidity for dividend spread
strategies.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and section
6(b)(4),\13\ in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of
reasonable fees and other charges among its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 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, as
amended, 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 either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change, as amended, has become effective
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \14\ and subparagraph
(f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder \15\ because it establishes or changes
a due, fee, or other charge. At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \16\ The effective date of the original proposed rule change is
August 9, 2006, the date of the original filing, and the effective
date of Amendment No. 1 is August 14, 2006, the filing date of the
amendment. For purposes of calculating the 60-day abrogation period
within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule
change, as amended, under section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the
Commission considers the period to commence on August 14, 2006, the
date on which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-Phlx-2006-50 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-Phlx-2006-50. 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 Phlx. 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-Phlx-2006-50 and should be submitted on or before September 27,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-14698 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P