[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79048-79049]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26898]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90549; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend IM-5101-1 (Use of
Discretionary Authority) To Deny Listing or Continued Listing or To
Apply Additional and More Stringent Criteria to an Applicant or Listed
Company Based on Considerations Related to the Company's Auditor or
When a Company's Business Is Principally Administered in a Jurisdiction
That Is a Restrictive Market

December 2, 2020.
    On May 19, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend IM-5101-1 (Use of Discretionary
Authority) to deny listing or continued listing or to apply additional
and more stringent criteria to

an applicant or listed company based on considerations related to the
company's auditor or when a company's business is principally
administered in a jurisdiction that has secrecy laws, blocking
statutes, national security laws, or other laws or regulations
restricting access to information by regulators of U.S.-listed
companies in such jurisdiction. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on June 8, 2020.\3\ On July 20,
2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission
designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ On
September 2, 2020, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\ On November 6, 2020, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which
replaced and superseded the proposed rule change as originally
filed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88987 (June 2,
2020), 85 FR 34774. Comments on the proposed rule change can be
found at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-028/srnasdaq2020028.htm.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89344, 85 FR 44951
(July 24, 2020). The Commission designated September 6, 2020 as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89739, 85 FR 55708
(September 9, 2020).
    \8\ Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-028/srnasdaq2020028.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \9\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The date
of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change was June
8, 2020. December 5, 2020 is 180 days from that date, and February 3,
2021 is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed
rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\10\ designates February 3, 2021, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1 (File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-028).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26898 Filed 12-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 49 (Thursday, March 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14493-14494]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0068]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the New Construction
(O.N. CG1575290)

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of issuance of a certificate of alternative
compliance.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that the Chief, Prevention Division
District 9 has issued a certificate of alternative compliance from the
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72
COLREGS), for the NEW CONSTRUCTION (O.N. CG1575290) We are issuing this
notice because its publication is required by statute. Due to the
construction and placement of the side lights, NEW CONSTRUCTION cannot
fully comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the
72 COLREGS without interfering with the vessel's design and
construction. This notification of issuance of a certificate of
alternative compliance promotes the Coast Guard's marine safety
mission.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on February
5, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information or questions about
this notice call or email LT Matt MacKillop, District Nine (dpi), U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States is signatory to the
International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The
special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to
comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72
COLREGS. Under statutory law, however, specified 72 COLREGS provisions
are not applicable to a vessel of special construction or purpose if
the Coast Guard determines that the vessel cannot comply fully with
those requirements without interfering with the special function of the
vessel.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 U.S.C. 1605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The owner, builder, operator, or agent of a special construction or
purpose vessel may apply to the Coast Guard District Office in which
the vessel is being built or operated for a determination that
compliance with

alternative requirements is justified,\2\ and the Chief of the
Prevention Division would then issue the applicant a certificate of
alternative compliance (COAC) if he or she determines that the vessel
cannot comply fully with 72 COLREGS light, shape, and sound signal
provisions without interference with the vessel's special function.\3\
If the Coast Guard issues a COAC, it must publish notice of this action
in the Federal Register.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 33 CFR 81.5.
    \3\ 33 CFR 81.9.
    \4\ 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chief, Prevention Division District 9, U.S. Coast Guard,
certifies that the NEW CONSTRUCTION is a vessel of special construction
or purpose, and that, with respect to the position of the side lights,
it is not possible to comply fully with the requirements of the
provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the
normal operation, construction, or design of the vessel. The Chief,
Prevention Division District 9 further finds and certifies that the
side lights, are in the closet possible compliance with the applicable
provisions of the 72 COLREGS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 33 U.S.C. 1605(a); 33 CFR 81.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: March 6, 2020.
K.D. Floyd,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Prevention Division, Ninth Coast
Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2020-05045 Filed 3-11-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR ACCOUNTING FOR DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING FACILITIES UNDER SUBPART I       Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                                  August 2012

1. Introduction
This document provides technical support for the proposed changes to the provisions to account for controlled emissions associated with point-of-use (POU) abatement systems under subpart I, Electronics Manufacturing, of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) is proposing the following changes to subpart I:
      1)       revising the default destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) value for semiconductor manufacturing facilities to establish new default DREs grouped by gases and process types (etch and chamber cleaning);
      2)       providing facilities multiple options to directly measure abatement system DREs;
      3)       revising the provisions that specify the number of abatement systems that must be tested, and the required frequency of abatement system testing to determine fab-specific DRE values (i.e., the random sampling abatement system testing program, or the RSASTP); and
      4)       expanding the provisions for ensuring proper abatement systems installation, operation, and maintenance to include an on-site a maintenance plan for abatement systems.
This document was developed using information from two sources. The first is the Technical Support Document for Process Emissions from Electronics Manufacture (e.g., Micro-electro-mechanical systems, liquid crystal displays, photovoltaics, and semiconductors): Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, Revised  -  November 2010 (hereafter, the November 2010 TSD), available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927. The second is non-confidential materials submitted to the EPA by the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA).  These materials are listed at the end of this document.
2. Revised Default DRE Values
The December 2010 subpart I rule provided all electronics manufacturing facilities the option to use a default DRE value (60 percent) so long as abatement systems for which the default DRE was being applied were designed to abate fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-GHGs) and/or nitrous oxide (N2O) and the systems were properly installed, operated, and maintained (see Section 4). The default DRE of 60 percent was developed using data from the EPA DRE measurement studies done through the EPA PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry. The data set from these studies was limited and relatively small in comparison to the DRE data set SIA submitted to the EPA after subpart I was finalized (see November 2010 TSD and SIA, 2012a for the data sets). The SIA data set represents the most comprehensive DRE database the EPA has seen to date. The DREs provided by SIA were based on measurements made by two semiconductor device manufacturers. The DRE measurements for the most part (126 tests) were done in 2011 by one company according to Method 1 of the EPA Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (hereafter the EPA DRE Protocol, available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).  A small portion of the DRE data (19 tests) submitted by SIA represents tests done over the time period 2003 to 2011, using a method comparable to Method 2 in the EPA DRE Protocol. SIA analyzed its DRE data to determine if there were differences in DREs due to the measurement method used. Based on this analysis the SIA concluded that "at most, any test method difference would appear to be very small." (SIA, 2012a)
Using the SIA DRE dataset and available EPA DRE data, the EPA is proposing to revise the subpart I default DRE for semiconductor manufacturing processes. The revision would provide multiple default DREs grouped by gas and process type as opposed to one default factor for all gases and process types. The EPA is proposing this change for several reasons. First, the EPA now has access to a larger DRE database that covers more gas and process combinations. Second, some gases are more difficult to abate than others due to differences in the strength of chemical bonds, which can now be reflected in the default DREs due to the broader DRE database. For example CF4 is known to be harder to abate in combustion systems (the most commonly used abatement systems per SIA, 2012a) than other F-GHGs, which will typically result in a lower DRE for CF4 (Beu, 2005). Finally, abatement system DREs are dependent on inlet and outlet system flows and it is known that process flow rates are higher for chamber clean processes than etch processes (larger precursor flows and dilution factors), which -- for a given type of abatement system -- will typically result in lower DREs for chamber cleaning than for etch.
To assess how to establish new default DREs for semiconductor manufacturers the EPA analyzed the DRE data and supporting information submitted by SIA and data from the November 2010 TSD.
 Etch Process Type Default DREs
Table 1 presents a summary and analysis of the available etch DRE data SIA submitted to the EPA and DRE data available through the EPA DRE measurement studies (SIA, 2012a and November 2010 TSD). The EPA analyzed the etch DRE data by looking at the mean and the standard deviations of the data by gas. To analyze potential default DREs the EPA evaluated the value of arithmetic mean minus two standard deviations of the population. This conservative method was employed to account for the limited representativeness of the SIA DRE dataset: while the number of data points is relatively large, the data comes almost exclusively from one abatement system manufacturer (i.e. approximately 97 percent of the systems tested were manufactured by one abatement system supplier). Based on SIA abatement systems inventory information, the EPA estimated that over 70 percent of systems installed in the US are manufactured by that one supplier. Five other suppliers are also in the market in the US; about three percent of the field DRE performance data are for systems from some combination of these five manufacturers (SIA, 2012a). DRE performance can vary depending on the specific design of each manufacturer, which is often proprietary. Consequently, a conservative approach was used to estimate the DRE.

Table 1. Summary and Analysis of All Available Etch DRE Measurement Data (SIA, 2012a and 2012e and November 2010 TSD)
                                      Gas
                                Mean (Percent)
                         Standard Deviation (Percent)
                        Number of Data Points Available
                  Mean Less Two Standard Deviations (Percent)
Etch
CF4
                                     63.93
                                     32.19
                                      34
                                     -0.45
C2F6
                                     99.00
                                      NA
                                       1
                                     99.00
C4F6
                                     99.06
                                     0.28
                                       5
                                     98.50
C4F8
                                     98.85
                                     0.66
                                      14
                                     97.53
NF3
                                     99.27
                                     0.47
                                      14
                                     98.32
SF6
                                     99.14
                                     0.53
                                       4
                                     98.08
CH2F2
                                     98.94
                                     0.73
                                      16
                                     97.49
CHF3
                                     99.18
                                     1.54
                                      19
                                     96.09
 NA: Standard deviation could not be calculated because only one data point was available.
Due to the similarities of the calculated etch DREs (as seen in Table 1) for many gases used in etch processes, the EPA is proposing to group C4F6, CHF3, C4F8, NF3, SF6, and CH2F2 used in etching into one DRE category and assign one average DRE of 98 percent. A DRE of 98 percent was selected as it was the approximate average of all of the aforementioned gas DREs.
The available DRE measurements for CF4 emissions from etch processes varied across a wide range of values as indicated by the large standard deviation for the total available CF4 etch DRE data set seen in Table 1. This variability was due to underperforming abatement systems resulting from operating outside manufacturers' specifications.  Following the same guidelines used to establish the initial subpart I DRE (see November 2010 TSD), the EPA is proposing to remove some of the available data from the CF4 etch data set because the data represent the DREs of systems that were not properly installed, operated, and/or maintained. Based on an EPA request, SIA identified the CF4 measured DREs that were associated with systems that were not properly operated. Approximately half of the available CF4 measured DREs were removed from the dataset based on SIA input (SIA, 2012f). This resulted in 15 of the 34 CF4 etch DRE measurements summarized in Table 1 being removed from the dataset that could be used to develop a default DRE. Given that such a high percentage of data were collected under operating conditions that do not meet the requirements in the current subpart I (i.e., systems that were not abating CF4 as expected because of improper operation and maintenance), the EPA has concerns about the reliability of the entire data set. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to maintain the current DRE of 60 percent for CF4 for the etch process type.
Little (i.e., one data point) or no DRE data were available for four gases emitted from etch processes, C2F6, CH3F, C3F8 and C5F8. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to assign default DREs for these gases used in the etch process type on the following basis:
   * C2F6: one DRE measurement of 99.0 percent is available for this F-GHG; however, in the absence of additional DRE measurements, the EPA is proposing to assign a default DRE of 60 percent to C2F6, the same DRE for CF - 4, because C2F6, like CF - 4, is also known to be difficult to abate. Both are highly fluorinated with no C-H bonds or C=C double bonds (Tsang et. al., 1998), making these compounds relatively harder to abate than most other F-GHGs.
   * CH3F, C3F8, and C5F8: no DRE data are available for these F-GHGs, so the EPA is proposing to maintain the previous subpart I DRE value of 60 percent.
Chamber Clean Process Type Default DREs
As can be seen by the large standard deviations in Table 2, a wide range of NF3 DREs for chamber clean were measured due to underperforming abatement systems that were not properly installed, operated, and/or maintained (SIA, 2012e).  The EPA analyzed the chamber clean DRE data to determine a default DRE using the mean DRE less two standard deviations for the same reasons as stated above for the etch default DREs.
Table 2. Summary and Analysis of All Available NF3 Chamber Clean DRE Measurement Data (SIA, 2012a)
                                      Gas
                              (Cleaning Sub-type)
                                Mean (Percent)
                         Standard Deviation (Percent)
                        Number of Data Points Available
                  Mean Less Two Standard Deviations (Percent)
Chamber Clean
NF3 (All sub-types combined)
                                     88.72
                                     14.61
                                      49
                                     62.22
NF3 (In-Situ Plasma)
                                     88.67
                                     16.71
                                      22
                                     61.04
NF3  (In-Situ Thermal)
                                     98.90
                                      NA
                                       1
                                      NA
NF3 (Remote Plasma)
                                     88.37
                                     13.08
                                      26
                                     62.22
   NA: Only one data point available, standard deviation could not be calculated.
As was done for CF4 etch DREs, the EPA requested that SIA identify the NF3 chamber clean DREs that were associated with abatement systems that were not properly installed, operated, and/or maintained. Removing the four DRE data points that represented underperforming systems (as detailed in SIA, 2012e) resulted in the DRE values shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Analysis of Revised NF3 Chamber Clean DRE Dataset (SIA, 2012a and SIA, 2012e)
                                      Gas
                              (Cleaning Sub-type)
                                Mean (Percent)
                         Standard Deviation (Percent)
                  Mean Less Two Standard Deviations (Percent)
NF3 (All sub-types combined)
                                     92.18
                                     8.63
                                     74.93
NF3 (In-Situ Plasma)
                                     93.23
                                     7.94
                                     77.35
NF3  (In-Situ Thermal)
                                     98.90
                                      NA
                                      NA
NF3 (Remote Plasma)
                                     91.03
                                     9.27
                                     72.48
           NA: Only one data point available, standard deviation could not be calculated.
In reviewing the results displayed in Table 3, the EPA decided to propose a default DRE for NF3 of 75 percent for the entire chamber clean process type, and to not propose specific default DREs for process sub-types. This was done for simplicity and because of the close proximity of the DREs for in-situ plasma and remote plasma clean, which are the most commonly used chamber clean processes in the industry.
For all other gases used in chamber clean, the EPA is proposing to maintain the previous subpart I default DRE of 60 percent because no other data are available to support proposing revised DREs.
N2O Default DRE
Because no data are available to support establishing a default DRE for N2O used in chemical vapor deposition or other processes, the EPA is proposing to maintain the previous subpart I default DRE of 60 percent for N2O emissions.
If additional DRE data are submitted to the EPA in response to this proposal, they will be evaluated in a similar manner to the DRE analyses above.
Revised Default DRE Summary
A summary of the proposed, expanded semiconductor manufacturing default DREs is provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Proposed DRE Default Values for Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities
Process Type/Gas
Proposed Default DREs
Etch
CF4, C2F6, C3F8, C5F8, CH3F (and all other F-GHGs not listed in the subsequent row)
60%
CHF3, CH2F2, C4F8, NF3, SF6, C4F6
98 %
Chamber Clean
NF3
75 %
All other gases
60 %
N2O
CVD and all other N2O-using processes
60 %
The EPA is proposing that the revised default DRE values only apply to semiconductor manufacturing facilities because the EPA did not receive any additional data for other electronics manufacturing facilities to support a change. For the use of abatement systems at other electronics manufacturing facilities, the EPA is proposing to maintain the previous subpart I default DRE of 60 percent.
3. Measurement of Fab-Specific DREs
As an alternative to using default DREs, the December 2010 subpart I provides all electronics manufacturing facilities the option to measure and develop fab-specific DREs to use in place of the default DREs. The EPA is proposing to amend the provisions for measuring DRE to be more flexible and to require less frequent abatement system testing.
   3.1. Methods for Measuring Fab-Specific DREs
The November 2010 TSD and the EPA DRE Protocol contain detailed discussions on the justification for the required adherence to the EPA DRE Protocol for proper measurement of fab-specific DREs. However, based on new information that SIA submitted to the EPA on an alternate method for measuring total volume flow (TVF) of an abatement system, the EPA is proposing to amend the provisions for measuring fab-specific DREs for all facilities covered under subpart I. The EPA is proposing to allow facilities to use a method for determining TVF of gas through the abatement system that is an alternative to the method outlined in the EPA DRE Protocol which suggests the use of quadrupole mass spectroscopy (QMS). The proposed alternative method would consist of injecting a non-native polar tracer gas into the abatement system outlet stream and measuring the downstream tracer gas concentration using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy to determine TVF. This proposed alternative, which is a lower cost option than using a QMS-based method (ISMI, 2010), was tested by SIA on three abatement systems at one semiconductor manufacturing facility. The results of the tests comparing the use of the FTIR-based and QMS-based methods are presented in the International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI) Technology Transfer #10095115A-ENG Comparison of Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) and Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy (QMS) Methods for Determining POU Abatement System Effluent Flow.  The EPA reviewed the method comparison and concluded that the results of these tests adequately showed that using the suggested alternative FTIR method was suitable for determining dilution across an abatement system, provided that the injected tracer gas is well-mixed at the abatement system exit stream sampling location (ISMI, 2010), or that the sampling procedure accounts for any stratification (lack of mixing). Therefore the EPA is proposing to include this alternate FTIR method as an option in Appendix A to subpart I, with an additional procedure to ensure that the sampling location and procedures account for the fact that the tracer gas may not be well mixed.
As discussed above, ensuring adequate mixing is essential to provide accurate results, but can sometimes be difficult to achieve due to the short duct lengths commonly found downstream of abatement systems. Ideally, sampling would be done well downstream of the abatement system to ensure complete mixing.
To demonstrate complete mixing in the abatement system exhaust stream, or to account for any stratification in the exhaust if it is present, the EPA is proposing that facilities using the alternative method to determine dilution should use an adaptation of section 8.1.2 of EPA Method 7E, Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure), in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4. This adaptation, which is also included in the proposed Appendix A to subpart I, includes the following requirements:
   * The concentration of the tracer would be measured at three traverse points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the diameter of the duct.
   * If the tracer gas concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean concentration for all three traverse points by no more than +-5.0 percent of the mean concentration, the gas stream would be considered un-stratified and the facility would be allowed to collect samples of the tracer gas from a single point that most closely matches the mean.
   * If the 5.0 percent criterion were not met, but the concentration of the tracer gas at each traverse point differed from the mean concentration for all traverse points by no more than +-10.0 percent of the mean, a facility would be able to take samples from two points and use the average of the two measurements. The sampling could be performed at any two of the three points spaced at 16.7, 50.0, or 83.3 percent of the line.
   * If the concentration at each traverse point differed from the mean concentration for all traverse points by more than +-10.0 percent of the mean but less than +-20.0 percent, the facility would take samples of the tracer gas from three points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the measurement line and use the average of the three measurements.
   * If the gas stream were found to be stratified because the +-20.0 percent criterion for a three-point test were not met, the facility would be required to locate and sample the tracer gas from traverse points in accordance with Sections 11.2 and 11.3 of EPA Method 1 in Appendix A-1 to Part 60. The tracer gas concentration used for measuring flow would be determined from the average of the concentrations measured at each of the traverse points.
This method has not been used in practice at an electronics manufacturing facility, but it is expected to be sufficient for demonstrating complete mixing and ensuring that a concentration value used in calculations is representative of a well-mixed stream. This is because the method outlined above is based on the EPA's Method 7E, which has been used in practice in other applications. Also the method includes thresholds for differences in measured concentrations and contingencies for when a threshold cannot be met. This structure helps ensure that the effluent stream concentration used is representative of a well-mixed stream at a sampling location.
In addition, the EPA is also proposing to allow facilities to request approval to use an alternative sampling and analysis method that is not included in subpart I to measure abatement system DRE. The EPA is proposing that alternative test methods would have to be validated according to EPA Method 301 (Field Validation of Pollutant Measurement Methods From Various Waste Media). Under this proposal, prior to using an alternate test method, the facility would be required to submit the method along with a proposed test plan to the EPA for review and receive approval from the EPA. This process would ensure that any method outside of those specified in subpart I are viable and appropriate. Once the EPA approves an alternate method, the method could be used by other fabs that meet the same conditions under which the alternative method was approved. The EPA would specify those conditions in the approval of the alternative method. The regulatory language that addresses this option is included in the body of the text, not in the proposed Appendix A to subpart I.
Regardless of the method used to determine dilution (either using krypton and a QMS as specified in the EPA DRE Protocol, a polar species and a FTIR (as proposed in Appendix A of subpart I), or an alternative method approved by the EPA), facilities would still be required to meet the EPA DRE Protocol performance benchmark, which is that the relative error of the true fraction emitted must be less than or equal to five percent, and to follow all other aspects of the EPA DRE Protocol with one exception.  That exception is that facilities may use the FTIR and QMS Protocols specified in the proposed Appendix A of subpart I in lieu of the 2006 ISMI Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment FTIR and QMS Protocol as required in the EPA DRE Protocol.  The FTIR and QMS protocols contained in the proposed Appendix A to subpart I are modeled after the FTIR and QMS Protocols in Appendix A of the 2009 ISMI Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment and reflect advancements in experience in using FTIR/QMS in the industry. Although ISMI-SEMATECH is a common source of best practices for the semiconductor manufacturing industry, the EPA does not have any information on whether, and in what way, the modifications to the FTIR and QMS protocols in Appendix A of the 2009 ISMI Guideline would impact DRE measurements, compared to the 2006 ISMI Guideline.  Therefore, the EPA is specifically seeking comment on the appropriateness of using the 2009 ISMI Guideline as the basis for the proposed Appendix A to subpart I.
   3.2. Abatement System Sampling Protocol
The EPA is proposing to modify the random sampling abatement system testing program (RSASTP) in 40 CFR 98.94(f)(4)(ii) to make the required testing frequency less burdensome for facilities that elect to measure fab-specific DREs. Table 5 below summarizes the elements of the RSASTP as finalized in the December 2010 version of subpart I, the proposed changes to the RSASTP, and the technical justification for the modifications.
             Table 5. Summary of Proposed Revisions to the RSASTP
                           December 2010 Provisions
                          Proposed Revised Provisions
                    Justification for Modification/Addition
Required Testing Frequency
         * Each year, test three systems or 20% of installed abatement systems for each class.
         * Do not repeat measurements for systems measured in the previous year.
         * If a DRE was measured for a particular system during the previous 2 years, the facility must use the most recently measured DRE.
         * If the DRE was not measured for a particular system during the previous 2 years, use the simple average of the measured DREs for that class.

         * For each process type/sub-type and gas combination, test 10% of systems in each fab annually for two years (20% total) or 20% in the first year to set a baseline average DRE for that process type/sub-type and gas combination.
         * Use default DREs until DREs have been measured for 20% of systems.
         * For every 3-year period after, test 15% of the systems in the fab for each process type/sub-type and gas combination. A fab can choose to test 15% in the first year of a 3 year period but must test at least 5 percent of the systems each year until 15 percent are tested.
         * The fab-specific DRE would be calculated as the average of the first 2 years (or first year if 20% are tested) and thereafter as the average of the most recent t 30% tested.
The EPA is proposing to modify the RSASTP because:
         *    The previous definition of "class" combined with the permutations of process and abatement type resulted in testing requirements representing an average of 45 percent of the total number of abatement systems in a fab, which is higher than the 20 percent required to be tested by the RSASTP. (SIA, 2012a)
         *    The proposed changes would reduce testing burden by requiring fewer tests compared to current subpart I, yet provide sufficient information to ensure that the DRE values used represent current system performance as abatement systems age (see DRE versus abatement system age information in SIA, 2012a).
Definition of Class
Class means a category of abatement systems grouped by manufacturer model number(s) and by the gas that the system abates, including N2O and CF4 direct emissions and by-product formation, and all other F-GHG direct emissions and by-product formation. Classes may also include any other abatement systems for which the reporting facility wishes to report controlled emissions, provided that class is identified.
Delete the definition of "class."

Require that DREs be determined for abatement systems based on the gas(es) that the systems abate and the process type connected to the systems, including etch/wafer clean, chamber clean, and all N2O using processes.
The EPA is proposing to delete the definition of class because:
   *    Testing by gas and process type/sub-type combination would simplify apportionment and uptime calculations, and recordkeeping, and hence reduce burden.
   *    Abatement system categories based on gas and process type combinations would be consistent with calculation methods for subpart I default emission factor based methods.
   *    Broader categories of abatement systems would reduce the number of systems that need to be tested.
Accounting for Under-Performing Abatement Systems in Calculating Emissions or Average DRE
Not specifically addressed.
(If a facility uses the default DRE of 60%, the facility must certify that the system is installed, operated, and maintained according to the manufacturer's specifications.

If a facility measures the DRE of a system, they must use that measurement in calculating emissions.)
   * If proper maintenance and operation procedures are followed, and the measured DRE of an abatement system is below the manufacturer-claimed DRE, the data from the low DRE test would be included in calculating the fab-specific average DRE for that gas and process combination.
   * If proper maintenance and operation procedures are not followed, then the appropriate operational change or system maintenance (per the manufacturer instructions or the fab maintenance plan) would need to be implemented, and a retest would be required that year to replace the measured value. Alternatively, the fab could use the measured value in the DRE determination and then include the same system in next year's abatement system testing in addition to the testing of randomly selected systems.
These provisions would be added as part of requirements for DRE measurement because they would:
   * Ensure that the DREs used in calculations reflect actual performance.
   * Ensures measured values are used by not allowing a reporter to select the higher of the default or the measured DRE.

Testing of Systems That May Be Disruptive to Production
Not addressed.
(No provisions to allow deferring testing of abatement systems if the testing would be disruptive to production.)
Where testing of systems randomly selected for testing would be disruptive to production, such systems could be (a) replaced by another randomly selected system for testing, and (b) returned to the sampling pool for subsequent testing. If testing of a system is deferred, that system could be chosen for testing in one of the next two sampling years. The EPA is proposing that a system cannot be returned to the pool in more than three consecutive selections.
This provision would be added to address situations where testing of a specific abatement system would disrupt manufacturing productivity.
IF deferred, a system could be specifically selected for testing so that production and testing could be coordinated to avoid disrupting production.

4. Ensuring Proper Abatement System Installation, Operation, and Maintenance
As discussed in Section 3.6.1 (Proper Installation, Operation, and Maintenance) of the November 2010 TSD, proper installation, operation, and maintenance of the abatement systems in accordance with manufacturer specifications is essential to ensuring that abatement systems are performing as expected. This concept is supported by the circumstances described in Section 2 of this document for CF4 and NF3, in which some DREs were lower than expected as a result of system operational and/or maintenance issues. The  wide range of measured values for CF4 used in etching and NF3 used in chamber cleaning from the complete available DRE dataset, which includes data that was removed in the Section 2 analysis, can be seen in Figure 1 below (where `IS' denotes the In-Situ chamber cleaning technology and `RPS' the Remote Plasma System, a.k.a. the remote cleaning process). The broad ranges were not typical of the DRE data provided by SIA, but were not wholly unexpected due to issues the EPA has seen with CF4 DREs during measurement studies (see EPA 2008a and 2008b) and because of the known high flow rates of NF3 used during remote chamber clean processes (SIA, 2012c and SIA, 2012e).

Figure 1. Range in Measured DREs for CF4 Etch and NF3 Chamber Clean (SIA, 2012a)
SIA suggests the variation in flows through the abatement system that was outside of manufacturer specifications were the primary reason for the observed variation in NF3 DREs for chamber clean processes (SIA, 2012a and SIA, 2012b). Low CF4 DREs resulted from operating and maintaining the abatement systems outside the manufacturer specifications; for example, system inlet/outlet volumetric flows were at higher levels than recommended by the manufacturer (SIA, 2012b). More specifically, for the low CF4 DREs associated with etch processes, it was found that operators were not complying with the manufacturers' recommended set points for flow rate and/or pressure for fuel, oxygen, and air that should have been verified during abatement installation, and that ongoing maintenance to ensure that the systems performed as expected was not being performed. For systems that were operating as expected during testing for CF4, it was determined that the flow, fuel, and oxygen settings were properly set and the flow out of the abatement system was within the recommended manufacturer range (SIA, 2012b).
Abatement system manufacturers provide general guidance on operation and maintenance of their products. However, lessons learned from the EPA DRE measurement studies and from SIA's experiences highlight the need to expand the subpart I provisions to require facilities to take more specific actions to ensure abatement systems are properly operated and maintained over time. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to add a requirement for facilities to develop, follow, and keep on-site a maintenance plan for abatement systems.  The EPA is proposing to require that the plan must include a defined preventive maintenance process and checklist (built on the manufacturer's recommended maintenance program) and a corrective action process to follow whenever an abatement system fails to operate properly.
5. References
Beu, L. (2005). Reduction of Perfluorocarbon (PFC) Emissions: 2005 State-of-the-Technology Report, TT#0510469A-ENG, International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI), December 2005.  Available at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor-pfc/documents/final_tt_report.pdf.
Burton (2007).  Assessing the need for FC abatement standards, Solid State Technology, January 2007.  Available at: http://www.electroiq.com/index/display/semiconductors-article-display/281422/articles/solid-state-technology/volume-50/issue-1/departments/industry-forum/assessing-the-need-for-fc-abatement-standards.html.
EPA (2008a). Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing:  A Cooperative Evaluation with NEC Electronics, Inc. (EPA 430-R-10-005). Office of Air and Radiation Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.  Available at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor-pfc/documents/nec_report.pdf.
EPA (2008b). Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing:  A Cooperative Evaluation with Qimonda (EPA 430-R-08-017). Office of Air and Radiation Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.  Available at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor-pfc/documents/qimonda_report.pdf.
EPA (2009). Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing:  A Cooperative Evaluation with IBM (EPA 430-R-10-004), Office of Air and Radiation Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.  Available at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor-pfc/documents/ibm_report.pdf.
ISMI (2010). Comparison of Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) and Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy (QMS) Methods for Determining POU Abatement System Effluent Flow. International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI) Technology Transfer #10095115A-ENG. October 30, 2010.  Available at: http://ismi.sematech.org/docubase/document/5115aeng.pdf
SIA (2012a). SIA Briefing Paper on Abatement Issues: Destruction Removal Efficiency (DRE), January 10, 2012. Available in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.
SIA (2012b). Questions Generated from SIA/EPA Conference Calls and Outstanding Questions from Work Plan Appendices 120329 SIA EPA Outstanding Questions, March 29, 2012. Available in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.
SIA (2012c). CVD Abatement units with flow data. March 6, 2012. Available in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.
SIA (2012d). Etch DRE testing with flow data.  March 6, 2012. Available in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.
SIA (2012e). Questions for SIA Response from April 19, 2012 SIA/EPA Call With April 25, 2012 SIA Response. April 25, 2012. Available in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.
SIA (2012f). Outstanding Questions / Topics from SIA / EPA Discussions as of April 26, 2012. May 9, 2012. Available in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.
SIA (2012g). Proposal to Incorporate ISMI 2009 Guideline References in Subpart I. May 17, 2012. Available in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.
Tsang et al. ( 1998) Tsang, W., Burgess Jr., D. R., and Babushok, V. (1998) "On the Incinerability of Highly Fluorinated Organic Compounds," Combustion Science and Technology, 139:1, 385-402.


To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
From: "Tanya Parise"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date: 08/19/2009 10:15AM
cc: "Brad Nelson"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: SSM Recommendations

Melanie,

I went through the RTC document, looked at some engine manufacturers operating manuals,
and some other information we've gotten on the SSM issue and summarized the
recommendations in the attachment.  I was waiting to see if EMA, API, and INGAA would
provide some more information on this topic and I would include that, but we've only heard
back from EMA.

Based on the information we have, for startup, it seems that specifying a time limit of 30
minutes might be appropriate and include the provision to petition the Administrator if
additional time is needed in special cases.

I can formalize the information into a memo if you want.  Just let me know, but I just
wanted to get the information out to you.

Tanya

Tanya Parise
Senior Chemical Engineer
Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc.
3301 Benson Drive, Suite 535
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone :<PHONE_NUMBER> ext: 109
Fax :<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>URL : http://www.alpha-gamma.com


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12735]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04710]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, Workplace Safety and Health
Training on Infectious Diseases, Including COVID-19 Grants

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

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds and funding opportunities.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces availability of $3,257,710 for Susan
Harwood Training Grant Program Workplace Safety and Health Training on
Infectious Diseases, Including COVID-19 grants, for non-profit
organizations to conduct training for employers and workers on
infectious diseases, including COVID-19 safety and health hazards in
the workplace.

DATES: Grant applications for Susan Harwood Training Program Workplace
Safety and Health Training on Infectious Diseases, Including COVID-19
grants, must be received electronically by the Grants.gov system no
later than 11:59 p.m., ET, on May 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The complete Susan Harwood Training Grant Program Funding
Opportunity Announcement and all information needed to apply are
available at the Grants.gov website, www.grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the funding
opportunity announcement should be emailed to [email protected] or
directed to OSHA via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Personnel will not be
available to answer questions after 5:00 p.m., ET. To obtain further
information on the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, visit the OSHA
website at www.osha.gov/harwoodgrants. Questions regarding Grants.gov
should be emailed to [email protected] or directed to Applicant
Support toll free at 1-800-518-4726. Applicant Support is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Finding Opportunity Number: SHTG-FY-22-05 (Workplace Safety and
Health Training on Infectious Diseases, Including COVID-19).
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 17.502.

Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is Section 21 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 670), American Rescue Plan Act
of 2021, and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393,
September 18, 2020).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 28, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-04710 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 54 (Thursday, March 19, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15745-15749]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05729]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0124]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events in the Lake
Michigan Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to amend the rules that regulate
vessel traffic and control navigation on portions of waterways in the
Lake Michigan Captain of the Port Zone during events that will
introduce extra or unusual hazards to the safety of life on the
navigable waters of the United States. This proposed rulemaking will
reorganize five separate regulations of a similar nature currently
listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) into a single
regulation, make minor formatting changes for consistency, move six
existing events into this regulation, update the dates listed for
events, and list these regulations in table form. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0124 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Petty Officer Kyle Weitzell,
Waterways Management Division, Sector Lake Michigan, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    Marine events are held on a regularly recurring basis on the
navigable waters of the Lake Michigan Captain of the Port Zone (COTP).
In the past, the Coast Guard would issue special local regulations for
these events. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated
with the events exist, and regulations have been issued to protect
safety of life and property for the maritime public and event
participants from the hazards associated with these events. In the
past, the Coast Guard has not received public comments or concerns
regarding impacts to waterway traffic as a result of these regularly
recurring events.
    This proposed rulemaking would provide consistency to notify the
public in a timely manner through permanent publication in Title 33 of
the Code of Federal Regulations. The table in this proposed rule would
list each regularly recurring event requiring a special local
regulation, as administered by the Coast Guard and enforced by COTP
Lake Michigan.
    By consolidating these regulations into a single regulation and
making minor formatting updates, the Coast Guard will improve the
accuracy of the event and regulation information, make the regulation
easier to use, and reduce the administrative burden to manage multiple
regulations. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1233).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Lake Michigan is proposing to consolidate all of the

regularly recurring marine events in the Lake Michigan COTP Zone from
33 CFR 100.903 through Sec.  100.910 into a single table located in
Sec.  100.903, move six existing events from 33 CFR 165.929 into this
table in Sec.  100.903, and make minor formatting changes to ensure
consistency with listed dates, times, and locations. In this
rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes to remove Sec. Sec.  100.906,
100.907, 100.909, and 100.910, and revise Sec.  100.903 to consolidate
the regulations contained in the above-mentioned five regulations into
a table located within a single regulation, making the regulations
easier to use. Aditionally, six existing events listed as safety zones
in 33 CFR 165.929, specifically those events listed in Sec. Sec.  Table
165.929(e)(30), Table 165.929(e)(51), Table 165.929(f)(17), Table
165.929(f)(18), Table 165.929(g)(2), and Table 165.929(g)(4), would be
moved to Sec.  100.903 without making substantial modifications to the
application of these events. These events are permitted Marine Events
and their inclusion in Sec.  100.903 would be more appropriate than in
33 CFR 165.929. Furthermore, the sponsors of several events listed have
changed the dates that they hold their events requiring the Coast Guard
to issue notices of enforcement for these changes each year. Updating
these dates will eliminate the need to issue notices of enforcement as
a regular occurance. Lastly, coordinates will all be listed in degrees
and decimal minutes format. This rulemaking will not substantially
change the details of any event.
    As large numbers of spectator vessels and marine traffic are
expected to congregate around the event locations, the regulated areas
that would be listed in the table are needed to protect both spectators
and event participants from safety hazards associated with these
events. During the enforcement period of the regulated areas, persons
and vessels would be prohibited from entering, transiting through, and
remaining, anchoring, or mooring within the regulated area unless
specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. The
Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local agencies
in the enforcement of these regulated areas. These events are listed
below in the text of the regulation.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    The Coast Guard has previously promulgated special local
regulations or safety zones in Sec.  100 and Sec.  165, respectively,
for all event areas contained within this proposed regulation and has
not received notice of any negative impact caused by the regulations.
By consolidating these regulations into a single regulation and making
minor formatting changes, the Coast Guard will improve the accuracy of
this information, make the regulations easier to use, and reduce the
administrative burden to manage multiple regulations.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the
consolidation and making minor formatting changes of five existing
special local regulations. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1
of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record
of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's Correspondence
System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26, 2018).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  100.903 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.903   Recurring Marine Events in the Lake Michigan Captain of
the Port Zone.

    (a) General.
    (1) The regulations in this section, along with the regulations of
Sec.  100.901, apply to the marine events listed in Table 1 to Sec.
100.903.
    (2) These regulations will be enforced for the duration of each
event, on or about the dates indicated. Notice of the exact dates and
times of the effective period of the regulations with respect to each
event, the location of the regulated area, and details concerning of
the event will be made public by publication in the Local Notices to
Mariners and/or Broadcast Notice to Mariners over VHF-FM radio.
    (3) The dates and times of these events are subject to change. In
the event of a change to these events, the Coast Guard will publish a
Notice of Enforcement with the exact dates and times that the regulated
area will be enforced.
    (4) Sponsors of events listed in the table to Sec.  100.903 are
still required to submit applications for marine event permits in
accordance with Sec.  100.15.
    (b) Special Local Regulations.
    (1) No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the
regulated area of any event listed in Table 1 to Sec.  100.903 which
has been advertised in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) above without
the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
    (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
regulated area shall contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate within the regulated area must comply with all directions given
to them by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
    (3) All geographic coordinates in Table 1 to Sec.  100.903 are
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

                        Table 1 to Sec.   100.903
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Sector Lake Michigan
             Event                   Special Local            Date
                                      Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Harborfest Dragon Boat      South Haven, MI: All    2 days; in mid-
 Race.                           waters of the Black     to-late June.
                                 River, within an area
                                 bound by the
                                 following
                                 coordinates:
                                   42[deg]24.227' N,
                                    086[deg]16.683' W,
                                    then southeast to.
                                   42[deg]24.210' N,
                                    086[deg]16.667' W,
                                    then northeast to.
                                   42[deg]24.320' N,
                                    086[deg]16.442' W,
                                    then northwest to.
                                   42[deg]24.337' N,
                                    086[deg]16.457' W,
                                    then returning to
                                    the point of
                                    origin.
(2) Summer in the City          Green Bay, WI: All      Each Wednesday
 Waterski Show.                  waters of the Fox       of July and
                                 River from the Main     August.
                                 Street Bridge to the
                                 West Walnut Street
                                 Bridge between
                                 coordinates:
                                   44[deg]31.089' N,
                                    088[deg]00.904' W,
                                    then southwest to.
                                   44[deg]30.900' N,
                                    088[deg]01.091' W.
(3) Celebrate Americafest Ski   Green Bay, WI: All      1 day; on or
 Show.                           waters of the Fox       around July 4.
                                 River from the West
                                 Walnut Street Bridge
                                 to the mouth of the
                                 East River between
                                 coordinates:
                                   44[deg]30.912' N,
                                    088[deg]01.100' W,
                                    then northeast to.

                                   44[deg]31.337' N,
                                    088[deg]00.640' W.
(4) Grand Haven Coast Guard     Grand Haven, MI: All    2 weeks; in late
 Festival.                       waters of the Grand     July and/or
                                 River, within an area   early August.
                                 bound by the
                                 following
                                 coordinates:
                                   43[deg]04.000' N,
                                    086[deg]14.200' W,
                                    then east to.
                                   43[deg]03.933' N,
                                    086[deg]14.067' W,
                                    then south to.
                                   43[deg]03.750' N,
                                    086[deg]14.167' W,
                                    then west to.
                                   43[deg]03.800' N,
                                    086[deg]14.283' W,
                                    then returning to
                                    the point of
                                    origin.
(5) Milwaukee Venetian Boat     Milwaukee, WI: All      1 day; the third
 Parade.                         waters of Lake          Saturday of
                                 Michigan within the     August.
                                 Milwaukee Harbor and
                                 the Milwaukee River
                                 from McKinley Marina,
                                 along the Veteran's
                                 Park shoreline, to
                                 the Milwaukee Art
                                 Museum between
                                 coordinates:
                                   43[deg]02.066' N,
                                    087[deg]52.966' W,
                                    then southwest to.
                                   43[deg]02.483' N,
                                    087[deg]53.683' W,
                                    then south to.
                                   43[deg]02.366' N,
                                    087[deg]53.700' W.
(6) Milwaukee Open Water Swim.  Milwaukee, WI: All      1 day; the first
                                 waters of the           or second
                                 Milwaukee River from    Saturday of
                                 the confluence with     August.
                                 the Kinnickinnic
                                 River to the I-794
                                 Bridge between
                                 coordinates:
                                   43[deg]01.532' N,
                                    087[deg]54.182' W,
                                    then northwest to.
                                   43[deg]02.154' N,
                                    087[deg]54.597' W.
(7) Sister Bay Marinafest Ski   Sister Bay, WI: All     1 day; the last
 Show.                           waters of Sister Bay    week of August
                                 within an 800 foot      or first week
                                 radius of the           of September.
                                 following
                                 coordinates:
                                   45[deg]11.585' N,
                                    087[deg]07.392' W.
(8) Milwaukee Harborfest Boat   Milwaukee, WI: All      1 day; the first
 Parade.                         waters of the           or second
                                 Milwaukee River from    weekend of
                                 the North Holton        September.
                                 Street Bridge to the
                                 confluence with the
                                 Kinnickinnic River
                                 between coordinates:
                                   43[deg]03.284' N,
                                    087[deg]54.267' W,
                                    then south to.
                                   43[deg]01.524' N,
                                    087[deg]54.173' W
                                    and.
                                All water of the
                                 Kinnickinnic River
                                 from the confluence
                                 with the Milwaukee
                                 River to the
                                 Municipal Mooring
                                 Basin between
                                 coordinates:
                                   43[deg]01.524' N,
                                    087[deg]54.173' W,
                                    then south to.
                                   43[deg]00.829' N,
                                    087[deg]54.075' W.
(9) Milwaukee River Challenge.  Milwaukee, WI: All      1 day; the third
                                 waters of the           Saturday of
                                 Milwaukee River from    September.
                                 the confluence with
                                 the Menomonee River
                                 and the East Pleasant
                                 Street Bridge between
                                 coordinates:
                                   43[deg]01.915' N,
                                    087[deg]54.627' W,
                                    then north to.
                                   43[deg]03.095' N,
                                    087[deg]54.468' W
                                    and.
                                All waters of the
                                 Menomonee River from
                                 the North 25th Street
                                 Bridge to the
                                 confluence with the
                                 Milwaukee River
                                 between coordinates:
                                   43[deg]01.957' N,
                                    087[deg]56.682' W,
                                    then east to.
                                   43[deg]01.915' N,
                                    087[deg]54.627' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Marine Safety Unit
             Event               Chicago Special Local        Date
                                      Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(10) Chinatown Chamber of       Chicago, IL: All        2 days; The
 Commerce Dragon Boat Race.      waters of the South     second Friday
                                 Branch of the Chicago   and Saturday of
                                 River from the West     July.
                                 18th Street Bridge to
                                 the Amtrak Bridge
                                 between coordinates:
                                   41[deg]51.467' N,
                                    087[deg]38.100' W,
                                    then southwest to.
                                   41[deg]51.333' N,
                                    087[deg]38.217' W.
(11) Southland Regatta........  Blue Island, IL: All    2 days; the
                                 waters of the Calumet   first Sunday of
                                 Sag Channel from the    November and
                                 South Halstead Street   the Saturday
                                 Bridge to the           prior to it.
                                 Crawford Avenue
                                 Bridge between
                                 coordinates:
                                   41[deg]39.450' N,
                                    087[deg]38.483' W,
                                    then southwest to.
                                   41[deg]39.083' N,
                                    087[deg]43.483' W
                                    and.
                                All waters of the
                                 Little Calumet River
                                 from the Ashland
                                 Avenue Bridge to the
                                 junction of the
                                 Calumet Sag Channel
                                 between coordinates:
                                   41[deg]39.117' N,
                                    087[deg]39.633' W,
                                    then northeast to.
                                   41[deg]39.374' N,
                                    087[deg]39.001' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. Sec.  100.906, 100.907, 100.909, and 100.910  [Removed]

0
3. Remove Sec. Sec.  100.906, 100.907, 100.909, and 100.910

    Dated: March 5, 2020.
T.J. Stuhlreyer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2020-05729 Filed 3-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19656-19657]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08366]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC15-114-000.
    Applicants: Pattern US Finance Company LLC, Lost Creek Wind, LLC,
Post Rock Wind Power Project, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization of Transaction Under
Section 203 of the FPA, Requests for Expedited Action, Waivers of
Filing Requirements and Confidential Treatment of Transaction Documents
of Pattern US Finance Company LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150406-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1325-002; ER10-1946-002; ER14-2323-000; ER11-
2080-002; ER10-1333-002; ER14-2319-000; ER12-1958-002; ER14-2321-000;
ER10-1335-002.
    Applicants: CinCap V LLC, Duke Energy Beckjord, LLC, Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Commercial Asset Management, LLC, Duke
Energy Commercial Enterprises, Inc., Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Duke
Energy Piketon, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Duke Energy Retail
Sales, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy et al submits the updated triennial market
power analysis under ER10-1325 et al.
    Filed Date: 3/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150402-0052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1819-010; ER10-1820-013.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation,
Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis in Central Region
[ER15-754-000] of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota
corporation and Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Filed Date: 4/3/15.
    Accession Number: 20150403-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2220-004.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Motion to Terminate the Reporting Obligation of the
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1218-000.
    Applicants: Solar Star California XIII, LLC.
    Description: Clarification to March 11, 2015 Solar Star California
XIII, LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 4/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150401-5742.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1451-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2015-04-03_Waiver_

VirtualBiddingInterties to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/3/15.
    Accession Number: 20150403-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1452-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
04-06_SA 2765 MidAmerican Energy Company-Ameren Illinois TIA to be
effective 3/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150406-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1453-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana,
L.L.C., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New
Orleans, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Application of Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of
the Entergy Operating Companies for 2014 Transmission Formula Rate for
Post-Retirement Benefits Other than Pensions.
    Filed Date: 4/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150401-5754.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1454-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Joint
Use Agreement--ITC Midwest and Eastern Iowa to be effective 6/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150406-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1455-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Conforming Filing to be effective 1/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150406-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1456-000.
    Applicants: Beaver Falls, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notice
of Succession to be effective 3/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150406-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1457-000.
    Applicants: Syracuse, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notice
of Succession to be effective 3/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150406-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1458-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
04-06_SA 2764 MidAmerican-MidAmerican GIA (J343) to be effective 4/7/
2015.
    Filed Date: 4/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150406-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1459-000.
    Applicants: Emera Maine.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Filing of EM-4 EPC Agreement
with Blue Sky West to be effective 9/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150406-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.
    Docket Numbers: ER15-1459-001.
    Applicants: srEmera Maine.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Amended EM-4 EPC Agreement
with Blue Sky West to be effective 3/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150406-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1460-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-4-
6_SPS-GSEC-IA-Aggie Sub-665-0 1 0--Filing to be effective 4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150406-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    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 Sec.  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: April 6, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08366 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA/OPP Teleconferences on Utility of Quantitative Bias Analysis of the CCCEH Study
December 12, 2017 and February 1, 2018

Participants
EPA/OPP: Jeff Dawson, David Miller, Dana Vogel, Hayley Hughes, Nicole Zinn, James Nguyen, Yu-Ting Guilaran, Kevin Costello
Emory University: Dr. Timothy Lash

Summary
EPA held calls with Dr. Timothy Lash on 12/14/17 and 2/1/18 to discuss the utility and feasibility of using quantitative bias analysis (QBA) to analyze confounders and interpret other aspects of the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH) study. Further statistical analyses outside of QBA were discussed. The EPA committed to preparing a list of questions for CCCEH and again requesting the raw data in order to conduct these analyses.

Key Discussion Topics

 EPA asked whether QBA could be done to confirm analysis of confounders. Dr. Lash said that a QBA could be done with an analysis between lead and measured chlorpyrifos exposures, and information on how lead effects neurological development.  However, Dr. Lash confirmed his opinion that lead not a great confounder in that it had been remediated and is not strongly associated with the exposure.

 Dr. Lash raised a concern of selection bias (due to loss-to-follow up), suggesting EPA follow up with CCCEH to determine if the study participants were informed their exposure levels and test results of their children at 3 years old. He noted QBA could be useful in interpreting potential loss to follow up/retention of cohort participants and whether their decision to remain in the cohort or remove themselves was dependent upon results of cognitive testing in their children.

 Dr. Lash indicated statistical analyses outside of QBA related to treatments of limit of detection data and LOQs are not warranted because CCCEH PIs imputed the non-detects. Dr. Lash thought was the best approach to handling the data.

 EPA and Dr. Lash discussed whether additional statistical analyses were warranted (i.e. whether Working Memory Index data and CPY exposure data should be transformed (or not), the impact of rounding).  Dr. Lash indicated they could only be performed if the raw data from the study was obtained.