[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10519-10520]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04112]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9907-15-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA''), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree
to address a lawsuit filed by Air Alliance Houston, Community In-Power
and Development Association, Inc., Louisiana Bucket Brigade and Texas
Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (``Plaintiffs''), in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia: Air Alliance
Houston, et al. v. McCarthy, No. 1:13-cv-00621-KBJ (D.D.C.). On May 1,
2013, Plaintiffs filed a complaint that EPA failed to perform
nondiscretionary duties to review, and, if necessary, revise the
emission factors for volatile organic compounds (``VOC''), carbon
monoxide (``CO''), and nitrogen oxides (``NOX'') for flares,
liquid storage tanks (``tanks'') and wastewater collection, treatment
and storage systems (``wastewater treatment systems'') at least once
every three years. The consent decree would require EPA to propose
action by August 19, 2014, and take final action by December 19, 2014.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by March 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2014-0168, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

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

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would settle Plaintiffs' claims in a
deadline suit alleging EPA failed to perform nondiscretionary duties
pursuant to section 130 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7430, to review, and, if
necessary, revise the emission factors for VOC, CO, and NOX
for flares, tanks and wastewater treatment systems at least once every
three years. The proposed consent decree would require EPA, by August
19, 2014, to review and either propose revisions to the VOC, CO and
NOX emission factors for flares, tanks and wastewater
treatment systems under CAA section 130, or propose a determination
under CAA section 130 that revision of these emission factors is not
necessary. The proposed consent decree would also require EPA, by
December 19, 2014, to issue final revisions to the VOC, CO and
NOX emission factors for flares, tanks and wastewater
treatment systems under CAA section 130, or issue a final determination
under CAA section 130 that revision of these emission factors for
flares is not necessary. EPA will post each proposed revision or
determination (or combination thereof), and each final revision or
determination (or combination thereof), on its AP-42 Web site (located
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/) on the dates indicated above. In
addition, EPA will provide a copy of each such action to Plaintiffs'
counsel within seven days of posting. Under the proposed consent
decree, once EPA has met these obligations, and any claims by
Plaintiffs for costs of litigation have been resolved pursuant to the
process provided in the proposed consent decree, the court would
dismiss the suit with prejudice.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to
the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties
or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to the consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

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

    Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2014-0168 which contains a copy of the
consent decree. The official public docket is available for public
viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OEI
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

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

    Dated: February 18, 2014.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-04112 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55728-55729]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Society of Clinical Research Associates-Food and Drug
Administration: Food and Drug Administration Clinical Trial
Requirements, Regulations, Compliance, and Good Clinical Practice;
Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following
public workshop entitled ``Educational Conference Co-Sponsored With the
Society of Clinical Research Associates (SoCRA).'' The public workshop
regarding FDA's clinical trial requirements is designed to aid the
clinical research professional's understanding of the mission,
responsibilities, and authority of FDA, and to facilitate interaction
with FDA representatives. The program will focus on the relationships
among FDA and clinical trial staff, investigators, and institutional
review boards (IRBs). Individual FDA representatives will discuss the
informed consent process including the informed consent documents;
regulations relating to drugs, devices, and biologics; as well as
inspections of clinical investigators, of IRBs, and of research
sponsors.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on November 6 and
7, 2013, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the JW Marriott
Atlanta Buckhead Hotel, 3300 Lenox Rd. NE., Atlanta, GA 30326, 404-262-
3344.
    Attendees are responsible for their own accommodations. Please
mention SoCRA to receive the hotel room rate of $185.00 plus applicable
taxes (available until October 15, 2013, or until the SoCRA room block
is filled).
    Contact Person: JoAnn Pittman, Food and Drug Administration, 60
Eighth Street NE., Atlanta, GA 30309, voicemail:<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:
404-253-1202, or Society of Clinical Research Associates (SoCRA), 530
West Butler Ave., Suite 109, Chalfont, PA 18914,<PHONE_NUMBER> or 215-
822-8644, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site:
www.socra.org.
    Registration: The registration fee will cover actual expenses
including refreshments, lunch, materials, and speaker expenses. Seats
are limited; please submit your registration as soon as possible.
Workshop space will be filled in order of receipt of registration.
Those accepted into the workshop will receive confirmation. The cost of
the registration is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
SoCRA member..............................  $575.00.
SoCRA nonmember (includes membership).....  $650.00.
Federal Government SoCRA member...........  $450.00.
Federal Government SoCRA nonmember........  $525.00.
FDA Employee..............................  (Free) Fee Waived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact SoCRA,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 21 days in advance.
    Extended periods of question and answer and discussion have been
included in the program schedule. SoCRA designates this education
activity for a maximum of 13.3 Continuing Education (CE) credits for
SoCRA CE and continuing nurse education (CNE). SoCRA designates this
live activity for a maximum of 13.3 American Medical Association
Physicians Recognition Award Category 1 Credit(s)TM.
Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of
their participation. Continuing Medical Education for physicians: SoCRA
is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical
Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. CNE
for nurses: SoCRA is an approved provider of CNE by the Pennsylvania
State Nurses Association (PSNA), an accredited approver by the American
Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation (ANCC). ANCC/
PSNA Provider Reference Number: 205-3-A-09.
    Registration instructions: To register, please submit a
registration form with your name, affiliation, mailing address,
telephone, fax number, and email, along with a check or money order
payable to ``SoCRA''. Mail to: Society of Clinical Research Associates
(SoCRA), 530 West Butler Ave., Suite 109, Chalfont, PA 18914.
    To register via the Internet, go to: http://www.socra.org/html/FDA_Conference.htm. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses
throughout this document, but we are not responsible for any subsequent
changes to the Web sites after this document is published in the
Federal Register).
    Payment by major credit card is accepted (Visa/MasterCard/AMEX
only). For more information on the meeting registration, or for
questions on the public workshop, contact SoCRA,<PHONE_NUMBER> or 215-
822-8644, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public workshop helps fulfill the
Department of Health and Human Services' and FDA's important mission to
protect the public health. The public workshop will provide those
engaged in FDA-regulated (human) clinical trials with information on a
number of topics concerning FDA requirements related to informed
consent, clinical investigation requirements, IRB inspections,
electronic record requirements, and investigator initiated research.
Topics for discussion include the following: (1) The Role of the FDA
District Office Relative to the Bioresearch Monitoring Program (BIMO);
(2) Modernizing FDA's Clinical Trials/BIMO Programs; (3) What FDA
Expects in a Pharmaceutical Clinical Trial; (4) Medical Device Aspects
of Clinical Research; (5) Adverse Event Reporting--Science, Regulation,
Error, and Safety; (6) Working with FDA's Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research; (7) Ethical Issues in Subject Enrollment; (8)
Keeping Informed and Working

Together; (9) FDA Conduct of Clinical Investigator Inspections; (10)
Investigator Initiated Research; (11) Meetings with FDA--Why, When, and
How; (12) Part 11 Compliance--Electronic Signatures; (13) IRB
Regulations and FDA Inspections; (14) Informed Consent Regulations;
(15) The Inspection is Over--What Happens Next? Possible FDA Compliance
Actions; and (16) Question and Answer Session/Panel Discussion.
    FDA has made education of the drug and device manufacturing
community a high priority to help ensure the safety and effectiveness
of FDA-regulated drugs and devices. The public workshop helps to
achieve objectives set forth in section 406 of the FDA Modernization
Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 393) which includes working closely with
stakeholders and maximizing the availability and clarity of information
to stakeholders and the public. The public workshop also is consistent
with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-121), as outreach activities by Government Agencies to
small businesses.

    Dated: September 6, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-22115 Filed 9-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 175)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51758-51762]
[DOCID:fr11se07-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011; FRL-8465-3]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent for partial deletion of a portion of the
Seneca Army Depot Activity Superfund Site from the National Priorities
List.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
announces its intent to delete from the National Priorities List (NPL)
all media (surface soils, subsurface soils, structures, surface water,
and ground water) within the following two specific parcels of real
property located at the Seneca Army Depot Activity (SEDA) Superfund
Site (Site), Romulus, New York: Real Estate Parcel 1, except for a
portion of this parcel known as SEAD-24; and the entirety of Real
Estate Parcel 2. EPA requests public comment on this action. The NPL
constitutes Appendix B to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, which EPA
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and
the State of New York, through its Department of Environmental
Conservation (the State), have determined that all appropriate CERCLA
response actions related to Parcel 1 (except the SEAD-24 portion) and
Parcel 2 have been implemented. This partial deletion pertains only to
Parcel 1 (except the SEAD-24 portion) and Parcel 2, and does not
include any other portions of the Site. The portion of Parcel 1 known
as SEAD-24 is not proposed for deletion at this time. Figure one (in
the deletion docket) shows a map of Real Estate Parcels 1 and 2, and
delineates between those areas being proposed for deletion and those
areas that will remain on the NPL.
    The purpose of the proposed deletion of Parcel 1 (except the SEAD-
24 portion) and Parcel 2 is to remove uncontaminated and potentially
useful property from the NPL, thereby making

the land more desirable for re-development.
    EPA has compiled the documents, such as soil sample results and
locations, maps, pollution reports, and other relevant deletion
documentation which were used by EPA in its determination to propose
deletion of these Parcels. These documents are located in the deletion
docket at the locations indicated below.

DATES: EPA will accept comments concerning its proposal for partial
deletion until October 11, 2007 and a local newspaper of record.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1990-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions

for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: USEPA--Region 2, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, 290 Broadway--New York, NY 10007.
     Hand delivery: USEPA--Region 2, Emergency and Remedial
Response Division, Federal Facilities Section, 290 Broadway, 18th
Floor, New York, NY 10007. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-
0011. EPA's policy is to include in the public docket all comments
received, without change, and to make them available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail that you consider to be CBI or otherwise

protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous

access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov
, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment because of technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and they should be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

Regional Repository, U.S. EPA Region 2 Records Center, 290 Broadway--
18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.--Monday
through Friday.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Local Site Repository, Seneca Army Depot Activity, 5786 State Route 96,
Building 123, Romulus, NY 14541, Hours: 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.--Monday
through Thursday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Julio F. Vazquez, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY
10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA announces its intention to delete from the NPL all media
(surface soils, subsurface soils, structures, surface water, and ground
water) related to a portion of Real Estate Parcel 1 and all of Real
Estate Parcel 2 at the Seneca Army Depot Activity Superfund Site,
located in Romulus, New York, and requests public comments on this
action. The [Comment 1] NPL constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, 40 CFR
Part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA. This
partial deletion is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and
the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites listed on the
National Priorities List, 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). EPA and the State
have determined that all appropriate CERCLA response actions related to
a portion of Real Estate Parcel 1 and all of Real Estate Parcel 2 have
been implemented. This partial deletion pertains only to the designated
areas in Parcels 1 and 2 and does not include other portions of the
Site. In addition, there is one area located within Parcel 1, known as
SEAD-24, which is not proposed for deletion at this time. Boundaries of
the Parcels proposed for deletion, as well as the boundaries of SEAD-
24, can be reviewed at the Site's information repositories.
    The following Parcels, either wholly or in part, are proposed for
deletion:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Acres
                            Parcels                              deleted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parcel 1--Empire Biofuels Redevelopment.......................     368.6
Parcel 2--Seneca County Public Safety Building and Jail.......      25.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parcel 1, also known as the Empire Biofuels Redevelopment area, is
located midway on the western edge of SEDA. Most of this Parcel did not
require remedial investigations under CERCLA. The two areas within
Parcel 1 that were investigated under CERCLA are known as SEAD-58 and
SEAD-24 [Comment 2]. SEAD-58 includes two debris disposal areas that
have been found to require no active remediation under CERCLA. SEAD-24
is a two-acre area that is not included in this proposed deletion and
will remain on the NPL. SEAD-24 underwent a soil removal action in 2004
and is awaiting a determination by EPA that all appropriate response
actions have been implemented.
    Parcel 2, also known as the Seneca County Public Safety Building
and Jail area, is located along the eastern perimeter of the SEAD Site
in the southeast quadrant. The parcel encompasses two sub-parcel areas
designated as SEAD-50 and SEAD-54, both of which have been remediated.
Subsequent sampling of these two areas confirmed that all appropriate
CERCLA response actions were performed. However, SEAD-50 and -54 are
subject to Institutional Controls (ICs) because they are part of the
encompassing Planned Industrial Development (PID) area [Comment 3].
    SEDA, which encompasses approximately 10,634 acres, includes
property owned by the U. S. Department of Army, the Seneca County
Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA), the local redevelopment
authority, New York State Department of Corrections, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Seneca County, and private entities. As part of the
Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC), the Federal government has
entered into agreements with SCIDA to transfer selected

properties for public and private reuse. Parcels 1 and 2 are currently
owned by SCIDA.
    Seneca County, Empire Biofuels, Inc., and Flaum Management Company,
Inc. requested this partial deletion to facilitate reuse of these
Parcels. Summary reports submitted to EPA and the State have shown that
all appropriate response actions with regard to the soil, soil vapor,
structures, surface water, and ground water media for Parcels 1 and 2
(with the exception of SEAD-24 area in Parcel 1) have been performed or
that the conditions pose no significant threat to public health or the
environment and therefore remedial measures are not appropriate. This
notice is only for the Parcels specified herein and does not include
any other real properties within the Site. Ongoing remedial
investigations, remedial designs, and other soil, structures, surface
water, and ground water cleanup activities will continue at the
portions of the Site not included in this notice of intent to delete.
All of those other portions of the Site remain on the NPL, including
SEAD-24 within Parcel 1.
    The NPL is a list maintained by EPA of sites that EPA has
determined present a significant risk to human health or welfare, or to
the environment. Pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e) of the NCP, any site or
portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Superfund-
financed remedial actions if conditions at a site warrant such action.
    EPA will accept public comments concerning this notice of intention
to partially delete portions of the Site for a period of thirty (30)
days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register and a
local newspaper of record.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425 (e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where all appropriate response actions have been performed
or no significant threat to public health and the environment exists.
In making this determination, EPA, in consultation with the State, will
consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:
     Section 300.425(e)(1)(i). Responsible parties or other
persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or
     Section 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All appropriate Fund-financed
responses under CERCLA have been implemented and no further cleanup by
responsible parties is appropriate; or
     Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The remedial investigation has
shown that the release of hazardous substances poses no significant
threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Parcel 1, with the exception of SEAD-24, is proposed for deletion
from the NPL because remedial investigations have shown that no
significant threat to public health or the environment exists and
therefore no remedial measures are appropriate.
    Parcel 2 is proposed for deletion from the NPL as all appropriate
CERCLA response actions have been implemented at this area, and area-
related studies or remedial investigations have shown that no further
cleanup is appropriate or necessary to protect public health or the
environment.
    This partial deletion does not affect or impede any CERCLA response
activities at areas of the Site that are not deleted and that remain on
the NPL. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself
create, alter, or revoke any person's rights or obligations. The NPL is
designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA
management.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of
Parcels 1 (excluding the SEAD-24 portion) and 2 from the Site:
    (1) The Site was listed on the NPL on August 30, 1990.
    (2) Historic records, field investigations, and other information
at the Site were used to establish Areas of Concern which were later
designated as Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs), which are referred
to at the Site as ``SEAD-.'' Over 100 SWMUs have been
identified at the Site.
    (3) It has been determined that many areas of the Site did not
experience any release of hazardous substances, did not require further
investigations, and did not require designation as a SWMU. Some of the
areas within Parcels 1 and 2 have not been identified as areas of
concern and do not have a SEAD number designation.
    (4) Parcels 1 and 2 include four SWMUs: SEAD-24, -50, -54, and -58.
SEAD-24, which lies within Parcel 1, is not proposed for deletion at
this time. EPA has determined, however, that all appropriate response
actions at SEAD-50, -54, and -58 have been implemented. These
determinations were documented in Records of Decisions (RODs [Comment
4]).
    (5) To facilitate transfer of property to the public and
development of certain Parcels of the former SEDA facility, Empire
Biofuels, Seneca County, and Flaum Management Company submitted a Draft
Notice of Intent to Partial Deletion (NOIPD) package for Parcels 1 and
2, excluding the SEAD-24 portion of Parcel 1.
    (6) Seneca County Industrial Development Agency has requested the
deletion of the identified portions of Parcels 1 and 2.
    (7) EPA recommends this partial deletion and has prepared the
relevant documents.
    (8) The State concurred with the deletion of these Parcels in a
letter dated April 10, 2007.
    (9) Concurrent with this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion, a
notice has been published in a local newspaper of record and has been
distributed to appropriate Federal, State, and local officials and to
other interested parties. These notices announce a thirty (30) day
public comment period on the partial deletion package, which commences
on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register and a
local newspaper of record, whichever period is later.
    (10) EPA has made all relevant documents available at the
information repositories listed above.
    Upon completion of the thirty (30) day public comment period, EPA
will evaluate any comments received before the issuing a final decision
on the partial deletion. If appropriate, EPA will prepare a
Responsiveness Summary to address comments received during the public
comment period responding to concerns presented in the comments. The
Responsiveness Summary will be made available to the public at the
information repositories listed above. If, after review of all public
comments, EPA determines that this partial deletion from the NPL is
appropriate, EPA will publish a final notice of deletion in the Federal
Register. Deletion of the Parcels does not actually occur until the
final Notice of Partial Deletion is published in the Federal Register.

IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

Background

    SEDA encompasses approximately 10,634 acres, including all real
property within the ``fence-line'' that surrounds SEDA. The military
mission of the Site has varied over the years. In 1942, it was
activated as the Seneca Ordnance Depot. The mission of the Depot
included the storage, maintenance, and shipment of

material for the U.S. Army, the demilitarization of conventional
ammunition, and the training of Reserve and National Guard units. The
Depot was designated for closure in 1995 under the Base Realignment and
Closure Act, resulting in deactivation of all military activities. The
Depot's military mission officially ended in 2000.
    The Site was investigated by means of Areas of Concern which were
later designated as SWMUs, which are referred to at the Site as SEAD-
s. The SEADs were identified based upon historic information
and field investigations. Over 100 SWMUs have been identified at the
Site. One or more SWMUs are located within each of the Parcels proposed
for deletion. To be deleted from the NPL, EPA must determine that no
response action or no further response action is appropriate.
    Over the years, various hazardous substances were used at the Site,
and hazardous wastes were generated, stored, or disposed there.
Numerous studies and investigations have been performed to locate,
assess, and quantify the past storage, disposal, and spill areas of
hazardous substance at the Site. These investigations include: records
searches; interviews with base personnel; field inspections;
compilation of waste inventory; evaluation of disposal practices;
assessments to determine the nature and extent of site contamination;
soil and groundwater analysis; a base-wide health assessment; base-
specific hydrology investigations; and various Site-specific
investigations. Based upon such studies and information, the Site was
included on the NPL on August 30, 1990. On January 21, 1993, the U.S.
Army entered into a Site-specific Federal Facility Agreement with EPA
and NYSDEC under Section 120 of CERCLA. By the terms of that Agreement,
the Army was required to submit various reports concerning the Site to
the State and EPA for review and comment. These reports addressed
remedial activities required under CERCLA and included: The
identification of SWMUs; scoping workplans, site inspections (SI) and
remedial investigation (RI); sampling and analysis plans, quality
assurance plans; baseline and mini-risk assessments; a community
relations plan; and proposed plans and records of decisions.
    Environmental studies pertinent to this NOIPD relied on the
following documents which were completed to facilitate the
characterization and evaluation process required for deletion of
selected parcels. These investigations/reports included:
     SWMU Classification Report, Final, September 1994;
     Expanded Site Inspection Eight Moderately Low Priority
Areas of Concern--SEADs 5, 9, 12 (A/B), (43, 56, 69), 44 (A/B), 50, 58
and 59, Draft--Final, December 1995;
     Environmental Baseline Survey Report Final, March 1997;
     Action Memorandum and Decision Document for Time-Critical
Removal Actions Four Metals Sites (SEADs 24, 50/54 & 67), Final, August
2002;
     Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for the PID and
Warehouse Area, July 2003;
     FOST for the Conservation/Recreation Area, July 2003;
     Deed for SEAD-50/54, April 2004;
     Final ROD for the PID and Warehouse Area at Seneca Army
Depot Activity, September 2004;
     Amendment 1 to the FOST for the PID and Warehouse Area,
December 2003;
     Final Completion Removal Report, Time Critical Removal
Action Metal Sites, SEAD-50/54, December 2003;
     Final ROD for no Further Action SWMUs (SEAD-50/54) at
Seneca Army Depot Activity, September 2005;
     Final ROD for No Action SWMU (SEAD-58) and No Further
Action SWMU (SEAD-63) at Seneca Army Depot Activity, September 2006;
     Request package for Partial Deletion from SCIDA, November
2006;
     State concurrence letter, April 2007. [Comment 5]

    Based on the findings of the environmental studies documented in
the reports above, the parcels proposed for deletion meet the deletion
criteria. The history and current status of each SWMU within the
Parcels proposed for deletion are summarized below.
Parcel 1--Empire Biofuels Redevelopment [Comment 6 ]
    This Parcel is comprised of approximately 368.6 acres and contains
a portion (SEAD-58) that has been addressed under CERCLA [Comment 7]. A
second area (SEAD-24), situated wholly within the boundaries of Parcel
1, is not proposed for deletion at this time. SEAD-24 has undergone a
soil removal action and is awaiting a final determination as to whether
all appropriate response action has been implemented. A summary of
SEAD-58 is provided as follows:
SEAD-58 Debris Area Near Booster Station
    Characterized as a debris area, SEAD-58 is located in the western-
central portion of SEDA and is the northern-most SWMU in the Empire
Biofuels Redevelopment parcel. SEAD-58 encompasses two distinct debris
disposal areas that vary in size from 200-300 feet in diameter. These
areas were used for the disposal of miscellaneous waste purported to
include the pesticide DDT.
    In 1994, an RI and supplemental Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) were
initiated to characterize the full extent of environmental impacts
specific to SEAD-58 and determine potential threats to human health and
the environment. The investigations entailed the completion of a
geophysical survey, a drilling program, test pit excavations, and an
environmental sampling program designed to collect surface soil,
surface water, sediment, subsurface soil, and groundwater media. Based
upon the area specific analytical results evaluated for the May 2002
Mini-Risk Assessment, the Army proposed ``No Action'' as a remedy.
    Subsequent to review by EPA and the State, the Final May 2002
Decision Document was modified to incorporate technical comments
deleting the need for land use restrictions for the two debris disposal
areas. In September 2006, EPA, with the concurrence of the State,
approved the May 2002 document in which it was determined that SEAD-58,
with no land use restrictions, posed no significant risk to the human
health or the environment. Approval of the ``No Action'' decision forms
the basis to delete SEAD-58 from the NPL, and it affects all media
(surface soils, subsurface soils, structures, surface water, and ground
water).
SEAD-24 Abandoned Powder Burning Pit (Not To Be Delisted)
    SEAD-24, the Abandoned Powder Burning Pit, is located in the west-
central portion of SEDA. The burning pit comprises an area measuring
approximately 325 feet by 150 feet that is surrounded on the east,
south, and west by a berm approximately 4 feet high. The area is
bounded to the north by West Kendaia Road and by open grassland and
brush.
    The Abandoned Powder Burning Pit was active during the 1940s and
1950s. Although operating practices at this area are undocumented, it
is presumed that black powder, M10 and M16 solid propellants, and
explosive trash were disposed here through controlled burning. It was
further presumed that petroleum hydrocarbon fuel was used to ignite the
burn.
    An ESI was performed at SEAD-24 between 1993 and 1994. The ESI
combined geophysical surveys and intrusive methods to characterize the
nature and extent of the contaminants present there. During intrusive

operations, environmental samples of soil and groundwater were
collected.
    Of the fifty-seven different analytes for soil, three semi-volatile
organic compounds and fourteen metals were present at concentrations
that exceeded cleanup objectives. The highest concentrations were
primarily limited to surface soil samples.
    The ground water sampling results suggested no impact to the ground
water near the Abandoned Powder Burning Pit.
    A time-critical removal action was conducted between 2002 and 2006
to reduce metal and carcinogenic PAHs contamination in soils.
Regulatory review of this action is in progress.
Parcel 2--Seneca County Jail [Comment 8]
    This 25.2 acre parcel is located in the southeast quadrant of SEDA,
along its eastern perimeter. The parcel encompasses two SMWUs
designated SEAD-50 and SEAD-54, of which 22 acres have been remediated
under CERCLA. Investigations were completed to identify potential
environmental impacts at each SWMU and were supplemented with risk
evaluations that ultimately determined no further action was required
for these SWMUs. Based on investigations and remedial activities
performed with EPA and State approval and oversight, the SWMUs
described below are proposed for deletion from the NPL.
SEAD-50 and SEAD-54 Tank Farm Area
    Characterized as a former tank farm area, approximately 160 above-
ground storage tanks were once located within the triangular shaped
land tract known as SEAD-50/54. The preliminary investigation of the
area, which was performed in 1993, was reported in the SWMU
Classification Report, and as a result it was identified as a SWMU. The
area which was subsequently identified as SEAD-50 was used for dry
material storage that included stockpiles of strategic ores such as
antimony, rutile, and silicon carbide. One storage tank (Tank
88) contained asbestos ore material and was assigned a
separate SEAD designation (SEAD-54). All tanks were removed prior to
implementing a phased program of investigation, evaluation, and
remediation.
    In 1994, an RI and supplemental ESI were performed to characterize
the full extent of environmental impacts specific to the SEAD-50/54
area and determine potential threats to human health and the
environment. The investigations entailed the completion of a
geophysical survey, a drilling program, test pit excavations, and an
environmental sampling program designed to collect surface soil,
subsurface soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater media.
Analytical results identified elevated concentrations of selected
metals (arsenic, lead, manganese, potassium, and zinc) in tank farm
soil materials that were determined to represent a potential
environmental threat. A time-critical removal action was performed from
late 2002 to early 2003 to excavate, remove, and dispose of impacted
soil material from SEAD-50/54. The ``Final Completion Report'' for
SEAD-50/54, which documented findings of the removal action and
confirmatory sampling results, presented data supporting a
determination that SEAD-50/54 no longer poses a threat to human health
and the environment.
    EPA, with the concurrence of the State, approved a remedy in
September 2005 which required ``No Further Action'' for SEADs-50/54.
The remedy required that the PID and Warehouse Areas, including SEADs-
50/54, be subject to controls restricting future residential
development and groundwater use. Accordingly, the recorded deed for
this Parcel contains the land use restrictions on land and groundwater
use. [Comment 9] These land use controls are considered CERCLA actions
and are included among the documents which are the basis for this
action.
Major Community Involvement Activities
    The Army published its Community Relations Plan in October 1992 and
created a Restoration Advisory Board to facilitate participation of and
input from the public throughout the CERCLA cleanup process. Each
decision document at the Site has been made available for public
comment, discussed at public meetings, and placed in the information
repository before the decision document was finalized.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Superfund.

    Dated: August 17, 2007.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
 [FR Doc. E7-17750 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 75)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20797-20799]
[DOCID:fr17ap08-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0114]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Anacostia River, Washington, DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone
encompassing certain waters of the Anacostia River in order to
safeguard high-ranking public officials from terrorist acts and
incidents. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of persons and
property, and prevent terrorist acts or incidents. This rule prohibits
vessels and people from entering the security zone and requires vessels
and persons in the security zone to depart the security zone, unless
specifically exempt under the provisions in this rule or granted
specific permission from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7:30 a.m. through 2 p.m. on April
17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-0114 and are available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the Commander,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building
70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways
Management Division, at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or (410) 576-
2693. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On March 7, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Security Zone; Anacostia River, Washington, DC'' in
the Federal Register (73 FR 12318). We received one letter, with an
attached photo, commenting on the proposed rule. Based on this comment,
no changes were made to the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. It would be contrary to public
interest to delay the effective date of this rule.
    The Department of Homeland Security designated the 2008 Papal
Visits in the United States as Special Events Awareness Report (SEAR)
Level II. The Coast Guard is establishing this security zone to support
the United States Secret Service, the designated lead federal agency
for the events, in their efforts to coordinate security operations and
establish a secure environment for this highly visible and publicized
event.
    The measures contemplated by the rule are intended to protect the
public and high-ranking public officials by preventing waterborne acts
of terrorism, which terrorists have demonstrated a capability to carry
out. Immediate action is needed to defend against and deter these
terrorist acts.

Background and Purpose

    The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it
prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert
because the al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have
declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S.
interests worldwide. Due to increased awareness that future terrorist
attacks are possible the Coast Guard, as lead federal agency for
maritime homeland security, has determined that the Coast Guard Captain
of the Port must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect,
intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and
attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining
our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is
part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard
human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or
terrorist attacks.
    The Captain of the Port Baltimore is establishing a security zone
to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to
prevent the catastrophic impact of a terrorist attack against a large
number of participants, and the surrounding waterfront area and
communities, in Washington, DC. This temporary security zone applies to
all waters of the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline, from a
line connecting the following points, beginning at 38[deg]51'50'' N,
077[deg]00'41'' W thence to 38[deg]51'44'' N, 077[deg]00'26'' W,
upstream to the Officer Kevin J. Welsh Memorial (11th Street) Bridge.
Although interference with normal port operations will be kept to the
minimum considered necessary to ensure the security of life and
property on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and after
the scheduled event, this zone will help the Coast Guard to prevent
vessels or persons from bypassing security measures for the event
established and engaging in terrorist actions against a large number of
participants during the highly-publicized event.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received one comment in response to the NPRM. No

public meeting was requested and none was held.
    The commenter, the developer of a piece of equipment that can be
pre-attached to any standard fire hydrant, stated that such an item
could quickly be activated to decontaminate or cool many people by
providing ``a ring of potential showers around the stadium while the
Pope is there.''
    We did not make any changes from the proposed rule which involves a
security zone on the Anacostia River based on this comment. We did,
however, revise paragraph (b)(1) of the regulatory text to reflect what
we stated in the preamble of the NPRM, that except for Public vessels
and vessels at berth, mooring or at anchor, all vessels in this zone
must depart the security zone.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    There is little seasonal vessel traffic associated with
recreational boating and commercial fishing during the effective
period, and vessels may seek permission from the Captain of the Port
Baltimore to enter and transit the zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit, operate or anchor in a portion of the Anacostia River, from
shoreline to shoreline, from a line connecting the following points,
beginning at 38[deg]51'50'' N, 077[deg]00'41'' W thence to
38[deg]51'44'' N, 077[deg]00'26'' W, upstream to the Officer Kevin J.
Welsh Memorial (11th Street) Bridge, from 7:30 a.m. through 2 p.m. on
April 17, 2008. Although the security zone applies to the entire width
of the river, this zone will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities due to a lack of seasonal vessel
traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing
during the effective period. Also, before the effective period, we
would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the
Anacostia River, and vessels may seek permission from the Captain of
the Port Baltimore to enter and transit the security zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency

provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials,
performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures;
and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g.), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This rule establishes a security zone.
    A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-012 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-012  Security Zone; Anacostia River, Washington, DC.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of
the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline, from a line
connecting the following points, beginning at 38[deg]51'50'' N,
077[deg]00'41'' W thence to 38[deg]51'44'' N, 077[deg]00'26'' W,
upstream to the Officer Kevin J. Welsh Memorial (11th Street) Bridge.
These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Regulations. (1) Entry into the security zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore. Except for Public vessels
and vessels at berth, mooring or at anchor, all vessels in this zone
must depart the security zone.
    (2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may
contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on
VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If
permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated
representative.
    (3) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the security zone by Federal, State and local agencies.
    (c) Effective period. This section is effective from 7:30 a.m.
through 2 p.m. on April 17, 2008.

    Dated: April 10, 2008.
Brian D. Kelley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. 08-1146 Filed 4-15-08; 9:31 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3203-3205]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00905]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76895; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-121]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 8.3 Relating to Appointment Costs

January 13, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 31, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.3 relating to the
appointment costs for options on the Russell 2000 Index (``RUT
options'') and P.M.-Settled options on the Standard & Poor's 500
(``SPXPM options''). The text of the proposed rule change is provided
below.
    (additions are underlined; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
Rules
* * * * *
Rule 8.3. Appointment of Market-Makers
    (a)-(b) No change.
    (c) Market-Maker Appointments. Absent an exemption by the Exchange,
an appointment of a Market-Maker confers the right to quote
electronically and in open outcry in the Market-Maker's appointed
classes during Regular Trading Hours as described below. Subject to
paragraph (e) below, a Market-Maker may change its appointed classes
upon advance notification to the Exchange in a form and manner
prescribed by the Exchange.
    (i) Hybrid Classes. Subject to paragraphs (c)(iv) and (e) below, a
Market-Maker can create a Virtual Trading Crowd (``VTC'') appointment,
which confers the right to quote electronically during Regular Trading
Hours in an appropriate number of Hybrid classes (as defined in Rule
1.1(aaa)) selected from ``tiers'' that have been structured according
to trading volume statistics, except for the AA tier. All classes
within a specific tier will be assigned an ``appointment cost''
depending upon its tier location. The following table sets forth the
tiers and related appointment costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Hybrid Option
              Tier                      Classes         Appointment cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AA..............................   Options on               .499
                                   the CBOE
                                   Volatility Index
                                   (VIX).
                                   Options on                .25
                                   the iShares
                                   Russell 2000 Index
                                   Fund (IWM).
                                   Options on                .50
                                   the NASDAQ 100
                                   Index (NDX).
                                   Options on                .40
                                   the S&P 100 (OEX).
                                   Options on                .25
                                   Standard & Poor's
                                   Depositary
                                   Receipts (SPY).
                                   Options on           [.25].50
                                   the Russell 2000
                                   Index (RUT).
                                   Options on                .10
                                   the S&P 100 (XEO).
                                   Morgan                    .25
                                   Stanley Retail
                                   Index Options
                                   (MVR).
                                   Options on                .10
                                   the iPath S&P 500
                                   VIX Short-Term
                                   Futures Index ETN
                                   (VXX).
                                   P.M.-                [1.0].50
                                   Settled options on
                                   the Standard &
                                   Poor's 500 (SPXPM).
A*..............................  Hybrid Classes 1-60                .10
B*..............................  Hybrid Classes 61-                 .05
                                   120.
C*..............................  Hybrid Classes 121-                .04
                                   345.
D*..............................  Hybrid Classes 346-                .02
                                   570.

E*..............................  Hybrid Classes 571-                .01
                                   999.
F*..............................  All Remaining                     .001
                                   Hybrid Classes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excludes Tier AA.

    (ii)--(vi) No change.
    (d)--(e) No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 this rule change is to amend CBOE Rule 8.3 relating
to the appointment costs for options on RUT options and SPXPM options.
CBOE proposes to assign an appointment cost of .50 to each of RUT
options and SPXPM options, effective February 1, 2016.
    While the appointment costs of Tier AA classes are not subject to
quarterly rebalancing under Rule 8.3(c)(iv), the Exchange regularly
reviews the appointment costs of Tier AA classes to ensure that they
continue to be appropriate.\5\ The Exchange determines appointment
costs of Tier AA classes based on several factors, including, but not
limited to, competitive forces and trading volume. After evaluating
these factors, the Exchange has determined to assign an appointment
cost of .50 to each of RUT options and SPXPM options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange reviews the appointment costs of classes in
Tiers A through F every calendar quarter pursuant to an evaluation
of trading volume statistics. The Exchange announces the quarterly
rebalance via Regulatory Circular at least 10 business days before
the rebalancing takes effect. See Rule 8.3(c)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes increasing the appointment cost for RUT
options is reasonable given its increase in trading volume on the
Exchange and other competitive forces. For example, when classes have
higher volume, demand by Market-Makers for appointments to
electronically quote in those classes may increase, and thus it is
appropriate to charge a higher appointment cost for that class.\6\ The
Exchange notes that even if a Market-Maker is unwilling to pay the
higher appointment cost to maintain an appointment in RUT options to
quote electronically during regular trading hours pursuant to Rule
8.3(c)(i) (for example, because it would need an additional trading
permit to cover the cost or because it would need to eliminate
appointments in other classes), the Market-Maker can continue to have
an appointment in the class to trade open outcry.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This is demonstrated by the appointment costs of classes in
Tiers A through F, which are based solely on trading volume--classes
with higher volume have higher appointment costs.
    \7\ See Rule 8.3(c)(ii) (which provides all Market-Makers with
an appointment to trade open outcry in all Hybrid classes traded on
the Exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that decreasing the appointment cost for
SPXPM options is reasonable given its trading volume and other
competitive forces. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
foster competition by incentivizing more Market-Makers to obtain an
appointment in SPXPM due to the lower appointment cost, which may
increase liquidity in the class, as well as quote electronically in
other Hybrid option classes using the excess capacity resulting from
the decreased appointment cost in SPXPM options. The Exchange believes
that the appointment cost decrease for SPXPM options will promote
competition and efficiency.
    The Exchange will announce the new appointment costs for RUT and
SPXPM options via Regulatory Circular at least 10 business days before
February 1, 2016, which the Exchange believes provides Market-Makers
with sufficient notice to update their appointments (if necessary) via
the appointments Web site or obtain an additional trading permit (if
necessary).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that this timeframe is consistent with
the deadline to announce quarterly rebalancing under Rule
8.3(c)(iv), which may result in an increase in appointment costs of
some classes and a decrease in appointment costs of other classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the
Act.\9\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rebalancing of appointment costs does not raise any new or unique
issues. The Exchange reviews and rebalances appointment costs for Tier
AA classes regularly and Tier A through F classes quarterly, both of
which may result an increase in appointment costs of some classes and a
decrease in appointment costs of other classes. The Exchange believes
rebalancing appointment costs of Tier AA classes based on trading
volume and other competitive forces promotes just and equitable
principles of trade. The Exchange believes increasing the appointment
cost for RUT options promotes competition and efficiency by aligning
the appointment cost with the higher demand for appointments in that
class and competitive forces related to that class.

The Exchange believes decreasing the appointment cost for SPXPM options
promotes competition and efficiency by incentivizing more Market-Makers
to obtain an appointment in SPXPM due to the lower appointment cost,
which may increase liquidity in the class, as well as quote
electronically in other Hybrid option classes using the excess capacity
resulting from the decreased appointment cost in SPXPM options. The
Exchange believes this may result in more liquidity and competitive
pricing, which ultimately benefits investors. The proposed rule change
does not result in unfair discrimination, as the revised appointment
costs for RUT and SPXPM options will apply to all Market-Makers.

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

    CBOE 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. CBOE does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because it will apply to all Market-Makers (and only Market-
Makers can have appointments to quote electronically). CBOE does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change
only applies to CBOE's Market-Maker appointment process. The Exchange
believes the proposed rule change will promote competition, as
discussed above.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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-CBOE-2015-121 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-CBOE-2015-121. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-121 and should be
submitted on or before February 10, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00905 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47437-47438]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17226]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Numbers Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act

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

ACTION: Notice; announcement of the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB) approval of information collection requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration announces
that OMB extended its approval for a number of information collection
requirements found in a number of OSHA's standards and regulations.
OSHA sought approval of these requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), and, as required by that Act, is
announcing the approval numbers and expiration dates for these
requirements and regulations.

DATES: This notice is effective July 21, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a series of Federal Register notices, the
Agency announced its requests to OMB to renew its current extensions of
approvals for various information collection (paperwork) requirements
in its safety and health standards pertaining to general industry,
shipyard employment, and the construction industry (i.e., 29 CFR parts
1905, 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926), and regulations pertaining to
Occupational Safety and Health State Plans, and OSHA Strategic
Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. In these Federal
Register announcements, the Agency provided 60-day comment periods for
the public to respond to OSHA's burden hour and cost estimates.
    In accord with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), OMB approved these
information collection requirements. The table below provides the
following information for each of these information collection
requirements approved by OMB: the title of the Federal Register notice;
the Federal Register reference (date, volume, and leading page); OMB's
Control Number; and the new expiration date.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date of Federal Register
Title of the information collection     publication,  Federal
               request                 Register reference, and        OMB control No.         Expiration date
                                           OSHA docket No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-Dibromo-3 Chloropropane (DBCP)   May 18, 2015...............  1218-0101.............  12/31/2018
 (29 CFR 1910.1044).                 80 FR 28300................
                                     Docket No. OSHA-2012-0010..
1,3-Butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051)...  October 26, 2015...........  1218-0170.............  05/31/2019
                                     80 FR 65246................
                                     Docket No. OSHA-2012-0027..
4,4'-Methylenedianiline (MDA) in     December 17, 2015..........  1218-0183.............  06/20/2019
 Construction (29 CFR 1926.60).      80 FR 78773................
                                     Docket No. OSHA-2012-0031..
Asbestos in Shipyards (29 CFR        May 21, 2015...............  1218-0195.............  03/31/2019
 1915.1001).                         80 FR 29344................
                                     Docket No. OSHA-2012-0009..
Cadmium in General Industry (29 CFR  June 11, 2015..............  1218-0185.............  12/31/2018
 1910.1027).                         80 FR 33293................
                                     Docket No. OSHA-2012-0005..
Commercial Diving Operations (29     April 7, 2015..............  1218-0069.............  03/31/2019
 CFR part 1910, subpart T).          80 FR 18647................
                                     Docket No. OSHA-2011-0008..
Hazardous Waste Operations and       August 19, 2015............  1218-0202.............  03/31/2019
 Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) (29   80 FR 50325................
 CFR 1910.120).                      Docket No. OSHA-2011-0862..
Hexavalent Chromium for General      December 17, 2015..........  1218-0252.............  06/30/2019
 Industry (29 CFR 1910.1026),        80 FR 78775................
 Shipyard Employment (29 CFR         Docket No. OSHA-2012-0034..
 1915.1026), and Construction (29
 CFR 1926.1126).
Inorganic Arsenic (29 CFR            January 14, 2015...........  1218-0104.............  10/31/2018
 1910.1018).                         80 FR 1970.................
                                     Docket No. OSHA2011-0186...
Lead in Construction (29 CFR         September 22, 2015.........  1218-0189.............  04/30/2019
 1926.62).                           80 FR 57231................
                                     Docket No. OSHA-2012-0014..

Lead in General Industry (29 CFR     September 25, 2015.........  1218-0092.............  04/30/2019
 1910.1025).                         80 FR 53878................
                                     Docket No. OSHA-2012-0013..
Marine Terminal Operations (29 CFR   May 21, 2015...............  1218-0196.............  03/31/2019
 part 1917) and Longshoring (29 CFR  80 FR 29341................
 part 1918).                         Docket No. OSHA-2012-0016..
Occupational Exposure to Hazardous   December 15, 2014..........  1218-0131.............  12/31/2018
 Chemicals in Laboratories (29 CFR   79 FR 74113................
 1910.1450).                         Docket No. OSHA-2011-0059..
Occupational Safety and Health Act   August 20, 2014............  1218-0265.............  06/30/2018
 Variance Regulations (29 CFR        79 FR 49342................
 1905.10, 1905.11, and 1905.72).     Docket No. OSHA-2009-0024..
Occupational Safety and Health       January 27, 2016...........  1218-0247.............  06-30-2019
 State Plans.                        81 FR 4672.................
                                     Docket No. OSHA-2011-0197..
OSHA Strategic Partnership Program   June 19, 2015..............  1218-0244.............  03/31/2019
 (OSPP) for Worker Safety and        80 FR 35402................
 Health.                             Docket No. OSHA-2011-0861..
Temporary Labor Camps (29 CFR        April 29, 2015.............  1218-0096.............  12/31/2018
 1910.142).                          80 FR 23822................
                                     Docket No. OSHA-2012-0012..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency cannot conduct,
sponsor, or require a response to a collection of information unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number and the Agency
informs respondents that they need not respond to the collection of
information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is 44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq. and
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 15, 2016.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2016-17226 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54629-54630]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21767]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67754; File No. SR-ISE-2012-33]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, Regarding Strike Price Intervals for
Certain Option Classes

August 29, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On May 21, 2012, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' 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 modify its Short Term Option
Series Program (``STOS Program'') to permit, during the expiration week
of an option class that is selected for the STOS Program (``STOS
Option''), the strike price intervals for the related non-STOS option
that is in the same class as a STOS Option (``Related non-STOS
Option'') to be the same as the strike price interval for the STOS
Option. The Exchange also proposed to adopt a rule to open for trading
Short Term Option Series at $0.50 strike price intervals for option
classes that trade in one dollar increments and are in the STOS Program
(``Eligible Option Classes''). The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on June 6, 2012.\3\ The Commission
received one comment letter on the proposal.\4\ On July 26,

2012, ISE filed Amendment No.1 to the proposed rule change.\5\ This
order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67083 (June 6, 2012), 76
FR 33543 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Jenny L. Klebes, Senior Attorney, Legal
Division, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''),
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated June 27, 2012
(``CBOE Letter''). CBOE sought further clarification on how the
proposed rule change would be implemented and suggested that the
proposed rule change be revised to indicate which, if any, day(s)
during the week of expiration for standard options the related non-
STOS options could be added. See CBOE Letter at 2.
    \5\ Amendment No. 1 clarified the timing of when additional
series of non-STOS, or standard options, may be opened. Because
Amendment No. 1 is technical in nature, the Commission is not
required to publish it for public comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposed to amend ISE Rules 504 (Series of Options
Contracts Open for Trading) and 2009 (Terms of Index Options Contracts)
to indicate that, during the expiration week, the strike price
intervals for the Related non-STOS Option shall be the same as the
strike price interval for the STOS Option. The Exchange also proposed
to adopt a rule that would permit ISE to list Short Term Option Series
at $0.50 strike price intervals for Eligible Option Classes.
    In the Notice, the Exchange stated that the principal reason for
the proposed expansion is in response to market and customer demand to
list actively traded products in more granular strike price intervals
and to provide Exchange members and their customers increased trading
opportunities in the STOS Program.\6\ ISE also represented that there
are substantial benefits to market participants in the ability to trade
the Eligible Option Classes at more granular strike price intervals and
that the instant proposal has the support of several of its market
makers and was developed in consultations with one such market-making
firm.\7\ Furthermore, the Exchange also argued that allowing it to open
Related non-STOS Options at the more granular strike price intervals
the week before expiration would ensure conformity between STOS options
and Related non-STOS Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 33544.
    \7\ Id. at 33545.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange stated that it has analyzed its capacity, and
represented that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'') have the necessary systems capacity to handle the potential
additional traffic associated with trading the Eligible Option Classes
in narrower strike price intervals.\8\ The Exchange also represented
that the proposal, if approved, would not increase the number of listed
short-term series.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. The Exchange also stated that, while liquidity levels at
each individual option series could decrease as a result of listing
short term options series at more granular strike price intervals,
it did not expect that the proposed rule change would result in a
significant change in liquidity or otherwise cause liquidity in the
Eligible Options Classes products to decline.
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 33545
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change and the CBOE
Letter, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\10\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts, 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
Commission believes that the proposal strikes a reasonable balance
between the Exchange's desire to offer a wider array of investment
opportunities and the need to avoid unnecessary proliferation of
options series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving this proposal, the Commission notes that the Exchange
has represented that it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to
handle the potential additional traffic associated with trading the
expanded number of strike price intervals available to the Eligible
Option Classes and Related non-STO Options. The Commission expects the
Exchange to monitor the trading volume associated with the additional
options series listed as a result of this proposal and the effect of
these additional series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of
the Exchange's, OPRA's, and vendors' automated systems.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2012-33) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21767 Filed 9-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 71725]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25168]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9954-28-Region 5]

Proposed Prospective Purchaser Agreement for the Willow Run
Powertrain Site in Ypsilanti, Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Prospective Purchaser Agreement, notice
is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement concerning the
Willow Run Powertrain Site in Ypsilanti, Michigan with the following
settling parties: Willow Run Arsenal of Democracy Landholdings Limited
Partnership and the American Center for Mobility. The settlement
requires the Settling Parties to, if necessary, execute and record a
Declaration of Restrictive Covenant; provide access to the Site and
exercise due care with respect to existing contamination. The
settlement includes a covenant not to sue the Settling Parties pursuant
to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act with
respect to the Existing Contamination. Existing Contamination is
defined as any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants or
Waste Material present or existing on or under the Property as of the
Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement; any hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants or Waste Material that migrated from the
Property prior to the Effective Date; and any hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants or Waste Material presently at the Site
that migrates onto, on, under, or from the Property after the Effective
Date.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the
settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any
comments received will be available for public inspection at the EPA,
Region 5, Records Center, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th Fl., Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Commenters may request an opportunity for a public
hearing in the affected area, in accordance with Section 7003(d) of
RCRA.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at the EPA, Region 5, Records Center, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th Fl.,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the proposed settlement may be
obtained from Peter Felitti, Assoc. Regional Counsel, EPA, Office of
Regional Counsel, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Mail Code: C-14J,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Comments should reference the Willow Run
Powertrain Site, Ypsilanti, Michigan and should be addressed to Peter
Felitti, Assoc. Regional Counsel, EPA, Office of Regional Counsel,
Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Mail Code: C-14J, Chicago, Illinois
60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Felitti, Assoc. Regional
Counsel, EPA, Office of Regional Counsel, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson
Blvd., Mail Code: C-14J, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Settling Parties propose to acquire
ownership of the former General Motors Corporation North American
operation, at 2930 Ecorse Road in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The Site is one
of the 89 sites that were placed into an Environmental Response Trust
(the ``Trust'') as a result of the resolution of the 2009 GM
bankruptcy. The Trust is administrated by Revitalizing Auto Communities
Environmental Response.

    Dated: September 23, 2016.
Douglas Ballotti,
Acting Director, Superfund Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-25168 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P