[Federal Register: November 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 218)]
[Notices]
[Page 66211-66213]
[DOCID:fr13no06-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54690; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-79]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Extending the Time Period by Which the Exchange Will Amend the NASD-
NYSE Arca Options Agreement Pursuant to Rule 17d-2

November 2, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 25, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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'' rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.\5\ 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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 5-day
pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay. See 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A), 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its undertaking \6\ to extend
for 90 days from the date of this filing the time period by which the
Exchange will enter into an agreement with the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the
Act \7\ (the ``NASD / NYSE Arca Options Agreement'' or ``Agreement'').
The Agreement would expand the allocation to NASD of regulatory
responsibility to encompass all the regulatory oversight and
enforcement responsibilities with respect to the options activities of
Archipelago Securities, L.L.C. (``Archipelago Securities''),\8\ except
for ``real-time market surveillance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54238 (July 28,
2006), 71 FR 44758 (August 7, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-13) (OX
Approval Order).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \8\ Archipelago Securities, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Archipelago Holdings, Inc. and a registered broker-dealer, acts as
the outbound order router for the NYSE Arca Marketplace (formerly
known as the Archipelago Exchange) and, as such, is regulated as an
exchange ``facility'' of NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. See
15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2). As such, any proposed rule change relating to
Archipelago Securities' order-routing function must be filed with
the Commission, and must operate in a manner that is consistent with
the provisions of the Act applicable to exchanges and with NYSE Arca
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
    In connection with the Commission's approval of the Exchange's new
electronic options trading platform, OX, Archipelago Securities became
a routing broker for OX options orders on the Exchange.\9\ In Amendment
No. 3 to its filing seeking approval of the OX platform,\10\ the
Exchange proposed to clarify that NASD, a self-regulatory organization
unaffiliated with the Exchange or any of its affiliates, would continue
to carry out oversight and enforcement responsibilities as the
Designated Examining Authority designated by the Commission pursuant to
Rule 17d-1 under the Act \11\ with the

responsibility for examining Archipelago Securities for compliance with
the applicable financial responsibility rules. Furthermore, the
Exchange represented that it would enter into the NASD/NYSE Arca
Options Agreement pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act,\12\ to expand
the allocation to NASD of regulatory responsibility to encompass all
the regulatory oversight and enforcement responsibilities with respect
to the options activities of Archipelago Securities, except for ``real-
time market surveillance.'' \13\ The Exchange agreed to submit the NASD
/ NYSE Arca Options Agreement to the Commission under Rule 17d-2 within
90 days of the date of the Commission's approval of the OX trading
platform.\14\ The 90 day period elapsed on October 26, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See OX Approval Order, supra note 6. Pursuant to NYSE Arca
Rule 6.1A(a)(15), which was adopted in connection with the
establishment of the new OX trading platform, the term ``OX Routing
Broker'' refers to the broker-dealer affiliate of the Exchange that
acts as agent for routing orders entered into OX of OTP Holders, OTP
Firms and OTP Firms' Sponsored Participants to other Market Centers
for execution whenever such routing is permitted by Exchange Rules.
Archipelago Securities is the Exchange's only OX Routing Broker.
    \10\ See OX Approval Order, supra note 6.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \13\ See OX Approval Order, supra note 6.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 20, 2006, the Exchange submitted to the Commission a
draft NASD/NYSE Arca Options Agreement, but has not yet received
Commission approval. The Exchange believes that an extension of time
for an additional 90 days from the date of this filing to enter into
the NASD/NYSE Arca Options Agreement will give the Commission staff
sufficient time to publish and take action on the proposal.
    The Exchange believes that the requested extension of time is
consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, will
not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest, and does not impose any significant burden on competition.
The Exchange notes that NASD already carries out oversight and
enforcement responsibilities as the Designated Examining Authority
designated by the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Act \15\
with the responsibility for examining Archipelago Securities for
compliance with the applicable financial responsibility rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, in that it
is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing rule: (i) Does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest,\18\ the proposed
rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, the
Exchange is required to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 5-day pre-
filing notice requirement. The Commission has determined to waive
this requirement for this filing.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay, which would make the rule change effective and
operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Such waiver will allow the Exchange to comply with its
undertaking made in connection with the OX Approval Order to submit the
NASD/NYSE Arca Options Agreement to the Commission. The Exchange
requests a waiver of the 30-day period on the basis that the current
deadline for entering into the NASD/NYSE Arca Options Agreement was
October 26, 2006, and a delay of 30 days would place the Exchange out
of compliance with its undertaking. Extending the compliance date for
the Exchange's undertaking by an additional 90 days will provide time
for the Exchange to finalize and file the Agreement. For these reasons,
the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative
upon filing with the Commission.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number NYSEArca-2006-79 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number NYSEArca-2006-79. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than

those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of 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
NYSEArca-2006-79 and should be submitted on or before December 4, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-19063 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 153 (Thursday, August 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37396-37397]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16905]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R03-RCRA-2014-0407; FRL-9965-86-Region 3]

Delaware: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Delaware has applied to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of revisions to its
hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to Delaware. In
the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal
Register, EPA is authorizing the revisions by a direct final rule. We
have explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to
the direct final rule. Unless EPA receives written comments that oppose
this authorization during the comment period, the direct final rule
will become effective on the date it establishes, and EPA will not take
further action on this proposal.

DATES: Send your written comments by September 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
RCRA-2014-0407, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evelyn Sorto, U.S. EPA Region III,
RCRA Waste Branch, Mailcode 3LC32, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103-2029, Phone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this issue of the Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the revisions by
a direct final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the direct
final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do
not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for
this authorization in the preamble of the direct final rule. Unless EPA
receives adverse written comments that oppose this authorization during
the comment period, the direct final

rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and EPA will not
take further action on this proposal. If EPA receives comments that
oppose this action, we will withdraw the Direct Final Rule, and it will
not take effect. EPA will then respond to public comments in a later
final rule based on this proposal and after consideration of all
comments. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want
to comment on this action, you must do so at this time. For additional
information, please see the direct final rule published in the ``Rules
and Regulations'' section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    Dated: July 27, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017-16905 Filed 8-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56569-56571]
[DOCID:fr27se06-144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54476; File No. SR-BSE-2006-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Removing Its Short Sale Price Test Rule

September 20, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 6, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. BSE has designated the proposed rule change as
constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6)
of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective
upon receipt of this filing by the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    BSE proposes amending its rules related to trading in Nasdaq
securities to remove the short sale price test rule, or ``bid test''
rule, applicable to Nasdaq Global Market securities and Nasdaq Capital
Market securities (``Nasdaq Securities'') traded on facilities of the
BSE. That rule is presently set forth in Chapter XXXV, Section 26 of
the BSE Rules.
    In addition to removing the BSE ``bid test'' rule for short sales
of Nasdaq Securities from the BSE Rules, the proposed amendment is
intended to clarify that all Nasdaq Securities traded on BSE facilities
will be exempt from the requirements of any short sale price test
applicable to Nasdaq Securities, including, but not limited to, the
short sale price test set forth in Rule 10a-1 of the Act.
    Regulation SHO Rule 202T established procedures to allow the
Commission to temporarily suspend short sale price tests so that the
Commission could study the effectiveness of short sale price tests (the
``Pilot'').\4\ The Pilot is designed to assist the Commission in
assessing whether changes to short sale regulation are necessary in
light of current market practices and the purposes underlying short
sale regulation. To determine whether additional rulemaking is
necessary, Commission staff will evaluate the results of the Pilot.
After completion of the Pilot Program or at such other time if the
Commission determines that such exemptions are no longer necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or consistent with the protection of
investors, the BSE will amend its rules accordingly, if necessary. The
text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office
of the Exchange and from the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 50104 (July 28, 2004), 69 FR
48032 (August 6, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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
    On or about August 1, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'') became a national securities exchange. As a result of
Nasdaq becoming a national securities exchange, Nasdaq Securities
became exchange listed securities subject to the short sale ``tick
test'' provisions of Rule 10a-1 under the Act, which governs short
sales of any security registered on, or admitted to, unlisted trading
privileges on a national securities exchange if such transactions are
made pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan as defined in
Rule 600 of Regulation NMS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the July 20, 2006 letter from James Brigagliano, Acting
Associate Director, Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of
Market Regulation to David C. Whitcomb, Jr., at the Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. and Nasdaq requested, and
have been granted, an exemption from the ``tick test'' provisions of
Rule 10a-1 for Nasdaq listed securities while the Regulation SHO Pilot
Program (the ``Pilot Program'') remains pending or until such other
time as the Commission determines that such exemptions are no longer
necessary or appropriate in the public interest or consistent with the
protection of investors.\6\ The BSE intends to rely upon the exemption
from the ``tick test'' provisions of Rule 10a-1 set forth in the
Commission's July 20, 2006 letter to the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.
As such, transactions in Nasdaq Securities on the BSE will be exempt
from the ``tick test'' provisions of Rule 10a-1 just as transactions in
Nasdaq Securities on the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. are exempt. The
BSE will

not apply a ``tick test'' for Nasdaq Securities until the Pilot Program
is completed or the Commission directs otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even though the BSE will not be applying the ``tick test'' to
Nasdaq Securities traded on the BSE, the BSE does have a short sale
price test rule that requires Nasdaq Securities traded by specialists
be subject to a ``bid test.'' \7\ The BSE ``bid test'' rule is
presently set forth in Chapter XXXV, Section 26 of the BSE Rules and
states, in relevant part, that ``No specialist shall effect a short
sale for the account of a customer or for his own account in a Nasdaq
security at or below the current best (inside) bid when the current
best (inside) bid is below the preceding best (inside) bid in the
security.'' This proposed amendment is intended to remove the short
sale ``bid test'' rule applicable to Nasdaq Securities traded by
specialists on the BSE. This proposed amendment would allow short sales
of Nasdaq Securities traded by specialists on the BSE without a short
sale price test rule until December 31, 2006, after which the BSE will
be trading Nasdaq Securities solely on its fully electronic Boston
Equities Exchange (``BeX''). As of January 1, 2007 there will no longer
be any specialist traded stocks on the BSE or any of its facilities. As
such, BeX traded securities are not subject to Chapter XXXV, Section 26
of the BSE Rules because they are not traded by specialists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Prior to Nasdaq becoming a national securities, NASD's short
sale ``bid test'' Rule 3350, now Rule 5100, was not applicable to a
National Securities Exchange trading Nasdaq securities on an
unlisted trading privileges basis. Therefore there was no
requirement for the BSE to have a short sale ``bid test'' rule for
Nasdaq securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BSE has not traded a Nasdaq security on the Exchange since or
about September of 2004. BSE began receiving nominal specialist-traded
Nasdaq crossing business in August 2006. In August, BSE received one
cross transaction. BSE expects that the specialist-traded Nasdaq
crossing business, which will conclude when BSE begins trading Nasdaq
securities on the fully electronic BeX on January 1, 2007, will
continue to be a nominal amount in overall Nasdaq security trading
volume and should not have any material effect on the Pilot. The BSE
believes if it did not remove its current short sale ``bid test'' rule
it would be at a competitive disadvantage to other regional market
centers.
2. Basis
    BSE states that the proposed amendment is designed to prevent the
BSE from being at a competitive disadvantage to other regional market
centers that may be able to attract order flow as a result of their not
having any short sale price test applicable to Nasdaq Securities until
completion of the Pilot Program or until such other time as the
Commission determines that such exemptions are no longer necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or consistent with the protection of
investors. Except for some nominal Nasdaq crossing business that began
in August 2006 and will conclude on January 1, 2007, BSE has not traded
Nasdaq securities since September 2004. In addition, the proposed
amendment will delete a rule that will be rendered obsolete on January
1, 2007, when BSE begins trading Nasdaq securities on the BeX on a
fully electronic basis without specialists. As such, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transaction in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    (a) This proposed rule change is filed pursuant to paragraph (A) of
section 19(b)(3) of the Act.
    (b) Because the foregoing rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days 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 \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-BSE-2006-31 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BSE-2006-31. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules.sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the above-mentioned self-regulatory organization.
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 the File Number SR-BSE-2006-31 and should
be submitted on or before October 18, 2006.

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

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15793 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


From:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Friday, February 26, 2016 10:15 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
French, Chuck; Allen Dittenhoefer; Bill Osborn; Bryan Kresak; Charles Jones; Chris Hardin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Coleen Davis; Dan Belack; Dave Hacker; David Ailor; David Fanning; Ed Dinsmore<EMAIL_ADDRESS>James Hosfield; Janis Deitch; Jay Cornelius; Joe Hanning; John Hill; Jonelle Scheetz; Julianne Kurdila; Katie Kistler; Keith Nagel; Krista Armentrout; Marian Gammon; Mark Poling; May, Jeffrey X; Mike Dzurinko; Nicole Siviy; Parker Adams; Patrick Smith; Peter Libell; Randy Wiler; Rich Zavoda<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Scott Kiechle; Solomon Nyathi; Taylor Mackey; Tishie Woodwell; Traci Self; Victoria Morton<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: final drafts of enclosure 1&2 for coke ovens - facility lists

Donna Lee:

Thanks again for doing what you can to address our comments on the draft ICR enclosures.  Attached insofar as the "final drafts" of enclosures 1 and 2 you provided us on Wednesday, February 17, are COETF "markups" highlighting the COETF's questions/comments on those specific draft documents (see "022616 COETF Comments on Final-Draft-Coke ICR Intro-Enclosure I-DLJ-02-16-16.pdf" and "022616 COETF Comments on Final-Draft-Coke ICR-Enclosure 2-DLJ-02-16-16.pdf," respectively).

Please note in your review of our Enclosure 2 markup that on page 17 of 38 there is a reference to an "Alternative Testing Options" document we have developed for your consideration insofar as "Testing Options for Quench Tower Tests  -  Minimum Number of Facilities Required to Test" (Table 1-D).  This document is the last page in our markup of Enclosure 2.  We urge to give serious consideration to the options set forth in this document, as a way to reduce the cost burden of the ICR testing on the industry while delivering to EPA the data it needs for the rulemaking.

We would appreciate greatly the opportunity to meet with you, via conference call, to discuss our questions/comments "first hand."  Please let me know what your schedule looks like next week, and I'll send you an Outlook invitation for a time that works best.

Once again, thanks for doing what you can to address our comments.  Please contact me if you have any immediate questions.

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
dailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org<http://www.accci.org/>

<< 022616 COETF Comments on Final-Draft-Coke ICR Intro-Enclosure I-DLJ-02-16-16.pdf >>
<< 022616 COETF Comments on Final-Draft-Coke ICR-Enclosure 2-DLJ-02-16-16.pdf >>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:01 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: final drafts of enclosure 1&2 for coke ovens - facility lists

Hello. As promised, here are the final versions of the enclosures for the coke ICR. I've also included the facility lists. Unfortunately, because of the dual nature of the ICR for the by-product industry, in terms of extended coking standards vs normal operating standards, I don't have the flexibility to allow switching out one facility for another in the case of multiple facilities under one company. I believe this only applied to one company.

I know, David, you had said that the ACCCI had been working with a test consultant on getting additional comments on enclosure 2 to me by February 10th. I don't know if you all are delayed or maybe your issues were addressed in the comments I sent a few weeks ago in response to SunCoke's comments on enclosure 2. Regardless, it will take us about 2 weeks to get the packages together and the letters signed, so if I get comments in the next two weeks, I will still take a look at them. Since we have discussed all of the testing issues a number of time, I doubt if there would be any broad changes at this point to the test requests. But if there are facility=specific issues that are still a problem, we can discuss these on an individual facility basis even after the letters go out.

If either of you have any comments or see any errors with the two enclosures in the next 2 weeks, let me know. Again, not expecting to be able to make broad changes but interested in correcting errors and also adding any flexibility we can, as long as the integrity of the rule is not jeopardized.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02) Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.


[Federal Register: May 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26663-26664]
[DOCID:fr10my07-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55704; File No. SR-ISE-2007-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Fee Changes

May 3, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 17, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the
Exchange. On May 2, 2007, the ISE submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ ISE has designated this proposal as one
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by ISE
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 makes clarifications to the purpose section
of the proposed rule change and technical formatting corrections to
the Schedule of Fees contained in Exhibit 5.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish
fees for transactions in options on a new category of Premium
Products.\6\ The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.iseoptions.com
.

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

    \6\ ``Premium Products'' is defined in the Schedule of Fees as
the products enumerated therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. ISE 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 Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to
establish fees for transactions in options on a new category of Premium
Products, foreign currency options, referred to in the Exchange's
Schedule of Fees as FX options.\7\ The Exchange began trading in FX
options on April 17, 2007. All of the applicable execution fees covered
by this filing are identical to fees charged by the Exchange for all
other Premium Products. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to
adopt an execution fee and a comparison fee for all transactions in FX
options.\8\ The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all
ISE Market Maker transactions shall be equal to the execution fee and
comparison fee currently charged by the Exchange for ISE Market Maker
transactions in equity options.\9\ The amount of the execution fee and
comparison fee for products covered by this filing shall be $0.15 and
$0.03 per contract, respectively, for all Public Customer Orders \10\
and Firm Proprietary orders. Finally, the amount of the execution fee
and comparison fee for all non-ISE Market Maker transactions shall be
$0.16 and $0.03 per contract, respectively. Since FX options are not
multiply-listed, the Payment for Order Flow fee shall not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55575 (April 3,
2007), 72 FR 17963 (April 10, 2007) (SR-ISE-2006-59) (order
approving the listing and trading of foreign currency options).
    \8\ These fees will be charged only to Exchange members.
    \9\ The execution fee is currently between $.21 and $.12 per
contract side, depending on the Exchange Average Daily Volume, and
the comparison fee is currently $.03 per contract side.
    \10\ ``Public Customer Order'' is defined in Exchange Rule
100(a)(39) as an order for the account of a Public Customer.
``Public Customer'' is defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(38) as a
person that is not a broker or dealer in securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the execution fees noted above, the Exchange also
proposes to charge ISE market makers a monthly access fee of $500 for
the right to quote in FX options. In order to promote trading in FX
options, the Exchange proposes to waive, through October 17, 2007: (1)
All transaction

fees applicable to members and (2) the monthly access fee applicable to
ISE market makers. As a further incentive for market makers to quote in
FX options, the Exchange proposes to waive one API for each class of
market maker in FX options. For example, a firm that is both a primary
market maker (``PMM'') and a competitive market maker (``CMM'') in FX
options (``FXPMM'' and ``FXCMM,'' respectively) will receive a waiver
of two APIs, one for quoting as a FXPMM and one for quoting as a FXCMM.
    Finally, FX options are an options product and, as such, are
subject to certain other fees that are currently on the Schedule of
Fees. These fees include the minimum PMM fee and the Inactivity fee
applicable to both PMMs and CMMs. In order to promote trading in FX
options, ISE proposes to exclude FXPMMs and FXCMMs from being subject
to these fees.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will further
the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace that
are competitively priced.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among Exchange members and other persons using Exchange
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on the proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any
unsolicited written comments from its members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \14\
thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \15\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, the
Commission considers the period to commence on May 2, 2007, the date
on which the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-ISE-2007-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-25. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of ISE. 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-ISE-2007-25 and should be submitted on or before May 31, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8912 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71412-71415]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24957]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No.: FAA-2016-9275; Notice No. 16-07]
RIN 2120-AK91

Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to revise its rules for pilot compartment
view to allow ground tests to demonstrate compliance for night
operations. The current regulations require night flight testing to
demonstrate compliance, which is not necessary in every case. The
proposed rule would relieve the burden of performing a night flight
test under certain conditions.

DATES: Send comments on or before November 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number (Docket No.: FAA-
2016-9275) using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Clark Davenport, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety
Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is issued under the authority described in Subtitle
VII, Part A, Subpart III, Sections 44701 and 44704. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum standards
required in the interest of safety for the design and performance of
aircraft. Under section 44704, the Administrator issues type
certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and specified
appliances when the Administrator finds the product is properly
designed and manufactured, performs properly, and meets the regulations
and minimum standards prescribed under section 44701(a). This
regulation is within the scope of these authorities because it would
promote safety by updating the existing minimum prescribed standards
used during the type certification process to address an equivalent
method of showing compliance.

I. Background

Statement of the Problem

    The FAA's rules on airworthiness standards for the pilot
compartment in rotorcraft and the requirements for each pilot's view
from that compartment are located in parts 27 and 29 of title 14 of

the Code of Federal Regulations. Specifically, Sec. Sec.  27.773(a) and
29.773(a) require that each pilot compartment must be free of glare and
reflection that could interfere with the pilot's view. Sections
27.773(b) and 29.773(b) require a flight test to show compliance with
paragraph (a) if certification for night operations is requested. While
this requirement applies to all applicants for rotorcraft installations
that may affect the pilot's ability to see outside the aircraft, the
FAA has determined that a flight test may not be the only means
available to show compliance for some modifications. As a result, the
FAA has concluded that the current requirements in Sec. Sec.  27.773
and 29.773 are imposing an unnecessary economic burden on applicants
for certification for night operation.

II. Discussion of the Proposal

    Currently, Sec. Sec.  27.773(b) and 29.773(b) require all
applicants for certification for night operations to conduct a night
flight test to show compliance with Sec. Sec.  27.773(a) and 29.773(a).
While manufacturers of newly type certificated rotorcraft will conduct
night flight tests to comply with other rules and do not view this
requirement as a significant additional burden, supplemental type
certificate (STC) and field approval applicants have questioned the
night flight test requirement for changes to the rotorcraft type
design. STC and field approval applicants who add a piece of avionics
equipment that minimally changes the lighting characteristics of the
cockpit, for example a navigation or communication radio, have stated
the requirement for a flight test is too costly compared to the scope
of the modification.
    As an alternative, the applicants have proposed performing a ground
test simulating night conditions. In some cases, a ground test will
meet the requirements of Sec. Sec.  27.773(b) and 29.773(b) while
significantly reducing the cost and burden to the applicant.
    Upon review of the flight test requirements in Sec. Sec.  27.773(b)
and 29.773(b), based on the feedback received from numerous applicants,
the FAA proposes to allow a ground test as an alternative to a night
flight test in certain cases to show compliance for night operations.
The FAA has determined that internal lighting modifications can be
evaluated with a ground test, whereas external lighting modifications
may require a flight test. For example, the applicant could demonstrate
compliance by creating an environment where external light is blocked
from entering the cockpit or where the rotorcraft is placed in a
darkened hangar, paint booth, or other environment. In such a
situation, the FAA has concluded that a ground test should provide the
same level of safety as the existing regulations. The conditions under
which a ground test would be acceptable and an acceptable means of
compliance for the ground test would be addressed in Advisory Circular
(AC) 27-1B, Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft and AC 29-2C,
Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though the proposed rule would allow applicants to show compliance
either by a flight test or ground test, it would not preclude the use
of a night flight test. An applicant may conduct a flight test at night
for other reasons and choose to use that flight to show compliance with
Sec. Sec.  27.773 or 29.773. The FAA finds that the proposed change to
allow a ground test as an option would be relieving to industry.

III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule. Department of
Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for
simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected
cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not
warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that
effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full
regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a
determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for
this determination follows. The current regulations require night
flight testing to demonstrate compliance for night operations. The
proposed rule provides a ground test as an alternative to a night
flight test in certain cases, such as internal lighting modifications.
The requirements for a ground test are less stringent than a night
flight test. Thus, the proposed rule would relieve the industry from
the burden of performing a night flight test under certain conditions.
The expected outcome would be a minimal economic impact with positive
net benefits, and a regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA
requests comments with supporting justification about the FAA
determination of minimal economic impact. The FAA has, therefore,
determined that this proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is
not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that

the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning
should be clear.
    The proposed rule provides a ground test as an alternative to a
night flight test in certain cases, such as internal lighting
modifications. The requirements for a ground test are less stringent
than a night flight test. Thus, the proposed rule would relieve the
industry from the burden of performing a night flight test under
certain conditions. The expected outcome would be a minimal economic
impact with positive net benefits on any small entity affected by this
rulemaking action.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
offers potential regulatory relief to both domestic and international
entities--thus does not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.

F. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

IV. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

V. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety

14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

0
2. Amend Sec.  27.773 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  27.773  Pilot Compartment View

* * * * *
    (b) If certification for night operation is requested, compliance
with paragraph (a) of this section must be shown by ground or night
flight tests.

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
1. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
0
2. Amend Sec.  29.773 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  29.773  Pilot Compartment View

    (a) * * *
    (2) Each pilot compartment must be free of glare and reflection
that could interfere with the pilot's view. If certification for night
operation is requested, this must be shown by ground or night flight
tests.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2016.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-24957 Filed 10-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 136 (Monday, July 18, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42651-42655]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15268]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[EPA-HQ-TRI-2022-0453; FRL-9427-01-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AL04

Implementing Statutory Addition of Certain Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) to the Toxics Release Inventory
Beginning With Reporting Years 2021 and 2022

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the list
of chemicals subject to toxic chemical release reporting under the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). Specifically, this action updates the
regulations to identify five per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
that must be reported pursuant to the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY2020 NDAA) enacted on December 20, 2019. As
this action is being taken to conform the regulations to a
Congressional legislative mandate, notice and comment rulemaking is
unnecessary.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 17, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-TRI-2022-0453, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Daniel R. Ruedy, Data Gathering
and Analysis Division (7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].
    For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act Hotline; telephone numbers: toll free at
(800) 424-9346 (select menu option 3) or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC, area and international; or go to https://www.epa.gov/home/epa-hotlines.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
process, or otherwise use any of the PFAS listed in this rule. The
following list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to
help readers determine whether this action applies to them. Potentially
affected entities may include:
     Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing
codes (corresponding to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes
20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324,
325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*,
211130*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120,
511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512230*, 512250*, 519130*, 541713*,
541715* or 811490*. *Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these
NAICS codes.
     Facilities included in the following NAICS codes
(corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 211130
(corresponds to SIC code 1321, Natural Gas Liquids, and SIC 2819,
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 212111,
212112, 212113 (corresponds to SIC code 12, Coal Mining (except 1241));
or 212221, 212222, 212230, 212299 (corresponds to SIC code 10, Metal
Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113,
221118, 221121, 221122, 221330 (limited to facilities that combust coal
and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in
commerce) (corresponds to SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric
Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (limited to facilities previously
classified in SIC code 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not
Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC code 5171,
Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (limited to facilities
primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee
basis (previously classified under SIC code 7389, Business Services,
NEC); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (limited to facilities
regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C,
42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (corresponds to SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems).
     Federal facilities.
    A more detailed description of the types of facilities covered by
the NAICS codes subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313 can be
found at: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/tri-covered-industry-sectors. To determine whether your facility would be
affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability
criteria in 40 CFR part 372, subpart B. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is codifying the five additional PFAS that were added to the
EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals (more commonly known as
the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)) since the last conforming rule
pursuant to the FY2020 NDAA (86 FR 29698, June 3, 2021) (FRL-10022-
25)).

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    This action is issued under the authority of section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (42 U.S.C.
11001 et seq.), section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (42
U.S.C. 13106), and section 7321 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY2020 NDAA) (Pub. L. 116-92, https://www.congress.gov/public-laws/116th-congress).

II. Background

A. What is NDAA section 7321?

    On December 20, 2019, the FY2020 NDAA was signed into law. Among
other provisions, section 7321(c) identifies certain regulatory
activities that automatically add PFAS or classes of PFAS to the EPCRA
section 313 list of reportable chemicals. Specifically, PFAS or classes
of PFAS are added to the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals
beginning January 1 of the calendar year after any one of the following
dates:
     Final Toxicity Value. The date on which the Administrator
finalizes a toxicity value for the PFAS or class of PFAS;
     Significant New Use Rule. The date on which the
Administrator makes a covered determination for the PFAS or class of
PFAS;
     Addition to Existing Significant New Use Rule. The date on
which the PFAS or class of PFAS is added to a list of substances
covered by a covered determination;
     Addition as an Active Chemical Substance. The date on
which the PFAS or class of PFAS to which a covered determination
applies is:
    (1) Added to the list published under section 8(b)(1) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) and designated
as an active chemical substance under TSCA section 8(b)(5)(A); or
    (2) Designated as an active chemical substance under TSCA section
8(b)(5)(B) on the list published under TSCA section 8(b)(1).
    The FY2020 NDAA defines ``covered determination'' as a
determination made by rule under TSCA section 5(a)(2) that a use of a
PFAS or class of PFAS is a significant new use (except such a
determination made in connection with a determination described in TSCA
sections 5(a)(3)(B) or 5(a)(3)(C)).
    Under FY2020 NDAA section 7321(e), EPA must review confidential
business information (CBI) claims before PFAS are added to the list
pursuant to subsections (b)(1), (c)(1), or (d)(3) whose identities are
subject to a claim of protection from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(a),
pursuant to subsection (b)(4) of that section. Under the FY2020 NDAA
EPA must:
     Review a claim of protection from disclosure; and
     Require that person to reassert and substantiate or
resubstantiate that claim in accordance with TSCA section 14(f) (15
U.S.C. 2613(f)).
    In addition, if EPA determines that the chemical identity of a PFAS
or class of PFAS qualifies for protection from disclosure, EPA must
include the PFAS or class of PFAS on the TRI in a manner that does not
disclose the protected information.

B. What PFAS have been added to the TRI list?

    EPA has reviewed the above-listed criteria and found five chemicals
that meet the requirements of this part of the FY2020 NDAA and whose
identity is not claimed as confidential business information (CBI).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Effective
                      Chemical name/CAS No.                                Triggering action             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (375-73-5)........................  Final Toxicity Value (Ref. 1).....      1/1/22
Perfluorobutanesulfonate (45187-15-3)...........................  Final Toxicity Value (Ref. 1).....      1/1/22
Potassium perfluorobutane sulfonate (29420-49-3)................  Final Toxicity Value (Ref. 1).....      1/1/22
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-,                                      Subject to a covered TSCA section       1/1/21
 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-                 5(a)(2) determination and has
 heneicosafluorododecyl ester, polymer with                        been designated as an active
 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl 2-      chemical substance under TSCA
 methyl-2-propenoate, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate,                section 8(b)(5)(B) on the list
 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14-     published under TSCA section
 pentacosafluorotetradecyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and               8(b)(1).
 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-tridecafluorooctyl 2-methyl-2-
 propenoate (65104-45-2).
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, hexadecyl ester, polymers with 2-    Addition to Existing Significant        1/1/22
 hydroxyethyl methacrylate, gamma-omega-perfluoro-C10-6-alkyl      New Use Rule (see 85 FR 45109,
 acrylate and stearyl methacrylate (203743-03-7).                  July 27, 2020) (FRL-10010-44) CBI
                                                                   Declassification (Ref. 2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, under FY2020 NDAA section 7321(e), EPA must review
CBI claims before PFAS whose identities are subject to a claim of
protection from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (pursuant to
subsection (b)(4)) are added to the list. The substance with the CAS
No. 203743-03-7 met the criteria under FY2020 NDAA section
7321(c)(1)(A)(iii), but was subject to a claim of protection from
disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) at that time. That substance's
identity has since been published on the non-confidential portion of
the TSCA Inventory in 2021; therefore, the chemical was added to the
list.
    As established by the FY2020 NDAA, the addition of these PFAS to
the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals is effective January
1 of the calendar year following any of the dates identified in FY2020
NDAA section 7321(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, four of these five non-CBI
PFAS are reportable for the 2022 reporting year (i.e., reports due July
1, 2023). One of the five is reportable for the 2021 reporting year
(i.e., reports due July 1, 2022). A triggering activity under FY2020
NDAA section 7321(c)(1)(A)(iv)(II) (i.e., a PFAS to which a covered
TSCA section 5(a)(2) determination is made and designated as an active
chemical substance under TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B) on the list published
under TSCA section 8(b)(1)) occurred for this PFAS in 2020, but it was
not identified in the conforming rule in 2021 (see Implementing
Statutory Addition of Certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
(PFAS) to the TRI Beginning with the Reporting Year 2021 final rule (86
FR 29698, June 3, 2021) (FRL-10022-25)). Due to the 2020 triggering
activity, this PFAS was added by the NDAA effective January 1, 2021.
This rule is conforming the regulatory text in the CFR to reflect this
addition.
    EPA is issuing this final rule to amend the EPCRA section 313 list
of reportable chemicals in 40 CFR 372.65 to include these five non-CBI
PFAS added pursuant to the FY2020 NDAA.

III. Good Cause Exception

    Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds
that public notice and comment procedures are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a
rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment.
The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule
final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because such
notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary. This action is being
taken to comply with a mandate in an Act of Congress, where Congress
identified actions that automatically add these chemicals to the TRI.
Thus, EPA has no discretion as to the outcome of this rule, which
merely aligns the regulations with the self-effectuating changes
provided by the FY2020 NDAA.

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not itself physically located in the
docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    1. EPA. Human Health Toxicity Values for Perfluorobutane
Sulfonic Acid and Related Compound Potassium Perfluorobutane
Sulfonate. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-20/345F: April 2021. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=350888.
    2. EPA. Updates to Confidential Status of Chemicals on the TSCA
Inventory. October 15, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/tsca-cbi/updates-confidential-status-chemicals-tsca-inventory.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA, 44 U.S.C 3501 et seq. Burden is defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(b). OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB
control numbers 2070-0212 and 2050-0078.
    Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting requirements
under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607 may use either EPA Toxic
Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 9350-1), or EPA Toxic
Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 9350-2). The Form R must
be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses
any listed chemical above threshold quantities and meets certain other
criteria. For the Form A, EPA established an alternative threshold for
facilities with low annual reportable amounts of a listed toxic
chemical. The annual reportable amount is equal to the combined total
quantities of the following waste management activities:
     Released at the facility (including disposed of within the
facility);
     Treated at the facility (as represented by amounts
destroyed or converted by treatment processes);

     Recovered at the facility as a result of recycling
operations;
     Combusted for the purpose of energy recovery at the
facility; and
     Amounts transferred from the facility to off-site
locations for the purpose of recycling, energy recovery, treatment,
and/or disposal.
    A facility that meets the appropriate reporting thresholds, but
estimates that the total annual reportable amount of the chemical does
not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take advantage of an alternative
manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 million pounds
per year of the chemical, provided that certain conditions are met, and
submit the Form A instead of the Form R. In addition, respondents may
designate the specific chemical identity of a substance as a trade
secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322 (42 U.S.C. 11042) and 40 CFR part
350. OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
related to Forms A and R, supplier notification, and petitions under
OMB Control No. 2070-0212 (EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) No.
2613.04) and those related to trade secret designations under OMB
Control No. 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428.12).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers relevant to
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and displayed
on the information collection instruments (e.g., forms, instructions).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The RFA
applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. As
discussed in Unit III., this rule is not subject to notice and comment
requirements because the Agency has invoked the APA ``good cause''
exception under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule will
not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal
Governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental
health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered
regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive order. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. As such,
NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action makes
changes to the reporting requirements for PFAS that will result in more
information being collected and provided to the public; it does not
have any impact on human health or the environment. This action does
not address any human health or environmental risks and does not affect
the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
This action makes changes to the reporting requirements for PFAS which
will provide information that government agencies and others can use to
identify potential problems, set priorities, and help inform
activities.
    Likewise, Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, January 27, 2021)
directs Federal agencies, as part of a Government wide approach to
reduce climate pollution impacts on minority populations and low-income
populations. However, the EPA believes that this type of action does
not directly concern human health or environmental conditions and
therefore cannot be evaluated with respect to potentially
disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples. This action involves additions
to reporting requirements that will not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment Although this action does
not concern human health or environmental conditions, the information
collected through TRI reporting will serve to inform communities living
near facilities that report to TRI, and there is the potential for new
information about toxic chemical releases and waste management
practices occurring in those communities to become available through
the TRI reporting data.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and the
EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Toxic chemicals.

    Dated: July 13, 2022.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40
CFR part 372 as follows:

PART 372--TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE REPORTING: COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW

0
1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.

0
2. Amend Sec.  372.65 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (d), add in alphabetical order to the table the entries
for ``Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid''; ``Perfluorobutanesulfonate'';
``Potassium perfluorobutane''; ``2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-,
3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-heneicosafluorododecyl
ester, polymer with 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-
heptadecafluorodecyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate,
3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14-
pentacosafluorotetradecyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and
3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-tridecafluorooctyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate'',
and ``2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, hexadecyl ester, polymers with 2-
hydroxyethyl methacrylate, .gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C10-6-alkyl
acrylate and stearyl methacrylate;'' and
0
b. In paragraph (e), add in numerical order to the table the entries
for ``375-73-5'', ``29420-49-3'', ``45187-15-3'', ``65104-45-2'', and
``203743-03-7.''
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  372.65  Chemicals and chemical categories to which this part
applies.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                            Table 4 to Paragraph (d)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Effective
                                  Chemical name                                       CAS No.          date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid...................................................        375-73-5          1/1/22
Perfluorobutanesulfonate........................................................      45187-15-3          1/1/22

                                                  * * * * * * *
Potassium perfluorobutane.......................................................      29420-49-3          1/1/22

                                                  * * * * * * *
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-        65104-45-2          1/1/21
 heneicosafluorododecyl ester, polymer with 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-
 heptadecafluorodecyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate,
 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14-
 pentacosafluorotetradecyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-
 tridecafluorooctyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate.......................................

                                                  * * * * * * *
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, hexadecyl ester, polymers with 2-hydroxyethyl           203743-03-7          1/1/22
 methacrylate, .gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C10-6-alkyl acrylate and stearyl
 methacrylate...................................................................

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

                        Table 5 to Paragraph (e)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Effective
       CAS No.                   Chemical name                 date
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
375-73-5.............  Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid....          1/1/22

                              * * * * * * *
29420-49-3...........  Potassium perfluorobutane........          1/1/22

                              * * * * * * *
45187-15-3...........  Perfluorobutanesulfonate.........          1/1/22

                              * * * * * * *
65104-45-2...........  2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-,               1/1/21
                        3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,1
                        0,11,11,12,12,12-
                        heneicosafluorododecyl ester,
                        polymer with
                        3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,1
                        0,10-heptadecafluorodecyl 2-
                        methyl-2-propenoate, methyl 2-
                        methyl-2-propenoate,
                        3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,1
                        0,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14-
                        pentacosafluorotetradecyl 2-
                        methyl-2-propenoate and
                        3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-
                        tridecafluorooctyl 2-methyl-2-
                        propenoate.

                              * * * * * * *
203743-03-7..........  2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-,               1/1/22
                        hexadecyl ester, polymers with 2-
                        hydroxyethyl methacrylate,
                        .gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C10-6-
                        alkyl acrylate and stearyl
                        methacrylate.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-15268 Filed 7-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P