[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38394-38397]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16504]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0328]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations For Marine Events, Manasquan River;
Seaside Park, New Jersey

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the enforcement date
of the special local regulation for the recurring New Jersey Offshore
Grand Prix, held in the waters of the Manasquan River and Atlantic
Ocean, near Seaside Park, New Jersey. The change of enforcement date
for the special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety
of life on navigable waters during the event. This action will restrict
vessel traffic in the waters of the Manasquan River and Atlantic Ocean
near Seaside Park, New Jersey, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on July 9,
2015, and July 10, 2015.

DATES: This rule is effective from July 9 to July 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-

2015-0328]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast
Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division, Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
COTP Captain of the Port

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The regulation for this recurring marine event may be found at 33
CFR 100.501, Table to Sec.  100.501, section (a), line ``7''. This
year, the date is different than published in the Table, so this
temporary final rule has been issued.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule after publication of
NPRM USCG-2015-0328 (80 FR 35281) which received no comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because information about the new
date was not received by the Coast Guard with sufficient time to make
the Final Rule effective 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register while also allowing for an opportunity to comment on the
proposed rule.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rulemaking establishing a
special local regulation are found in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes
the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations.
    The purpose of this special local regulation is to provide for the
safety of participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting
the event area while the Grand Prix is occurring.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard has previously published a list of annual marine
events within the Fifth Coast Guard District and special local
regulation locations at 33 CFR 100.501. The Table to Sec.  100.501
identifies special local regulations by COTP zone, with the COTP
Delaware Bay zone listed in section ``(a.)'' of the Table. The Table to
Sec.  100.501, at section (a.) event Number ``7'', describes the
enforcement date and regulated location for this marine event.
    The date listed in the Table has the marine event on the third
Wednesday and Thursday of July. However, this temporary rule changes
the marine event date to July 9, 2015 and July 10, 2015, to reflect the
actual date of the event for this year.
    The Coast Guard will temporarily suspend the regulation listed in
Table to Sec.  100.501, section (a) event Number ``7'', and insert this
temporary regulation at Table to Sec.  100.501, at section (a.) as
event Number ``15'', in order to reflect that the special local
regulation will be effective and enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00
p.m. on July 9, 2015 and July 10, 2015. This change is needed to
accommodate the sponsor's event plan. No other portion of the Table to
Sec.  100.501 or other provisions in Sec.  100.501 shall be affected by
this regulation.
    The regulated area of this special local regulation includes all
the waters of the Manasquan River from the New York and Long Branch
Railroad Bridge to Manasquan Inlet, together with all of the navigable
waters of the United States from Asbury Park, New Jersey, latitude
40[deg]14'00'' N.; southward to Seaside Park, New Jersey latitude
39[deg]55'00'' N., from the New Jersey shoreline seaward to the limits
of the Territorial Sea as defined in 33 CFR 2.22.
    A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to
view the marine event. Due to the need for vessel control during the
marine event vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide
for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.
Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.501, during the enforcement period,
vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive permission
from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
    The Coast Guard may assign an event patrol, as described in 33 CFR
100.40, to each regulated event listed in the table. Additionally, a
Patrol Commander may be assigned to oversee the patrol. The event
patrol and Patrol Commander may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
During the event, the Coast Guard Patrol Commander may forbid and
control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area(s). When
hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel in these
areas shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do
so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to
comply, or both. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the
event, or the operation of any vessel participating in the event, at
any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay will notify the public by broadcast
notice to mariners at least one hour prior to the times of enforcement.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation
will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule
will not be significant because: (i) The Coast Guard will make
extensive notification of the Special Local Regulation to the maritime
public via maritime advisories so mariners can alter their plans
accordingly; (ii) vessels may still be permitted to transit through the
Special Local Regulation with the permission of the Captain of the Port
on a case-by-case basis; and (iii) this rule will be enforced for only
the duration of the boat race.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration

on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities,
some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to anchor or transit along a portion of Manasquan River and
Inlet, as well as the New Jersey shore from Ashbury Park and Seaside
Park, New Jersey to the Territorial seas, on July 9, 2015 and July 10,
2015 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless cancelled earlier by the
Captain of the Port.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33
CFR part 100, applicable to Special Local Regulations on the navigable
waterways. This zone will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from
transiting the Manasquan River in the vicinity of Asbury Park, NJ, in
order to protect the safety of life and property on the waters for the
duration of the boat race. This rule is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. In the Table to Sec.  100.501, suspend line No. (a.)7; and
0
3. Add line No. (a.)15 to the Table to Sec.  100.501 to read as
follows:
* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     No.               Date                Event               Sponsor                     Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 (a.) Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay--COTP Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15...........  July 9th10th.......  New Jersey Offshore  Offshore             The waters of the Manasquan River
                                     Grand Prix.          Performance Assn.    from the New York and Long Branch
                                                          & New Jersey         Railroad Bridge to Manasquan
                                                          Offshore Racing      Inlet, together- with all of the
                                                          Assn.                navigable waters of the United
                                                                               States from Asbury Park, New
                                                                               Jersey, latitude 40[deg]14'00''
                                                                               N; southward to Seaside Park, New
                                                                               Jersey latitude 39[deg]55'00'' N,
                                                                               from the New Jersey shoreline
                                                                               seaward to the limits of the
                                                                               Territorial Sea. The race course
                                                                               area extends from Asbury Park to
                                                                               Seaside Park from the shoreline,
                                                                               seaward to a distance of 8.4
                                                                               nautical miles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: June 30, 2015.
B.A. Cooper,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2015-16504 Filed 7-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION 4104.1 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency= s Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Air and Radiation 2. OMB control number b. G None a _ 2_ 0_ 6_ 0_  _ 0_ 5_ 2_ 9_ __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. X Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. Three years from approval date b. X Other Specify: 7 / 31 /_ 2006 7. Title NESHAP for Hydrochloric Acid Production ( Proposed Rule)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 2032.03 9. Keywords Air pollution control, hydrochloric acid, HCl, chlorine, caustic scrubber 10. Abstract Respondents are owners and operators of facilities in the hydrochloric acid production source category. They would submit information indicating the performance of add on control devices. This information is needed to ensure compliance with the rule.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with A P@ and all others that apply with A X@) a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with A P@ and all others that apply with A X@) a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 71 b. Total annual responses 117 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 50,051 d. Current OMB inventory 50,052 e. Difference  1 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change  1 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 26 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 222 c. Total annualized cost requested 248 d. Current OMB inventory 248 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With A P@ and all others that apply with A X@) a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. _ P_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Bill Maxwell Phone: 919 541 5430 OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 15821-15822]
[DOCID:fr25mr08-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57521; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Delete NYSE Arca
Rule 6.88--Pacific Options Exchange Trading System

March 18, 2008.
    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 March 13, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been substantially prepared by NYSE Arca. NYSE Arca has designated
this proposal as one that neither significantly affects the protection
of investors or the public interest nor imposes any significant burden
on competition, under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NYSE Arca is proposing to amend its rules to delete NYSE Arca Rule
6.88 because it has determined that rule to be obsolete. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site,
http://www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca 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. NYSE Arca 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
    Upon review of NYSE Arca Rule 6.88, the Exchange has determined
that the rule is outdated and obsolete. This rule relates to options
trading on the Pacific Options Exchange Trading System (``POETS''). The
Exchange, however, no longer uses POETS for options trading. Therefore,
the Exchange proposes to eliminate the text of this Rule and reserve
the rule number for future use.
    POETS was the Exchange's automated trading system comprised of the
options order routing system, the automatic execution system (Auto-Ex),
the on-line limit order book system (Auto-Book), and the automatic
market quote update system (Auto-Quote). All functionality contained in
the POETS system has been completely decommissioned. Its replacement,
PCX Plus, was fully implemented as of March 2005.\5\ Since then, the
Exchange decommissioned PCX Plus and implemented its current options
trading platform, the OX system, during the third quarter of 2006.\6\
At the time POETS was decommissioned and PCX Plus was implemented,
rules pertaining to POETS were eliminated, as obsolete, from the
Exchange's rule set.\7\ Rule 6.88 inadvertently remained within the
Exchange's rule set without purpose or regulatory impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47838 (May 13,
2003), 68 FR 27129 (May 19, 2003) (SR-PCX-2002-36) (order approving
establishment of the PCX Plus system).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54238 (July 28,
2006), 71 FR 44758 (August 7, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-13) (order
approving establishment of the OX trading platform system).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53221 (February 3,
2006), 71 FR 6811 (February 9, 2006) (SR-PCX-2005-102) (order
approving elimination of obsolete rules related to POETS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has no plans to reactivate the POETS system;
therefore, any rules governing its use are outdated and unnecessary. By
eliminating the text of this rule, the Exchange hopes to eliminate any
unnecessary confusion for its members.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
particular, in that it will promote just and equitable principles of
trade, facilitate

transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and
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 proposed rule change does 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 this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing rule 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 if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with 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 fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay in order to allow the Exchange to remove an obsolete rule without
delay. The Commission believes such waiver is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because the existing
rule regarding the POETS system is obsolete and serves no purpose
related to the administration of the Exchange.\11\ Waiver of the 30-day
operative delay specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6) will allow the Exchange
to update its Rules without delay. For these reasons, the Commission
designates the proposals to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-27 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-NYSEArca-2008-27. 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 on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-27 and should be submitted on or before
April 15, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-5912 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22226-22228]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08697]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2122]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency

(FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS
report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before July 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2122, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Brown County, Kansas and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 19-07-0001S Preliminary Date: December 2, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Fairview.......................  City Hall, 505 West Front
                                          Street, Fairview, KS 66425.
City of Hamlin.........................  Brown County Courthouse, 601
                                          Oregon Street, Hiawatha, KS
                                          66434.
City of Hiawatha.......................  City Hall, 701 Oregon Street,
                                          Hiawatha, KS 66434.
City of Horton.........................  City Hall, 205 East 8th Street,
                                          Horton, KS 66439.
City of Morrill........................  City Hall, 612 Roxanna Street,
                                          Morrill, KS 66515.
City of Reserve........................  Reserve City Hall, 109 North
                                          Main Street, Hiawatha, KS
                                          66434.
City of Robinson.......................  City Hall, 118 Parsons Street,
                                          Robinson, KS 66532.
Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska......  Iowa Tribe of Kansas and
                                          Nebraska, 3345 B Thrasher
                                          Road, White Cloud, KS 66094.
Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas...............  Kickapoo Government Offices,
                                          824 111th Drive, Horton, KS
                                          66439.
Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas   Sac & Fox Nation Environmental
 and Nebraska.                            Department, 401 North Arch
                                          Street, Reserve, KS 66434.
Unincorporated Areas of Brown County...  Brown County Courthouse, 601
                                          Oregon Street, Hiawatha, KS
                                          66434.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Van Wert County, Ohio and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 14-05-4448S Preliminary Date: November 13, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Van Wert.......................  Municipal Building, 515 East
                                          Main Street, Van Wert, OH
                                          45891.
Unincorporated Areas of Van Wert County  Van Wert County Annex, 114 East
                                          Main, Van Wert, OH 45891.
Village of Middle Point................  Municipal Building, 103 North
                                          Adams Street, Middle Point, OH
                                          45863.

Village of Willshire...................  Van Wert County Annex, 114 East
                                          Main, Van Wert, OH 45891.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-08697 Filed 4-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58580-58583]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70442; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes
Concerning Panel Composition

September 18, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 1, 2013, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change amending the Code of Arbitration
Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') to simplify
arbitration panel selection in cases with three arbitrators. Under the
proposed rule change, FINRA would no longer require a customer to elect
one of the two existing panel-selection methods. Instead, parties in
all customer cases with three arbitrators would use the same selection
method. Specifically, FINRA would provide all parties with lists of ten
chair-qualified public arbitrators, ten public arbitrators, and ten
non-public arbitrators. FINRA would permit the parties to strike four
arbitrators on the chair-qualified public list and four arbitrators on
the public list. However, any party could select an all-public
arbitration panel by striking all of the arbitrators on the non-public
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on June 20, 2013.\3\ The Commission received fifteen comment
letters on the proposed rule change,\4\ and, on August 7, 2013,
received FINRA's response to the comments.\5\ The text of the proposed
rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org,
at the principal office of FINRA, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 69762 (June 13, 2013), 78 FR
37267 (June 20, 2013), (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters from Philip M. Aidikoff, Partner, Aidikoff, Uhl
and Bakhtiari, dated July 10, 2013 (``Aidikoff Letter''); Ryan K.
Bakhtiari, Aidikoff, Uhl and Bakhtiari, dated July 10, 2013
(``Bakhtiari Letter''); David T. Bellaire, Esq., Executive Vice
President and General Counsel, Financial Services Institute, dated
July 11, 2013 (``FSI Letter''); Steve A. Buchwalter, Attorney, dated
July 10, 2013 (``Buchwalter Letter''); Steven B. Caruso, Esquire,
Maddox Hargett Caruso, P.C., dated June 18, 2013 (``Caruso
Letter''); George Friedman, Esq., dated June 25, 2013 (``Friedman
Letter''); Glenn S. Gitomer, McCausland Keen & Buckman, dated July
11, 2013 (``Gitomer Letter''); Jill I. Gross, Investor Rights
Clinic, Pace University School of Law, dated July 11, 2013 (``Pace
Law Letter''); Scott C. Ilgenfritz, President, Public Investors
Arbitration Bar Association, dated July 11, 2013 (``PIABA Letter'');
Christine Lazaro, Esq., Acting Director, and Pamela M. Albanese,
Legal Intern, St. John's University School of Law Securities
Arbitration Clinic, dated July 9, 2013 (``St. John's Law Letter'');
Seth E. Lipner, Professor of Law, Zicklin School of Business and
Deutsch & Lipner, dated July 2, 2013 (``Lipner Letter''); David P.
Neuman, Stoltmann Law Offices, dated July 2, 2013 (``Neuman
Letter''); Mark E. Sanders, Attorney, dated July 11, 2013 (``Sanders
Letter''); Debra G. Speyer, Esq., Law Offices of Debra G. Speyer,
dated July 10, 2013 (``Speyer Letter''); and Leonard Steiner,
Attorney, dated July 10, 2013 (``Steiner Letter'').
    \5\ Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Assistant Chief Counsel, FINRA
Dispute Resolution, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated August 7, 2013 (``FINRA Letter'').
    Although the Speyer Letter was dated July 10, 2013, it was
submitted on September 13, 2013. Since it supports the proposal, we
have not asked FINRA for an additional response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order approves the proposed rule change.

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Current Panel Composition Methods at the Forum

    Under the Customer Code, parties in arbitration participate in
selecting the arbitrators who serve on their cases. Until January 31,
2011, the Customer

Code contained one panel composition method for cases with three
arbitrators (generally cases with claims of more than $100,000).\6\
This method provided for a panel composed of one chair-qualified public
arbitrator, one public arbitrator, and one non-public arbitrator (the
``Majority Public Panel Option''). To begin the selection process,
FINRA used its computerized Neutral List Selection System (``NLSS'') to
generate random lists of ten arbitrators in each of the three
categories. The parties selected their panel through a process of
striking and ranking the arbitrators on the lists generated by NLSS.
The Customer Code permitted the parties to strike the names of up to
four arbitrators from each list. The parties then ranked the
arbitrators remaining on the lists in order of preference. FINRA
appointed the panel from among the names remaining on the lists that
the parties returned.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See FINRA Rule 12401 which provides that if the amount of a
claim is more than $100,000, exclusive of interest and expenses, or
is unspecified, or if the claim does not request money damages, the
panel will consist of three arbitrators, unless the parties agree in
writing to one arbitrator.
    \7\ Under the Majority Public Panel Option, a customer can
ensure the participation of a non-public arbitrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA states that customer advocates argued that the mandatory
inclusion of a non-public arbitrator in a three-arbitrator case raised
a perception that FINRA Dispute Resolution's forum was not fair to
customers. In order to address this perception, FINRA amended the panel
composition rule (old FINRA Rule 12402), and related rules, of the
Customer Code to, among other things, implement a new panel composition
rule (current FINRA Rule 12403) for customer cases with three
arbitrators.\8\ Under FINRA Rule 12403, customers may choose between
two panel composition methods: (1) The Majority Public Panel Option and
(2) the all public panel option (the ``All Public Panel Option''),
which allows any party to select an arbitration panel consisting of
three public arbitrators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Act Rel. No. 63799 (Jan. 31, 2011), 76 FR 6500
(Feb. 4, 2011) (``2011 Order'') and Regulatory Notice 11-05 (Feb.
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a customer choses the All Public Panel Option, FINRA sends the
parties the same three lists of randomly generated arbitrators that
they would have received under the Majority Public Panel Option (i.e.,
ten chair-qualified public arbitrators, ten public arbitrators, and ten
non-public arbitrators). However, Rule 12403 allows either or both
parties to strike any or all of the arbitrators on the non-public
arbitrator list. FINRA will not appoint a non-public arbitrator if
either party individually or both parties collectively strike all the
arbitrators appearing on the non-public list or if all remaining
arbitrators on the non-public list are unable or unwilling to serve for
any reason. In these situations, FINRA will select the next highest-
ranked public arbitrator to complete the panel. In other words, if a
customer chooses the All Public Panel Option, any party can ensure that
the panel will have three public arbitrators by striking all the
arbitrators on the non-public list.
    FINRA Rule 12403 provides that a customer may choose a panel
composition method in the statement of claim (or accompanying
documentation) or at any time up to 35 days from service of the
statement of claim. To make the customer aware of his or her available
options, FINRA states that it generally notifies the customer in
writing that he or she may elect the All Public Panel Option within 35
days from service of the statement of claim. In the absence of an
affirmative choice by the customer, the Majority Public Panel Option is
the default composition method.

B. Proposal to Use One Panel Composition Method at the Forum

    Based on its experience with the two panel composition methods,
FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 12403 to use one panel composition
method in all customer cases.\9\ That method would mirror the All
Public Panel Option, with one clarifying change relating to striking
and ranking arbitrators. Currently, Rule 12403(d)(3)(B)(i) provides
that ``[e]ach separately represented party may strike up to four of the
arbitrators from the chairperson and public arbitrator lists for any
reason by crossing through the names of the arbitrators.'' FINRA is
proposing to clarify that provision by amending it to state that
``[e]ach separately represented party may strike up to four of the
arbitrators from the chairperson list and up to four of the arbitrators
from the public arbitrator list for any reason by crossing through the
names of the arbitrators.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the Notice, FINRA represented that from February 1, 2011
(the date the current panel composition rule went into effect)
through March 31, 2013, customers in approximately three-quarters of
eligible cases have chosen the All Public Panel Option. Of the
customers using the Majority Public Panel Option, 77 percent have
done so by default rather than by making an affirmative choice
(i.e., these customers did not make an election in their statement
of claim or accompanying documentation, and did not respond to the
follow-up letter FINRA sent). FINRA also represented that over the
same time period customers selecting the All Public Panel Option
have chosen to strike all of the non-public arbitrators in 66
percent of the cases during the ranking process. Customers have
ranked one or more non-public arbitrators in 34 percent of cases and
four or more in 13 percent of cases proceeding under the All Public
Panel Option. Industry parties have ranked one or more non-public
arbitrators in 97 percent of cases and have ranked four or more non-
public arbitrators in 90 percent of cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comment Letters and FINRA's Response

    As noted above, the Commission received fifteen comment letters on
the proposed rule change. Thirteen comment letters expressed support
for the proposal, although two of these thirteen also raised specific
concerns.\10\ Two commenters opposed the proposal in part.\11\ The
comment letters and FINRA's response are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See FSI Letter and PIABA Letter.
    \11\ See Friedman Letter and Pace Law Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eleven commenters expressed support for the proposal.\12\ In
particular, one commenter expressed wholehearted support for the
proposal.\13\ Other commenters noted their support for making the All
Public Panel Option the default option. For example, several commenters
stated that making this method the default would relieve customers of
the burden associated with affirmatively selecting an all public panel;
\14\ while others stated that making this method the default would
protect investors with arbitration claims.\15\ Other commenters
expressly noted their support for implementing a single method of panel
selection. For example, one commenter stated that implementing a single
panel-selection method would benefit public investors and the integrity
of the arbitration forum.\16\ Another commenter stated that a single
method would benefit public investors, particularly pro se
claimants.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Aidikoff Letter, Bakhtiari Letter, Buchwalter Letter,
Caruso Letter, Gitomer Letter, Lipner Letter, Neuman Letter, Sanders
Letter, Speyer Letter, St. John's Law Letter, and Steiner Letter.
    \13\ See Buchwalter Letter.
    \14\ See Gitomore Letter, Lipner Letter, Neuman Letter, Speyer
Letter, St. John's Law Letter, and Steiner Letter. See also Pace Law
Letter.
    \15\ See Bakhtiari Letter and Sanders Letter.
    \16\ See Caruso Letter.
    \17\ See Aidikoff Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter generally supported the proposed rule change, but
expressed concern that, if it was approved, FINRA would stop tracking
the disparity in results between all public panels and those that
include non-public arbitrators.\18\ This commenter also suggested that
FINRA amend the definition of ``public arbitrator'' to exclude
attorneys who spend a

significant portion of their time representing investors and claimants
in FINRA arbitrations. This commenter's suggestion would effectively
prevent those attorneys from serving as ``public arbitrators'' on
arbitration panels.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See FSI Letter (stating that ``all public panels deliver
more favorable outcomes for investors than those panels with non-
public arbitrators that understand the financial industry.'').
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded that it will continue tracking award results
separately for all public panels and majority public panels and will
consider the cause for any disparity if the data suggest the need to do
so. FINRA also stated that it is not proposing to amend its arbitrator
definitions, and therefore believes that the commenter's suggestion is
outside the scope of the proposed rule change. FINRA noted, however,
that it is separately reviewing its non-public and public arbitrator
definitions for potential changes, including whether to exclude
attorneys who spend a significant portion of their time representing
investors and claimants in FINRA arbitrations.
    Another commenter also generally supported the proposed rule
change.\20\ This commenter also suggested that FINRA emphasize in its
transmittal letter accompanying the arbitrator ranking form and the
arbitrator disclosure reports that each party has the ability and right
to have the case heard by an arbitration panel comprised of only public
arbitrators. This commenter expressed the view that emphasizing the two
alternative types of panels available under the revised rule and the
ability and right of the parties to have their cases heard by an all-
public panel would be appropriate and beneficial to investors.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See PIABA Letter.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded that it will revise the transmittal letter
accompanying the arbitrator ranking form and the arbitrator disclosure
reports to clarify earlier in the letter that any party has the option
of selecting an all public panel.
    Two commenters opposed the proposal, in part, because it would
eliminate a customer's ability to ensure that a non-public arbitrator
is empaneled.\22\ Both commenters suggested that there may be
circumstances in which a customer may want a non-public arbitrator on
his or her panel. For example, one commenter noted that a customer may
believe that a non-public arbitrator would be a better arbiter of the
professional norms of the broker-dealer activity at issue in an
arbitration.\23\ Both commenters stated, however, that under the
proposal a broker-dealer counterparty could frustrate a customer's
objective by striking all ten names on the non-public arbitrators list.
Alternatively, these commenters recommended (1) that FINRA retain the
two current panel composition methods and (2) if the customer does not
affirmatively opt out of the All Public Panel Option within 35 days,
the default would be the All Public Panel Option instead of the current
Majority Public Panel Option. The commenters expressed the belief that
this method would preserve a customer's right to ensure the presence of
a non-public arbitrator on his or her panel while addressing FINRA's
concern about inexperienced parties inadvertently failing to exercise
their right to elect the All Public Panel Option.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Friedman Letter and Pace Law Letter.
    \23\ See Pace Law Letter.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA acknowledged the commenters' concern that parties would no
longer be guaranteed the option of having a non-public arbitrator on
their panel.\25\ FINRA noted, however, that forum users have not
generally raised this concern with FINRA. In addition, FINRA stated
that if either party or both parties strike all the names on the non-
public arbitrators list, or if the non-public arbitrator they select is
not available to serve, the parties can still agree to empanel a non-
public arbitrator. In this situation, the parties could ask FINRA to
send a supplemental list of non-public arbitrators for the parties'
review. FINRA indicated that it would generally accommodate such
requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See FINRA Letter. As stated above, under the All Public
Panel Option, any party can ensure that the panel will have three
public arbitrators by striking all the arbitrators on the non-public
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA agreed with commenters that the non-public arbitrators on its
roster are capable of identifying and judging poor broker conduct.\26\
However, FINRA stated that the public arbitrators on its roster are
also capable of doing so. FINRA explained that both customer and firm
representatives frequently use expert witnesses at a hearing.
Accordingly, in FINRA's view, if a customer is concerned about whether
an all public panel can properly identify poor broker conduct, he or
she will generally already have access to an expert witness to testify
about industry practices. FINRA stated that customers will rarely have
to incur additional expenses related to the use of expert witnesses
because of the proposed rule change. FINRA further indicated that the
benefits of simplifying the panel selection method outweigh this
potential for additional costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Friedman Letter and Pace Law Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, FINRA stated that based on its experience using the two
panel selection methods, it believes that a simpler approach to panel
selection would benefit all parties using its forum and would improve
the efficiency of case administration. Therefore, FINRA declined to
amend its proposal as suggested by the commenters.

IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change, the
comments received, and FINRA's response. Based on its review, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities association.\27\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Exchange Act Section 15A(b)(6),\28\
which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal is
consistent with the provisions of Exchange Act Section 15A(b)(6)
because it would (a) simplify the arbitrator selection process for all
parties and FINRA staff while leaving in place the method used by
customers in approximately three-quarters of customer cases since the
method became effective; and (b) ensure that customers would not
inadvertently miss the opportunity to select an all public panel
because it would be the default option. In the 2011 Order, we noted
commenter concerns that customers without attorneys, or attorneys new
to the practice of securities arbitration, might not elect the All
Public Panel Option within the prescribed deadline, or might not
appreciate the significance of making such an election.\29\ In light of
those comments, FINRA implemented the notification procedure discussed
earlier. As stated above, the proposed rule change would further
ameliorate these concerns by making the All Public Panel Option the
default option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Supra note 8.

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

    In addition, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
would not increase, and could decrease, the burden parties incur in
panel selection. FINRA would continue to send the parties the same
three lists of arbitrators. While the parties could choose to continue
to review all three lists, they could also choose to strike all of the
non-public arbitrators and only review the remaining two lists.
    We appreciate the concerns of some commenters, and recognize that
some customers may want to empanel a non-public arbitrator in a
particular matter. Therefore, we are requesting FINRA to gather
statistics for a period of one year from the effective date of this
rule change and report to the Commission on the number of cases in
which a customer ranking a non-public arbitrator nonetheless receives
an all public panel.
    For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Exchange Act Section
19(b)(2),\30\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2013-023) be, and
it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23127 Filed 9-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 42310]
[DOCID:fr21au09-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0395]

Draft Guidance for Industry, User Facilities, and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; eMDR--Electronic Medical Device Reporting;
Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance entitled ``eMDR--Electronic Medical
Device Reporting.'' The draft guidance document addresses general
issues related to the submission of postmarket medical device reports
(MDRs) in electronic format. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, FDA is publishing a proposed rule to require that
manufacturers, importers, and user facilities submit most MDRs to the
agency in electronic format.

DATES:  Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21
CFR 10.115 (g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on
this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance
by November 19, 2009.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance document entitled ``eMDR--Electronic Medical Device
Reporting'' to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and
Consumer Assistance , Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 66, rm.
4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive
label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your
request to<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
comments concerning this draft guidance to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
www.regulations.gov. Identify comments with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Press, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Building 66, rm. 3320, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-
6087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The draft guidance document provides information related to the
submission of postmarket MDRs in electronic format, including technical
information. The information provided in the draft guidance document is
intended to help reporters prepare the MDR for electronic submission in
a way that would satisfy the requirements of FDA's proposed electronic
Medical device reporting regulation that is published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized will represent the agency's current thinking on electronic
medical device reporting (eMDR). It does not create or confer any
rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by using the Internet. To receive an electronic copy of ``eMDR--
Electronic Medical Device Reporting'' you may either send an e-mail
request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER> to
receive a hard copy. Please use the document number 1679 to identify
the guidance you are requesting.
    The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) maintains an
entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text,
graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with
Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page
includes device safety alerts, Federal Register reprints, information
on premarket submissions (including lists of approved applications and
manufacturers' addresses), small manufacturer's assistance, information
on video conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters,
and other device-oriented information. The CDRH Web site may be
accessed at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh. A search capability for all CDRH
guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/
guidance.html. Guidance documents are also available on the Division of
Dockets Management Internet site at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to proposed collections of information
described in FDA's proposed rule on medical device reporting,
electronic submission requirements, published elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register. The proposed collections of information in the
proposed rule are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520). In accordance with the proposed medical device regulation,
medical device manufacturers, importers, and user facilities would be
required to submit MDRs to FDA, to maintain records, and may also seek
exemption or variance from these requirements. Manufacturers, importer,
and user facilities are currently submitting paper MDR reports on FDA
Form 3500 A, for which the existing information collection requirements
under 21 CFR part 803 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0437.
The changes to the burden associated with this proposed rule have been
sent to OMB as a revision to OMB control number 0910-0437 for review
under section 307(d) of the PRA.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES), written or electronic comments regarding this
document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper
copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one
paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found
in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be
seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.

    Dated: August 11, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-19681 Filed 8-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


VIA E-MAIL

April 12, 2010

Mr. Jeffrey A. Telander

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 TW Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

Mr. William Neuffer

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 TW Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

RE:	Follow-Up on Test Method Issues

Dear Messrs. Telander and Neuffer:

The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (“NAIMA”) appreciated the opportunity to discuss with the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) on Monday, March 29, 2010 the appropriate test methods for emissions data that will be provided to EPA pursuant to the Information Collection Requests (“ICRs”) for the wool fiberglass and mineral wool MACT Standards.  In a letter to EPA dated March 26, 2010, NAIMA requested EPA’s consideration of alternative test methods to those identified in the draft ICRs.  NAIMA explained that use of alternative test methods was important because of the extensive data collected by these alternative methods and the fact that every company is operating at reduced production, which means that many lines are not operating and new data could not be collected for those non-operating lines.

During the March 29, 2010 conference call, EPA agreed to accept data collected by the following alternatives:

EPA Method 316 for formaldehyde

EPA Method 308 for methanol

SW-846 Method 8270D for phenol

EPA Method 10 for carbon monoxide

EPA Methods 15 and 320 for carbonyl sulfide

NAIMA also asked for EPA to consider other alternatives for which the Agency indicated it would need additional support or explanation as to the relevance and reliability of these test methods.  This letter sets forth that additional support for the following alternative test methods:

California Method ST 16/Gas Chromatography – Phenol

As previously noted, California Method ST 16 is as effective as Method 318 for testing of phenol and has the decided advantage of providing reliable results and leveraging extensive available data.  NAIMA specifically referenced side-by-side comparisons of Method 318 and ST 16.  This comparison is provided by Owens Corning:

During December 2008, Owens Corning responded to an EPA Section 114 request to quantify its VOC emissions from its Kansas City plant.  Part of that request involved testing for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol at the plant’s #70 line in December 2008.  A protocol was submitted and reviewed by technical experts from EPA headquarters and Region 7 and approved by Adam Kushner at EPA headquarters.  The approval specifically authorized California Method ST 16:

“At Owens Corning’s discretion EPA Method 8270C ‘Semi-volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry’ may be used in lieu of Analytical Procedure Lab-8, BAAQMD Method ST-16.”  (EPA letter to Owens Corning dated October 27, 2008.)

The protocol identifies ST 16 for phenol and a method modification substituting a standard Method 5 train for sample collection.  The samples are collected in the impingers which are filled with a solution of 0.1 normal (0.1N) sodium hydroxide which absorbs the phenolic compounds. The phenolic compounds are then analyzed by gas chromatography. This method was employed, and additional Method 318 sampling was run to identify VOC species previously undetected.  The Method 318 results were evaluated for known and unknown VOC species.  The 1 hour Method 318 test was evaluated for all VOC species including phenol.  The Method ST 16 and the Method 318 phenol results are compared in the chart below.

Phenol Comparison Results

70 line Testing December 2008

Location	Phenol Results  lbs/hr

Modified ST-16 	Phenol Results lbs/hr

FTIR (M-318)

Forming Zone A	.249	< .07

Forming Zone C	.436	< .09

Forming Zone D	.258	< .09

Oven Charge	.032	< .02

Oven Dis-Charge	.024	< .02

Cooling	ND	< .03

The testing results were obtained on the same product during subsequent days because simultaneous testing was not possible.  From this data, there appears to be a large amount of line loss for phenol using Method 318.  Phenol also comes off near the water band where for forming sources with saturated levels of water, the phenol peak may be hard to accurately quantify.  The stated range for ST 16 for phenolic compounds is 200 ppb at the sample volume specified in this method; however, the sample volume was approximately 3 times the standard volume.

EPA Method TO-8 – Phenol Testing

NAIMA also requested that EPA accept Method TO-8 as an alternative test method for phenol.  Again, this Method was as effective as Method 318 and has the decided advantage of reliable results and leveraging extensive available data.  CertainTeed has provided additional analysis on the efficacy of EPA Method TO-8 for phenol.  Specifically, in response to EPA Section 114 requests to conduct source testing for specific VOC emissions at several wool fiberglass insulation plants, EPA approved the use of EPA Method TO-8 for determining phenol and methyl phenols emissions.  Testing associated with these Section 114 requests was conducted at the following CertainTeed Plants:

	Mountain Top, PA		August 2007

	Athens, GA			January 2009

	Kansas City, KS		January 2009

	Chowchilla, CA		January 2009

The detailed source test reports were submitted to both the applicable Regional (3, 4, 7 and 9) and headquarters offices of EPA.  Cary Secrest at EPA headquarters was very involved in these Section 114 test protocols.

Phenol Emissions – EPA Compendium Method TO-8

The concentration of phenol in the flue gas stream was collected using sampling procedures outlined in Method TO-8.  The flue gas was withdrawn at a constant rate through a Teflon probe and passed through a series of glass midget impingers contained in an ice bath.  The first three impingers contained 15 ml of 0.1 N NaOH followed by a dry impinger, and then an impinger containing silica gel.  At the completion of each test, the contents of the first two impingers were recovered together in a glass vial and sealed with a Teflon lined screw cap.  The contents of the third and fourth impinger were recovered separately in a glass vial and analyzed separately to determine sample breakthrough.  The phenols were trapped as phenolates.  All samples were subsequently analyzed by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

The Athens, Georgia, sample event, for example, had an ND blank value of 5.5 (g per sample for the TO-8 sample train.  This would equate to in-stack detection limits of 0.0481 ppm, 0.0677 lb/hr, and 0.00857 lb/ton.  The actual samples had “catches” ranging from 241 to 309 (g – well above the detection limits of the method at the ~ 2 ppm range observed in the stack.

Section 1.3.2. of Appendix A to Part 63 – Test Method (Method 318 – Extractive FTIR Method for the Measurement of Emissions from the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries) provides: “In general, a 22 meter pathlength cell in a suitable sampling system can achieve practical detection limits of 1.5 ppm for three compounds (formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol) at moisture levels up to 15 percent by volume.”

Based on CertainTeed’s experience, NAIMA asserts that the use of Method TO-8 as an alternative to Method 318 is an appropriate source test method.  The in-stack detection limit, using the Athens, Georgia, test as an example, is significantly better than the published practical detection limit for Method 318, 0.05 vs. 1.5 ppm, respectively.  Similarly, the measured phenol concentration of approximately 2 ppm is 40 times higher than the TO-8 detection limit and only slightly above the Method 318 detection limit.

EPA Method 5/202

NAIMA requested that EPA Method 5/202 be allowed as an alternative to EPA Other Test Methods (“OTM”) 27 and 28.  NAIMA expressed concern that some stacks might not be able to accommodate an OTM 27 probe without significant blockage, which adds variability to emission test procedures and results.  In addition, Method 5 is often required to be used in place of Method 27 due to the presence of water droplets that cause Method 27 to provide erroneous readings.  Method 5 has been a reasonable substitute for Method 201A which is similar to Method 27 because all of the captured emissions were presumed to be PM10 or finer.  In fact, Method 5/202 has been accepted as an alternative in previous ICRs.  See EPRI, “Responding to the EPA Information Collection Request for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units,” January 2010.  In comparison testing on furnaces, this has proved to be true as illustrated by the comparison below from Knauf Insulation involving cold top furnaces with baghouses:

Knauf Shasta Lake, California - 641 Furnace

	Method 5/028

	08/06/09	08/06/09	08/06/09	Average

	Front Half Filter, lb/hr	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00

Front Half Wash, lb/hr	0.06	0.01	0.00	0.02

Front Half, lb/hr	0.06	0.01	0.00	0.02

Back Half Aqeous, lb/hr	0.07	0.06	0.05	0.06

Back Half MeCl, lb/hr	0.03	0.09	0.05	0.006

Back Half, lb/hr	0.10	0.15	0.10	0.12

	Total, lb/hr	0.162	0.152	0.100	0.14

Knauf Shelbyville, Indiana - 602 Furnace

	Method 5/202

	11/09/07	11/09/07	11/09/07	Average

	Front Half, lb/hr	0.08	0.04	0.06	0.06

Back Half, lb/hr	0.82	0.51	0.56	0.63

 Total, lb/hr	0.990	0.55	0.62	0.69

The above tables provide test data from testing events at two TECO cold top electric furnaces with baghouses for PM control: 641 Furnace at Shasta Lake, California, and 602 Furnace at Shelbyville, Indiana, facilities.  There is a third TECO cold top furnace with baghouse in operation at the Shelbyville plant.  The data in the above tables are from testing using EPA Method 5 Modified/202 (Shelbyville) and Method 5/028 (Shasta Lake).  The Shelbyville data was generated using the Subpart NNN referenced modified Method 5 for front half PM.  The modified Method 5 requires a filter temperature of no greater than 350°F +/- 25°F vs. the standard Method 5 filter temperature of 248°F +/- 25°F.  The 202 vs. 028 data appears to show the bias between the two methods and would support the move to the proposed revised/modified 202 (OTM 28).

Both sets of data support the contention that front half Method 5 data is representative of PM/PM10/PM2.5 emissions from a cold top electric furnace with a baghouse.  The filterable PM emissions are extremely low.  It is reasonable to stipulate that all of the measured filterable PM from this source category is PM2.5 or less due to the low mass collected and the fact that the sampling occurred after a high efficiency baghouse.  Therefore, the existing Shasta Lake Method 5/028 data should be accepted as representative for the cold top electric furnace with baghouse source category for purposes of responding to the draft ICRs.  Both of the testing events referenced were witnessed by State and/or local agency representatives and submitted to the applicable agency as required in Knauf’s operating permits.  Copies of the full test reports are available and will be submitted in the response to the applicable draft ICR questions.

OTM 28 is a new method that has not been used extensively in the fiber glass industry.  Limited use of this method indicates that on dry melter sources with little SO2, there is virtually no difference in measurement results when compared to Method 202.  The data comparison between Method 202 and OTM 28 indicate that the use of OTM 28 is more important on wet sources.  Therefore, data captured by Method 5/Method 202 is virtually equivalent to data captured by OTM 27/OTM 28 for electric melters and furnaces.

EPA Method 30B

NAIMA requested that EPA Method 29 be used to test for mercury.  NAIMA pointed out that mercury was not used in the manufacturing process, so there was not a need to separately test for mercury.  EPA indicated that it would consider NAIMA’s request if it could be demonstrated that the threshold for mercury emissions was sufficiently low.  Member companies provided any mercury emissions test data they had to NAIMA’s outside counsel.  Only two companies had mercury emissions test data.  One fiber glass facility’s four total tests of three different furnaces yielded emissions ranging from 0.17 to 6.5 pounds of mercury per year.  Similarly, one mineral wool facility reported mercury emissions from multiple tests that range from 0.18 to 0.97 pounds per year.  Based on the low mercury emissions, separate testing for mercury pursuant to EPA Method 30B is not warranted for the wool fiberglass and mineral wool insulation industries.

EPA Method 306 and CARB 425

NAIMA requested that EPA consider EPA Method 306 and CARB 425 as alternatives to EPA Method 0061 for hexavalent chromium because Method 0061 cannot always be successfully used in high temperature environments.  EPA was willing to consider these alternatives if a third party could validate the problems described by NAIMA and its members.  NAIMA acquired the opinion of Bureau Veritas, attached hereto, which confirmed NAIMA’s characterization of the possible complications with using EPA Method 0061 in high temperature environments.

EPA Method 26A

EPA designated EPA Method 26A for testing of hydrochloric acid and hydrogen fluoride.  Initially NAIMA did not believe there was a basis for testing for either of these emissions.  EPA requested that NAIMA survey its members to determine if fluorspars or similar minerals are used in the manufacturing process that might trigger hydrogen fluoride emissions or other substances that would trigger hydrochloric acid emissions.  Based on member company responses provided to NAIMA’s outside counsel, there is a basis for wool fiberglass manufacturers to test for hydrogen fluoride.  This data will be included in the industry response.  There is not, however, a basis for such a test in the mineral wool industry as mineral wool facilities do not utilize fluorspars or similar minerals which would provide a basis for testing of hydrogen fluoride.  There was a fraction of hydrogen fluoride in a mineral wool facility in a report from the early 1990s that was based on an emissions factor.  The survey indicated that neither wool fiberglass nor mineral wool have a basis to test for hydrochloric acid.  NAIMA requests that EPA therefore not require the mineral wool industry to test for either hydrogen fluoride or hydrochloric acid and that EPA excuse the wool fiberglass industry from testing for hydrochloric acid.

If EPA desires further discussions on these issues, NAIMA would gladly schedule a conference call to bring a final resolution to any of these remaining issues.  Based on this letter, NAIMA requests that EPA allow the use of alternative test methods as described herein in order to expedite completion of the ICR.

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane

Angus E. Crane

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

%

*

7

G

P

v

ˆ

‰

ø

ù

␃愃̤摧笿®

␃愃̤摧䋀?ᜀv

w

x

y

}

~

·

C

D

‡

ˆ

‰

Š

ù

há

6

혈F鐃᳿ꐋⰖ"蠆

蠆

蠆

혈F鐃᳿ꐋⰖ"蠆

蠆

蠆

혈F鐃᳿ꐋⰖ"蠆

蠆

蠆

혈F鐃᳿ꐋⰖ"蠆

蠆

蠆

혈F鐃᳿ꐋⰖ"蠆

蠆

蠆

혈F鐃᳿ꐋⰖ"蠆

蠆

蠆

혈F鐃᳿ꐋⰖ"蠆

蠆

蠆

kdÙ

摧䄟-Ê欀ɤ

*▪  Suite 310  ▪  Alexandria, Virginia  22314  ▪  Tel: (703) 684-0084  ▪  Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12267-12268]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-1085]
RIN 1625-AA09

Extension of Comment Period for the Draft Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Construction of Railroad Bridges Across
Sand Creek and Lake Pend Oreille at Sandpoint, Bonner County, Idaho

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Coast Guard is extending the comment period
for the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) which appeared in the
Federal Register on February 6, 2019 for the proposed construction of
railroad bridges across Lake Pend Oreille and Sand Creek at Sandpoint,
Bonner County, Idaho. The draft EA addresses environmental impacts and
socioeconomic effects related to the proposed construction of railroad
bridges built parallel to existing bridges crossing the same
waterbodies. The comment period has been extended an additional 30 days
to May 1, 2019.

DATES: Comments and related material must be submitted to the online
docket at http://www.regulations.gov or reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before May 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-1085 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The direct link to

the draft EA and related documents is: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG-2018-1085.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
please contact Mr. Steven Fischer, District Bridge Manager, Thirteenth
Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 27, 2019.
Brian L. Dunn,
Chief, Office of Bridge Programs, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2019-06241 Filed 3-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P