[Federal Register: December 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 73227-73228]
[DOCID:fr09de05-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-17-000]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Sanford Station Abandonment
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

December 1, 2005.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Sanford Station Abandonment
Project involving abandonment by removal of facilities by Colorado
Interstate Gas Company (CIG) in Hutchinson County, Texas.\1\ These
facilities would consist of the abandonment by removal of three 880
horsepower (hp) reciprocal compressor units, and miscellaneous gas
processing and sweetening facilities.\2\ This EA will be used by the
Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the
project is in the public convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CIG's application was filed with the Commission under
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and part 157 of the Commission's
regulations.
    \2\ Gas ``sweetening'' refers to the processes utilized to
remove impurities (primarily hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide)
from certain natural gas supply streams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will
be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Please note that the scoping period will close
on January 3, 2006.
    This notice is being sent to potentially affected landowners;
federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local
government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of
this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    CIG wants to abandon by removal the following facilities at the
Sanford Station in Hutchinson County, Texas:
     Three 880 hp reciprocal compressor units yielding a total
of 2,640 hp.
     Miscellaneous gas processing and gas sweetening
facilities.
    CIG states that it no longer requires the Sanford Station for
natural gas service, because the transportation arrangements supported
by and through the Sanford Station and related facilities terminated
several years ago. Since CIG has no further need for the Sanford
Station, CIG proposed to abandon and demolish the Station, restore the
site, and return the land to the landowner. CIG states that the
abandonment project would be conducted in full compliance with all
federal and state safety regulations including those of the U.S.
Department of Transportation and the Texas Railroad Commission.
    The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Abandonment of the proposed facilities would affect about 19 acres
of land that are currently leased to CIG by the Sanford Texas Ranch,
Inc., a private landowner. The fenced compressor and amine buildings,
meter houses, and associated appurtenant facilities currently occupy
the entire site. The abandonment activity would require the removal of
jurisdictional facilities as well as associated non-jurisdictional
facilities located within the fence line of the station property. CIG
also proposes that the site be restored to pre-construction conditions,
as near as practicable, and the land be returned to the landowner. At
the termination of the lease, CIG and the landowner would require the
property to be free of any and all facilities (with the exception of
monitoring and/or remediation-related wells) and that there be no
adverse environmental conditions related to the CIG facilities, except
those that may require on-going remediation.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \4\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils
     Land use
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands
     Cultural resources
     Vegetation and wildlife
     Air quality and noise
     Endangered and threatened species
     Hazardous waste
     Public safety
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to portions of the
project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on
the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the

environmental information provided by CIG and our staff. This
preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and
our analysis.
     Five Federally listed endangered or threatened species may
occur in the proposed project area.
     The Sanford Station is being reviewed by the State
Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether the station should
be considered a historic site.
     Soil and possible groundwater contamination may exist at
the site. Investigations concluded that hydrocarbon, mercury, and
polychlorinated biphenyls exist in the soils, and asbestos, and lead-
based paint are present in the building materials.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that
your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 2.
     Reference Docket No. CP06-17-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before January 3, 2006.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any
comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the

User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create a
free account which can be created online.
    We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving
it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 3). If you do not
return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding, or ``intervenor.'' To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners whose
property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes
within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of certain
aboveground facilities.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on

the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be
sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents
issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
 along with other related information.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7089 Filed 12-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79243-79244]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32662]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65967; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-118]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Penny Pilot Program

December 15, 2011.
    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 December 2, 2011, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules relating to the Penny
Pilot Program. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission.

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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Penny Pilot Program is scheduled to expire on December 31,
2011. CBOE proposes to extend the Pilot Program until June 30, 2012.
CBOE believes that extending the Pilot Program will allow for further
analysis of the Pilot Program and a determination of how the Pilot
Program should be structured in the future.
    During this extension of the Penny Pilot Program, CBOE proposes
that it may replace any option class that is currently included in the
Pilot Program and that has been delisted with the next most actively-
traded, multiple-listed option class that is not yet participating in
the Pilot Program (``replacement class''). Any replacement class would
be determined based on national average daily volume in the preceding
six months,\3\ and would be added on the second trading day following
January 1, 2012. CBOE will employ the same parameters to prospective
replacement classes as approved and applicable in determining the
existing classes in the Pilot Program, including excluding high-priced
underlying securities.\4\ CBOE will announce to its Trading Permit
Holders by circular any replacement classes in the Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The month immediately preceding a replacement class's
addition to the Pilot Program (i.e. December) would not be used for
purposes of the six-month analysis. Thus, a replacement class to be
added on the second trading following January 1, 2012 would be
identified based on The Option Clearing Corporation's trading volume
data from June 1, 2011 through November 30, 2011.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60864 (October 22,
2009) (granting immediate effectiveness to SR-CBOE-2009-76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE is specifically authorized to act jointly with the other
options exchanges participating in the Penny Pilot Program in
identifying any replacement class. CBOE will submit to the SEC reports
that will include sample data and analysis of information collected
from October 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012 and April 1 through June
30, 2012 for the ten most active and twenty least active option classes
added to the Pilot Program. This proposed sampling approach provides an
appropriate means by which to monitor and assess the Pilot Program's
impact. CBOE will also identify, for comparison purposes, a control
group consisting of the ten least active option classes from the
initial 58 Pilot Program classes. This report will include, but not be
limited to, the following: (1) Data and analysis of the number of
quotations generated for options included in the report; (2) an
assessment of the quotation spreads for the options included in the
report; (3) an assessment of the impact of the Pilot Program on CBOE's
automated systems; (4) data reflecting the size and depth of markets;
and (5) any capacity problems or other problems that arose related to
the operation of the Pilot Program and how the Exchange addressed them.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6 of the Act \5\ and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) Act \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and

manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and to perfect the
mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In
particular, the proposed rule change allows for an extension of the
Penny Pilot Program for the benefit of market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (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 \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission notes that the Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CBOE-2011-118 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2011-118. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
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 No. SR-CBOE-2011-118 and should be
submitted on or before January 11, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32662 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11716-11717]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04895]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0860; FRL 9943-30-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Base Year Emission Inventories for
the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on November 14, 2014,
to address emission inventory requirements for the Sheboygan, Wisconsin
nonattainment area and the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago-Naperville,
Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (IL-IN-WI) nonattainment area under the 2008
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is proposing
to approve the 2011 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOX) emission inventories in the November 14,
2014, submittal as part of the Wisconsin SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2014-0860 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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. 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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: Edward Doty, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information see the direct final rule, which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 22, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016-04895 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 21062-21064]
[DOCID:fr27ap07-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55653; File No. SR-OCC-2006-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Choice of Law
and Forum Selection

April 20, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on May 22, 2006, The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') and on December 12, 2006, amended the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
items have been prepared primarily by OCC. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would provide for the addition of new
general choice of law and forum selection provisions to OCC's By-Laws.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified parts of these statements.

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

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

    The proposed rule change would add new general choice of law and
forum selection provisions to OCC's By-Laws. The purpose of the
proposed rule change is to ensure there are appropriate choice of law
and forum selection provisions governing all contractual relations
between OCC and each of its clearing members. The proposed provisions
should provide greater clarity, consistency, and predictability in the
application of the law to all contractual relations between OCC and
each of its clearing members and in the choice of forum in the event of
litigation on such matters.
    OCC's By-Laws and Rules each currently contain choice of law
provisions that apply in somewhat limited circumstances. This approach
is problematic as it could lead to inconsistencies between the two
provisions or because it may fail to properly specify a governing law
with respect to certain contractual relations altogether.
    Article VI, Section 9(c) of OCC's By-Laws provides that Illinois
law, specifically the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code, is the
governing law with respect to cleared contracts. A ``cleared contract''
is defined in Article I, Section 1 of OCC's By-Laws as ``a cleared
security or commodity future or futures option that is cleared by
[OCC].'' A ``cleared security'' is defined as ``an option contract
(other than a futures option), a security future or a BOUND.'' However,
OCC has interactions and relationships with clearing members not
directly involving cleared contracts (e.g., membership and financial
requirements). Accordingly, the choice of law provisions in Article VI,
Section 9(c) are not comprehensive.
    OCC Rule 614(m), which clarifies the limited obligations of OCC in
connection with pledges of cleared securities, incorporates certain
provisions of Article VI, Section 9 of the By-Laws by reference and
also contains special provisions applicable in the event that,
notwithstanding the choice of law provisions of Article VI, Section
9(c), the laws of a jurisdiction that has not adopted the 1994
revisions to Article 8 and 9 of the UCC are applicable to security
interests in pledged securities. However, all 50 U.S. States, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico have now
adopted the 1994 revisions to Article 8 and 9 of the UCC, rendering the
special provisions unnecessary.
    Article V of OCC's By-Laws (Clearing Members), Section 3
(Conditions to Admission), subparagraph (k) provides that as a
condition to admission as a clearing member, non-U.S. securities firms
must consent to the jurisdiction of Illinois courts and to the
application of U.S. law in connection with any dispute with OCC arising
from membership. However, this provision only applies to the limited
context of disputes with OCC arising from membership.
    The proposed rule change would add a general choice of law
provision to OCC's By-Laws in order to provide consistency and
predictability in the application of the law to all relations between
OCC and its clearing members. This provision would be particularly
useful with respect to collateral posted by non-U.S. clearing members
where a clear choice of law provision could provide further assurance
that OCC's interests in such collateral are properly perfected. Such a
provision would also decrease the likelihood of an inadvertent
inconsistency among provisions of the various Articles of the By-Laws.
    Illinois law is the most logical choice to be the governing law
under the proposed choice of law provision given OCC's location and
OCC's familiarity with Illinois law. Selecting Illinois law, along with
Federal law, as governing law would also result in the greatest
consistency with current provisions of OCC's By-Laws and Rules. In
addition, selection of Illinois as the forum for resolving any claims
or disputes arising out of or relating to OCC's By-Laws or Rules would
be most logical in light of the consistent application of Illinois law
to relations between OCC and its clearing members.
    The following proposed revisions to OCC's By-Laws and Rules are
necessary to create a general choice of law provision:
    (1) New Choice of Law Provision: OCC proposes to add a new Section
10 (General Choice of Law and Forum Selection) to Article IX (General
Provisions) of its By-Laws. New Section 10 would specify Illinois law
as the governing law with respect to OCC's By-Laws and Rules as well as
any agreements between OCC and clearing members. It would also specify
that any lawsuits between clearing members and OCC be brought in a
federal court or in the absence of federal jurisdiction in a state
court located in Chicago, Illinois. Existing Sections 10-12 of Article
IX would be renumbered as Sections 11-13 but would otherwise remain
unchanged.
    (2) Amendments to Other Sections of the By-Laws: OCC proposes that
Article VI, Section 9(c) of the By-Laws be removed in its entirety and
replaced with a reference to the proposed Article IX, Section 10 of the
By-Laws and with a notice provision that persons desiring to perfect
security interests in cleared securities seek the advice of counsel.
    (3) Amendments to Rules: OCC proposes to make conforming amendments
to Rule 604(b)(3)(ii) and to Interpretation and Policy .01 under Rule
614. These amendments are necessary in light of the adoption of the
general choice of law provision described above. OCC further proposes
that language in Rule 614(m) providing for a contingency in the event
of the application of the law of a jurisdiction that has not adopted
the 1994 amendments to Articles 8 and 9 of the UCC be deleted as no
longer necessary.
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act
because it is designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of the OCC or for which OCC
is responsible, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a
national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, and in general protects investors and the
public interest by providing for clarity and predictability in the
application of the law to all contractual relations between OCC and its
clearing members, especially with respect to the perfection of
interests in collateral. Other than as described in footnote 1 to Rule
604, the proposed rule change is not inconsistent with any other By-
Laws or Rules of OCC, including those proposed to be amended.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the
Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-OCC-2006-09 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-OCC-2006-09. 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's
Web site at http://www.optionsclearing.com.

    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-OCC-2006-09
and should be submitted on or before May 18, 2007.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8054 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 86 (Monday, May 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26519-26520]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09430]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0009]

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP16-002

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a
petition submitted on September 28, 2015, by Mr. Matthew Oliver,
Executive Director, North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc. (NCCC), to
NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The petition requests
that the agency commence a proceeding to evaluate the scope and
effectiveness of two recalls for brake master cylinder leakage issued
by Nissan for model year (MY) 2007 and 2008 Nissan Sentra vehicles. The
petitioner submitted a narrative indicating master cylinder failure for
one MY 2008 Nissan (VOQ<PHONE_NUMBER>) along with four (4) other owner
complaints found in NHTSA's complaint database. The Petitioner alleges
that these five complaints indicate insufficiency of effectiveness and
scope for the recall actions. For the reasons set forth below, NHTSA
disagrees. NHTSA will continue to monitor the situation, but has
concluded that further expenditure of the agency's investigative
resources on the issues raised by the petition does not appeared to be
warranted. The agency accordingly has denied the petition. The petition
is hereinafter identified as DP16-002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian E. Smith, Vehicle Defects
Division--B, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter received on September 28, 2015,
Mr. Matthew Oliver of Raleigh, NC, submitted a petition requesting that
the agency investigate the scope and effectiveness of two recalls for
brake master cylinder leakage issued by Nissan for model year (MY) 2007
and 2008 Nissan Sentra vehicles. The petition was based on one incident
of a MY 2008 Nissan Sentra master cylinder developing a slow leak for
several years prior to the submission of the petition. According to the
petition, the failed vehicle was inspected by a repair

facility and brake fluid was found inside the brake booster, as was the
case in the failures described in Nissan Recalls 08V-311 and 09V-431.
    On December 20, 2016, ODI opened a Defect Petition (DP16-002) to
further review the issue raised in the petitioner's letter.
    The following is a summary of the reviews and analysis conducted
during DP16-002:
     Review of VOQ complaints identified in the petition: The
petitioner identified four other complaints in the petition letter.
Each of these VOQ complaints will be addressed individually.
    [cir] VOQ 10299791--This VOQ for a 2008 Nissan Sentra described
three replacements of the master cylinder for leakage. Some of the
repairs may have occurred under warranty prior to recall remedy
availability. This vehicle is part of the recall population and did
receive the recall remedy. All of the replacements occurred in the
first two years of vehicle use. ODI could not determine if any of the
reported failures involved a remedy replacement part.
    [cir] VOQ 10449038--This VOQ for a 2008 Nissan Sentra mentions a
fire in proximity to the master cylinder area under the hood. Fire is
not indicated as an outcome for the failure addressed by the recalls.
The complaint describes engine stalling prior to the fire event. The
vehicle was sold with a salvage title prior to the fire event,
according to Carfax. The vehicle is part of the recall population and
did receive the recall remedy.
    [cir] VOQ 10567372--This VOQ is for a 2008 Nissan Sentra which
falls outside of the recall population. The failure occurred six years
into the life of the vehicle.
    [cir] VOQ 10638813--This VOQ is for a 2008 Nissan Sentra which is
included in the recall population and received the recall remedy. The
complaint was filed by a subsequent owner four years after the remedy
was performed.
     Review of additional VOQ complaints--ODI identified two
more VOQ complaints responsive to this defect petition. One complaint
vehicle (10839357) was repaired under the recall in 2008 and had a
master cylinder failure eight years later in 2016. The second complaint
vehicle (10330891) suffered a second master cylinder failure within two
years after the recall repair.
     ODI review of Nissan data--ODI requested and received data
from Nissan detailing the original defect determination. They also
provided warranty trend data for the recalled vehicles and for vehicles
produced after the production change which delimited the end of the
recall population.
    [cir] Improper machining of the internal seal groove--Nissan
identified a production machining process for the bore of the master
cylinder body which sometimes resulted in chattering and an uneven
surface of the internal seal groove. Nissan supplier Bosch implemented
manufacturing changes in early 2008 to prevent this condition.
    [cir] Mold changes for the isolation seal--The specifications and
tolerances for the isolation seal were updated to produce better
sealing of the master cylinder. The improved seal was introduced into
production on April 18, 2008. This date marks the end of the recall
vehicle population.
    [cir] Warranty Data--ODI reviewed the incident rate and warranty
data for the vehicle populations affected by the recall and vehicle
populations produced after the final production changes were
implemented. The recall populations show a significant spike in
incident rates during the first three years of vehicle service. The
vehicles produced after the production fix fail at a much lower rate
and do not exhibit the premature failure spikes found in the recall
population.
     Presence of a warning light--The master cylinder is
equipped with a fluid level sensor which will alert the driver to a
slow leak. A warning light on the instrument panel will illuminate when
the fluid is at a low but safe level. If the driver does not take
action to remedy the low fluid either by adding fluid or getting the
master cylinder fixed, reduced braking could result.

Conclusion

    Nissan conducted safety recalls 08V-311 and 09V-431 to remedy
leaking master cylinders on certain MY 2007 and 2008 Nissan Sentra
vehicles. The recall populations were determined based on production
changes to the master cylinder which were fully implemented as of
April18, 2008.
    ODI identified two MY 2008 Nissan Sentra complaints, including the
petitioner's vehicle, which were not covered by the recalls and
reported a leaking master cylinder. All of these incidents occurred six
or more years into the service life of the vehicle. ODI also identified
three complaints which reported a master cylinder leaking after
receiving the recall remedy. Only one of these failures occurred within
36 months of the recall remedy. The original recall addressed failures
which occurred early in the life of the vehicle, and involved elevated
incident rates during the first 36 months of vehicle service. Master
cylinders are generally expected to experience wear and display a
finite service life.
    After a review of the available data, including a thorough search
of NHTSA's complaint database, the agency has not identified a trend
that would call into question the scope or adequacy of Nissan's
recalls. Accordingly, and in view of the need to allocate and
prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's
safety mission, ODI is denying the petition. A detailed summary of
ODI's analysis of this petition will be published in the Federal
Register and is also available in the investigative file for this
action.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8

Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2020-09430 Filed 5-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 75 (Friday, April 17, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21340]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07348]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 30

[EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259; FRL-10007-88-ORD]
RIN 2080-AA14

Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the
comment period for a notice issued in the Federal Register on March 18,
2020, supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) titled
``Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.'' This document is
extending the comment period on this SNPRM from April 17, 2020, to May
18, 2020.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OA-2018-0259, by the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided.
    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room will be closed to public
visitors beginning at the close of business on March 31, 2020 (4:30
p.m.) to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center
staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email,
phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via
https://www.regulations.gov or email, as there will be a delay in
process mail and no hand deliveries will be accepted. For further
information on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl A. Hawkins, Office of Science
Advisor, Policy and Engagement (8104R), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 18, 2020, EPA published a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) titled
``Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science'' (85 FR 15396),
which includes clarifications, modifications and additions to certain
provisions in the Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science
Proposed Rulemaking, published on April 30, 2018 (83 FR 18768). The
SNPRM proposed that the scope of the rulemaking apply to influential
scientific information as well as significant regulatory decisions.
That notice proposed definitions and clarified that the proposed
rulemaking would apply to data and models underlying both pivotal
science and pivotal regulatory science. In the SNPRM, EPA also proposed
a modified approach to the public availability provisions for data and
models that would underly significant regulatory decisions and an
alternate approach. Finally, EPA requested comment on whether to use
its housekeeping authority independently or in conjunction with
appropriate environmental statutory provisions as authority for the
rulemaking.
    This document extends the public comment period for the proposed
rule to ensure that the public has sufficient time to review and
comment on the proposal.

    Dated: April 2, 2020.
Mary Ross,
Director, Office of Science Advisor, Policy and Engagement.
[FR Doc. 2020-07348 Filed 4-16-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 41803]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

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

Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical
Devices Advisory Committee; Cancellation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The meeting of the Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices
Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee scheduled for July 24
and 25, 2013, is cancelled. This meeting was announced in the Federal
Register of April 25, 2013 (78 FR 24426).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara J. Anderson, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration,10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1611, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
7047<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), and
follow the prompts to the desired center or product area. Please call
the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.

    Dated: July 5, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-16621 Filed 7-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1098-1099]
[FR Doc No: 2012-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66075; File No. SR-C2-2011-042]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Related to the Exchange's Automated Improvement Mechanisms

December 30, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 22, 2011, the C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend C2 Rules 6.51, Automated Improvement
Mechanism. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/RuleFilings.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
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 those 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend C2 Rule 6.51 to
eliminate the requirement that there be at least three market-makers
quoting in the relevant series in order for an Auction to commence.
    This proposed rule change is based on the current rules of the
Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') \5\ and the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') \6\ relating to the Price
Improvement Period (``PIP'') and Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM''),
respectively, which are automated price improvement mechanisms similar
to AIM.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See BOX Rules Chapter V, Section 18.
    \6\ See ISE Rule 723.
    \7\ AIM, PIP and PIM have certain characteristics in common with
each other. All three mechanisms (a) Provide for the opportunity for
customer price improvement, (b) have certain periods where the
initial orders are exposed for potential price improvement, (c) have
certain guidelines regarding the types of orders that may be
eligible for price improvement, and (d) have certain defined rules
related to the allocation of trades within price improvement
auctions, although there are differences in the way orders are
allocated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AIM allows a TPH to submit an Agency Order along with a contra-side
second order (a principal order or a solicited order for the same size
as the Agency Order) into an Auction where other participants could
compete with the Initiating TPH's second order to execute against the
Agency Order, which guarantees that the Agency Order will receive an
execution. Once an Auction commences, the Initiating TPH cannot cancel
it.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See C2 Rule 6.51(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C2 Rule 6.51(a)(4) currently requires that there be at least three
market-makers quoting in the relevant series for an Auction to
commence. The Exchange is proposing to eliminate this requirement. The
Exchange does not believe that customer orders should be denied the
benefits of AIM simply because there may be less than three market-
makers quoting in a relevant options class at a specific point in time.
Any concern regarding an Auction starting with a lower number of
market-makers quoting in a relevant series is offset by the broad
participation and competition that would be present once an Auction
commenced.
    In support of this proposal, the Exchange notes that both PIP \9\
and PIM \10\ permit auctions to commence without the condition that
there be a minimum number of market-makers quoting in the particular
series. Further, like PIP and PIM, responding to C2 AIM auctions is
open to all permit holders. The Exchange believes that AIM, and in turn
the customers that benefit from AIM, would be disadvantaged if the
three market-maker requirement remained as a condition to start an
Auction because this requirement potentially reduces the number of
Auctions and, as a result, opportunities for price improvement. Because
BOX and ISE are currently able to offer their customers price
improvement without a minimum quoter requirement in PIP and PIM,
respectively, the Exchange believes it is important for competitive
purposes that it be able to offer the same opportunities for price
improvement on C2 through AIM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 5; see also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 34-58999 (November 21, 2008), 73 FR 72536 (November 28, 2008)
(SR-BSE-2008-54) (order approving proposed rule change to eliminate
requirement that there be at least three market-makers quoting in
the relevant series for an auction to commence).
    \10\ See supra note 6; see also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 34-58710 (October 1, 2008), 73 FR 59008 (October 8, 2008) (SR-
ISE-2008-63) (order approving proposed rule change to eliminate
requirement that there be at least three market-makers quoting in
the relevant series for an auction to commence).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \11\ and the rules
and regulations thereunder and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \13\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and to perfect the
mechanism for a free and

open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change is a
reasonable modification designed to provide additional flexibility for
TPHs to obtain executions on behalf of their customers while continuing
to provide meaningful, competitive Auctions. The Exchange also believes
that that proposed rule change will ultimately enhance competition in
the AIM Auctions and provide customers with additional opportunities
for price improvement. The rule change is consistent with changes made
by other exchanges and it serves to remove impediments to and to
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system by allowing more price improvement auctions to occur on C2.

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 neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\15\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2011-042 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2011-042. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room 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 offices 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-C2-2011-042, and should be submitted on or before
January 30, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-93 Filed 1-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 141)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42533-42536]
[DOCID:fr22jy08-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-8694-5]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct Final Deletion of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill Superfund
Site (Site) from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: EPA, Region 2, is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion
of the Site, located in Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York, from the
National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR
part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9605. This direct final Notice
of Deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State
of New York, through the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC). EPA and NYSDEC have determined that the
responsible parties have completed all appropriate remedial actions and
that no further actions, other than operation and maintenance and five-
year reviews, are required. In addition, EPA and NYSDEC have determined
that the cleanup goals attained at this Site are protective of public
health and the environment. This deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion will be effective September 22, 2008
unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by August 21, 2008. If
significant adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of this direct final deletion in the Federal Register,
informing the public that the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1994-0001, by one of the following methods:
    Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax: To the attention of Pamela Tames at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: To the attention of Pamela Tames, P.E., Remedial Project
Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, NY
10007-1866.
    Hand Delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor,
New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (Monday to
Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1994-0001.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
Docket without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider CBI
or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or via e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comments. If you
send comments to EPA via e-mail, your e-mail address will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the Docket and made available
on the Web site. If you submit electronic comments, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comments and with any disks or CD-ROMs that you submit. If EPA cannot
read your comments due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comments.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any
form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the Docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available Docket materials can be viewed electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or obtained in hard copy at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records
Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, Phone: 212-
637-4308, Hours: Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 9, 270
Michigan Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14203-2999, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Tames, P.E., Remedial Project
Manager, by mail at Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th floor,
New York, NY 10007-1866; telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax at 212-637-
3966; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct final deletion of the Pfohl
Brothers Landfill Superfund Site (Site) from the National Priorities
List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300, which is
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
40 CFR Part 300 (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to
present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions
financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in
Sec.  300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site deleted from the NPL remains
eligible for remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant such
action.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective September 22, 2008 unless EPA
receives significant adverse comments by August 21, 2008. Along with
this direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of
Intent to Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this Direct
Final Deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the
deletion will not take effect. EPA will, if appropriate, prepare a
response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the
basis of

the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments received. In such a
case, there will be no additional opportunity to comment.
    Section II below explains the criteria for deleting sites from the
NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this
action. Section IV discusses the Site and demonstrates how it meets the
deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site
from the NPL unless significant adverse comments are received during
the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In accordance
with Sec.  300.425(e)(1), EPA shall consult with the State to determine
whether any of the following criteria have been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release of
hazardous substances poses no significant threat to public health or
the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not
appropriate.
    In addition, the State shall concur with the deletion, as required
by Sec.  300.425(e)(2), and the public shall be informed, as required
by Sec.  300.425(e)(4). A site which is deleted from the NPL remains
eligible for remedial actions should future conditions warrant such
action, as set forth in Sec.  300.425(e)(3). Even if a site is deleted
from the NPL, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remain above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, CERCLA section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) requires that a
review of the site be conducted at least every five years after the
initiation of the remedial action to ensure that the action remains
protective of public health and the environment. If new information
becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may
initiate remedial actions. If there is a significant release from a
site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL
without application of the Hazard Ranking System, a numerically-based
screening system that uses information from initial, limited
investigations to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a
threat to human health or the environment.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site.
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of New York prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete
co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the State, through the NYSDEC, has concurred on
the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, The
Buffalo News. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment
period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments. If appropriate,
EPA may then continue with the deletion process based on the Notice of
Intent to Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following summary provides the Agency's rationale for the
proposal to delete this Site from the NPL.

Background

    The Site consists of a 130-acre inactive landfill and an adjacent
22-acre borrow pit located in a commercial/residential area in the Town
of Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York, approximately one mile northeast
of Buffalo International Airport.
    The Site is bordered by wetlands, Aero Lake, Aero Creek, and the
New York State Thruway to the north. The remaining boundaries consist
of Transit Road to the east, a Niagara Mohawk Power easement to the
west, and residential properties (along the north side of Pfohl Road)
and Conrail tracks to the south. A former New York Thruway Authority
borrow area (Area A) is located just south of the New York State
Thruway. The Site is bisected from west to east by Aero Drive. One
disposal area is located immediately north of Aero Drive (Area B) and
another disposal area is located immediately south of Aero Drive (Area
C).
    The Pfohl Brothers Landfill accepted municipal and industrial
wastes from 1932 to 1971 from the surrounding townships, manufacturers,
and utilities. The landfill was operated as a cut and fill operation,
whereby waste and drums, which were filled with substances that could
be spilled out, were emptied into 150-foot diameter trenches. Some of
the generators of the waste have indicated that pine tar pitch, waste
paints and thinners, waste cutting oils, oil-contaminated Fuller's
earth, phenolic tar containing chlorinated benzenes and dioxins, and
oil and capacitors laden with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were
disposed of at the Site. No records were kept as to the quantity of
wastes received, other than an estimated 125 tons of phenolic tar.
Limited historical records indicate that no hazardous wastes were
disposed of in Area A. Soil from this area was used primarily by the
New York Thruway Authority for road fill material.
    A preliminary assessment of the Site was performed by EPA in 1982
to determine its hazard ranking. Based upon the analytical results,
which indicated that the landfill leachate contained various volatile
organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds and metals, the Site
was listed on the New York State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste
Disposal Sites as a ``Class 2 Inactive Hazardous Waste Site'' in 1985.
    Between 1983 and 1985, all of the residences near the Site were
connected to the municipal drinking water supply system. Previously,
these residents obtained drinking water from private wells.
    The Site was added to the NPL on December 16, 1994 (FRL-5124-7).

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    An RI/FS was initiated in 1988 by NYSDEC. Various levels of
volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, PCBs, and
metals were detected in the soil, groundwater, and sediment. In 1990,
NYSDEC installed a fence around most of the Site.
    A second RI/FS addressed Area A and the off-site groundwater
contamination. Based upon the results of this investigation, it was
determined that Area A was not used for the disposal of hazardous
substances and significant levels of groundwater contamination were not
detected.

Selected Remedy

    A ROD for Areas B and C was issued by NYSDEC in February 1992. The
selected remedy included capping the two disposal areas, construction
of a leachate collection and conveyance system, construction of a
barrier wall containment system around the outside perimeter of the
disposal areas, collection and disposal of the drums and phenolic tars
found on-Site, and long-term monitoring of the groundwater at and near
the landfill. The ROD also called for the implementation of
institutional controls to protect the integrity of the containment
remedy and to prevent the use of contaminated groundwater.
    A ROD for Area A, issued on January 10, 1994, selected a ``no-
action'' remedy.

Response Actions

    Under Orders on Consent with NYSDEC dated October 4, 1993 and April
11, 2001, the PRP Group performed the actions called for in the 1992
ROD.
    The PRP Group commenced the design related to the containment
system and leachate collection system in 1994; the design was approved
by NYSDEC upon execution of the above-noted Order on Consent in April
2001. Detailed information on the remedial construction is available in
the September 2003 Remedial Action Report.
    To facilitate future development along Pfohl Road and Aero Drive,
approximately 31 acres of landfilled material, consisting of
approximately 365,000 cubic yards of waste located along these roads
(edges of Areas B and C) were excavated and consolidated on the
interior portions of Areas B and C. In addition, 9,200 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and waste were excavated to protect the adjacent
wetlands and consolidated on the interior portions of Areas B and C.
Post-excavation soil samples showed that the remaining soils met New
York State's soil cleanup objectives, thereby eliminating all
significant threats to human health and/or the environment. The
excavated areas were backfilled and seeded.
    Caps were constructed over the consolidated wastes in the two fill
areas (approximately 70 acres in Area B and 24 acres in Area C) in
conformance with 6 New York State NYCRR Part 360 closure requirements.
The caps consist of a six-inch gas venting layer overlain by a layer of
filter fabric, a 40-mil thick very flexible polyethylene (VFPE) liner,
a 24-inch barrier protection layer of clean soil, and topped with six
inches of topsoil capable of supporting vegetation. Forty-nine gas
vents were installed to convey the gas from beneath the low
permeability layer of the caps via the gas venting layer to the
atmosphere.
    The leachate collection system consists of an 8-inch diameter
perforated solid collection pipe set in a wall of granular material
which runs along the 10,000-foot perimeter of the disposal areas. An
additional 1,000 feet of collection drain was installed in the
southwest interior of Area B to promote an upward gradient from the
bedrock to the overburden aquifer within the confines of the perimeter
barrier containment system. All of the collected leachate is discharged
directly to the Cheektowaga Publicly-Owned Treatment Works via six
collection wet wells and a force main that was constructed to the sewer
interceptor on Rein Road. A VFPE wall keyed into 24 inches of
undisturbed clay at the bottom of the perimeter trench was installed as
a vertical barrier to prevent the collection drain system from
collecting clean off-Site groundwater and dewatering the adjacent
wetlands. The VFPE wall was connected to the VFPE liner in the landfill
cap. A Remedial Action Report documenting the completion of the
Remedial Action was approved by EPA in September 2003.
    The 1992 ROD called for the implementation of institutional
controls to protect the integrity of the containment remedy and to
prevent the use of contaminated groundwater. The restrictions were
placed on Areas B and C in the form of Declarations of Covenants and
Restrictions and Grant of Access signed by each of the seven owners
whose parcels make up the Site. Five of the seven agreements were
signed by the end of 2003 and the last two were signed in late 2005.
Each Declaration requires that the owners agree not to use any on-Site
groundwater, not to construct on-Site surface water cisterns, not to
access the capped areas without prior written approval of NYSDEC, not
to excavate, remove, or disturb the on-Site soil without NYSDEC written
approval, and not to plant trees and shrubs whose roots may breach the
caps.

Cleanup Goals

    The implemented actions protect human health and the environment.
The landfilled areas have been capped, removing potential direct
contact (i.e., ingestion or dermal contact of soil) exposures to the
public. Institutional controls are in place to prevent potential
exposures to the public, including trespassers. The potential impacts
to groundwater are being addressed through the caps that reduce or
prevent percolation through the landfilled areas and a barrier wall
containment system around the outside perimeter of the disposal areas.
The leachate collection system is discharging to an appropriate
discharge facility to reduce potential exposures to the population.
Groundwater monitoring data indicate that Site-related contamination is
not present outside the containment system. A final Close-Out report
documenting the completion of the implementation of the site remedies
was issued by EPA on December 10, 2007.

Operation and Maintenance

    An operation and maintenance (O&M) plan, which provides for a long-
term monitoring program for the cover system, the drainage system, the
groundwater, and the institutional controls, was approved in February
2006. The O&M activities at the Site are being performed by the Town of
Cheektowaga. Semi-annual O&M reports are reviewed by NYSDEC and EPA.

Five-Year Review

    Hazardous substances remain at the Site above levels that would
allow for unlimited use with unrestricted exposure. Pursuant to section
121(c) of CERCLA, EPA reviews site remedies where such hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain no less often than every
five years after the initiation of a remedy at a site. EPA conducted a
five-year review of the Site in March 2006. The five-year review led
EPA to conclude that human health and the environment are being
protected by the remedial action implemented at the Site. The next
five-year review is scheduled to be completed before March 2011.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied
as required in CERCLA sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and
9617. As part of the remedy selection process, the public was invited
to comment on NYSDEC's proposed remedies. All other documents and
information which EPA relied on or considered in recommending this
deletion are available for the public to review at the information
repositories identified above.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion From the
NCP

    All of the completion requirements for this Site have been met, as
described in the December 2007 Final Close-Out Report. The State of New
York, in a September 28, 2007 letter, concurred with the proposed
deletion of this Site from the NPL.
    The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if ``all
appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented,
and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.''
40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New
York, through NYSDEC, believes that this criterion for deletion has
been met. Consequently, EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL.
Documents supporting this action are available in the Site files.

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York, has determined
that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed and
that no further response actions under CERCLA, other than O&M and five-
year reviews, are necessary. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from
the NPL. Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective September 22, 2008 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
August 21, 2008. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period of this action, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of this Direct Final Deletion before the effective date of
the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, if
appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the
comments received. In such a case, there will be no additional
opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.

    Dated: June 30, 2008.
George Pavlou,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 351; and E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended under New York (NY) by
removing the site name ``Pfohl Brothers Landfill'' and the
corresponding City/County designation ``Cheektowaga.''

[FR Doc. E8-16478 Filed 7-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 20973]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-33-000]

Northeast Transmission Development, LLC; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on April 6, 2011, pursuant to section 219 of the
Federal Power Act,\1\ Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.207, and Order No. 679,\2\ Northeast Transmission Development, LLC
filed a Petition for Declaratory Order (Petition) requesting that the
Commission grant their request for incentive rate treatments, as more
fully described in its Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824s (2007); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L.
109-58, 1241, 119 Stat. 594,961-62 (2005) (EPAct 2005), amended the
FPA by adding section 219.
    \2\ Promoting Transmission Investment through Pricing Reform,
Order No. 679, 2006-2007 FERC Stats. & Regs., Regs. Preambles ]
31,222, order on reh'g, Order No. 679-A, 2006-2007 FERC Stats. &
Regs., Regs. Preambles ] 31,236 (2006), order on reh'g, Order No.
679-A, 119 FERC ] 61,062 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 6, 2011.

    Dated: April 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9066 Filed 4-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P