Date:
February 1, 2017
To:
Susan Fairchild, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD
Korbin Smith, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD
From:
David Bullock, RTI International
Cassy Becker, RTI International
Subject:
Identification of Major Sources for the NESHAP for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ)

I.	Introduction
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) outlines the statutory requirements for the EPA's stationary source air toxics program. Section 112 requires EPA to set maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for HAP-emitting processes in source categories listed for regulation of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The MACT standard for the final promulgated rule for this category was developed under Section 112 of the CAA; was developed under Part 63, subpart QQQQQ; and was completed in October 2002 (67 FR 64498).
The Risk and Technology Review (RTR) is a combined effort to evaluate both risk and technology as required by the CAA after the application of the MACT standards. Section 112(f)(2) directs EPA to conduct risk assessments on each source category subject to MACT standards, and to determine if additional standards are needed to reduce residual risks. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise MACT standards, as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes and control technologies. The Agency will conduct both these reviews at once under the RTR review. In addition to the requirements of the RTR review, EPA also reviews the standards to determine whether any HAP or HAP-emitting processes exist which were not regulated by the 2002 MACT and whether emission limits for surrogates in the rule should be corrected or replaced by the original listed HAP.
The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the sources of data obtained for identifying major source friction products manufacturing facilities with processes subject to 63QQQQQ. A friction materials manufacturing facility is defined as any facility that manufactures friction materials using a solvent-based process. Thus, facilities not containing equipment utilized in the solvent-based process include the phrase, "no equipment to which 63QQQQQ is applicable."
II.	Sources of Data
The main sources of data were the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) website, National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and trade organization membership rosters.  Supplemental information was gathered from Title V permits, technical support documents, air emissions inventories, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reports, and contacts with relevant EPA Regions and state agencies.
Subpart QQQQQ currently has no electronic data reporting requirements, therefore no information was obtained from the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
The Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database was also reviewed, but no determinations for 63QQQQQ were found.
A. 	Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)
Three primary searches of the ECHO website were conducted in efforts to identify major facilities subject to 63QQQQQ.  These three searches are described in the sections below.
 All Sources With MACT Subpart QQQQQ
The ECHO website was searched initially for any sources with a MACT Subpart of QQQQQ.[1] The search returned five facilities.  The ECHO search results are summarized in Table 1.
              Table 1. ECHO Search Results  -  MACT Subpart QQQQQ
Facility Name
Street Address
City
State
FRS ID
KNOWLTON TECHNOLOGIES LLC
213 FACTORY STREET
                                   WATERTOWN
                                      NY
<PHONE_NUMBER>88
RAILROAD FRICTION PRODUCTS CORP
13601 AIRPORT ROAD
                                    MAXTON
                                      NC
<PHONE_NUMBER>80
TR MILLER MILL COMPANY INC
215 DEER ST
                                    BREWTON
                                      AL
<PHONE_NUMBER>99
BROWN WOOD PRESERVING CO., INC
16851 HIGHWAY 96 WEST
                                    KENNEDY
                                      AL
<PHONE_NUMBER>77
DYNAX AMERICA CORP
568 E PARK DR
                                    ROANOKE
                                      VA
<PHONE_NUMBER>87

Knowlton Technologies, LLC manufactures a variety of specialty papers, including automotive friction and filter paper. Their Title V permit was obtained and reviewed. The permit clearly indicates that Emission Unit 1-SVSAT, Process MIX is subject to 63QQQQQ. The permit review report (dated 7/20/2015) states, "Emission unit 1SVSAT involves solvent coating operations. It consists of a resin kitchen with mix vessels (mixvs) and solvent wash tank (wshtk), two paper saturator sections (satur) an unwind/wind area (windu), a dryer section (dryer), and final winder area (fwind). Hap and voc emissions from these sources are controlled by a boiler/incinerator (blrin), and are exhausted through ep m0001. After the dryer section, there is an inking station (inkst), which also vents to the boiler/incinerator. ... Process: MIX is located at Building BBISL - This process involves the mixing of coatings for use on the coating lines. The mixing process is subject to the friction materials manufacturing MACT." The permit review report further notes that Emission Unit 1-SVSAT, Process MIX is subject to the emission limitation for existing large solvent mixers.
Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC) manufactures high-friction and low-friction composition brake shoes, specialty shoes, and disc brake linings for freight, locomotive and transit vehicles. Their Title V permit was obtained and reviewed. The permit clearly indicates that One Sigma Mixer (ES-10) is subject to 63QQQQQ.
According to their company website, TR Miller Mill Company Inc. is one of the 150 largest sawmills in the US.[2] They manufacture various specialty pine products, including pine flooring, siding, and pattern products, as well as a selection of 4 x 8 lattice panels. They are also one of the 10 largest producers of treated poles and pilings in the US.  Their Title V permit was not obtained (Alabama does not maintain their Title V permits online), however, it is highly probable that this facility is subject to 63QQQQQQ, Wood Preserving Area Sources NESHAP (rather than 63QQQQQ).
According to their company website, Brown Wood Preserving Company, Inc. manufactures only treated wood poles.[3] Their Title V permit was not obtained (Alabama does not maintain their Title V permits online), however, it is highly probable that this facility is subject to 63QQQQQQ, Wood Preserving Area Sources NESHAP (rather than 63QQQQQ).
The Dynax facility manufactures steel friction disks and mating plates for motor vehicle automatic transmissions and torque converters. Their Title V permit was obtained and reviewed. The permit states, "From determination letter of June 16, 2005, this regulation [MACT QQQQQ] does not apply to the facility."
Of the five facilities identified from the initial ECHO search, only two appear to be subject to 63QQQQQ.
 Major Sources With Facility Name Including the Term "Friction"
The ECHO website was then searched for major sources with a facility name including the term "friction." The search returned six facilities.  The ECHO search results are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. ECHO Search Results  -  Major Sources with Facility Name Containing "Friction"
Facility Name
Street Address
City
State
FRS ID
RAILROAD FRICTION PRODUCTS CORP
13601 AIRPORT ROAD
                                    MAXTON
                                      NC
<PHONE_NUMBER>80
FEDERAL MOGUL CENTURY FOUNDRY
3700 FOREST PARK AVE
                                  SAINT LOUIS
                                      MO
<PHONE_NUMBER>80
FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION
2410 PAPERMILL ROAD
                                  WINCHESTER
                                      VA
<PHONE_NUMBER>45
FEDERAL-MOGUL FRICTION PRODUCTS
1 GRIZZLY LANE
                                  SMITHVILLE
                                      TN
<PHONE_NUMBER>91
MANHEIM AREA ECONOMIC DEV CORP
123 EAST STIEGEL ST
                                    MANHEIM
                                      PA
<PHONE_NUMBER>72
SK WELLMAN CORP
5372 WEST 130TH STREET
                                   BROOKPARK
                                      OH
<PHONE_NUMBER>81

The Railroad Friction Products facility was previously identified through the initial ECHO search for facilities subject to 63QQQQQ, and is described above.
According to the ECHO website, the Federal Mogul facility in Saint Louis, Missouri was a major source, but is now permanently closed.  It is not in the 2011 NEI.
According to the ECHO website, the Federal Mogul facility in Winchester, Virginia was a minor source, but is now permanently closed. They do not report being subject to any MACT standards in the 2011 NEI, and a review of their NEI records identified no equipment to which 63QQQQQ is applicable.
The Federal-Mogul, Smithville facility manufactures automotive disc brake pads. Their Title V permit was obtained and reviewed. The permit states, "The Smithville facility no longer uses solvent based product as part of the mixing process. Therefore, this facility is not subject to 40 CFR 63 Subpart QQQQQ, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities because there are no solvent mixers present as specified at §63.9490 and §63. 9565 of this MACT regulation. Agreement Letter dated June 4, 2003." The agreement date was before the initial compliance date, thus this facility is not subject to 63QQQQQ.
According to the ECHO website, the Manheim Area Economic Dev Corp facility (formerly Raymark, and Universal Friction Composites) was a major source, but is now permanently closed.  It is not in the 2011 NEI.
According to the ECHO website, the SK Wellman Corp facility was a major source, but is now permanently closed.  It is not in the 2011 NEI.
No additional major sources subject to 63QQQQQ were identified.
 Major Sources With NAICS Code 33634
Friction materials manufacturing is covered by several Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. Friction materials manufacturing is typically classified under SIC 3714, Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories, Brake and Brake Systems, Including Assemblies and NAICS 33634, Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing. Some facilities manufacture other products in addition to friction materials, and may report the SIC code for the product which makes up the majority of their annual production. A summary of NAICS codes reported in the original ICR responses for the four major facilities is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. NAICS Codes Reported in ICR Responses for Major Sources in the Friction Materials Manufacturing Source Category [4]
NAICS Code
NAICS Definition
                                     33634
Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing
                                    327999
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
                                    332999
All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
                                    333613
Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing

The ECHO website was searched for major sources with a NAICS code of 33634. The search returned 11 facilities.  Searches were not conducted for the other NAICS codes because they are far too broad to yield valuable results.  The ECHO search results are summarized in Table 4.
     Table 4. ECHO Search Results  -  Major Sources with NAICS Code 33634
Facility Name
Street Address
City
State
FRS ID
CARDONE INDUSTRIES
5660 RISING SUN AVENUE
                                 PHILADELPHIA
                                      PA
<PHONE_NUMBER>36
AKEBONO ELIZABETHTOWN PLANT
300 RING ROAD
                                 ELIZABETHTOWN
                                      KY
<PHONE_NUMBER>20
HONDA OF AMERICA ANNA ENGINE PLANT
12500 MERANDA RD
                                     ANNA
                                      OH
<PHONE_NUMBER>58
GUNITE CORP
302 PEOPLES AVE.
                                   ROCKFORD
                                      IL
<PHONE_NUMBER>91
ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATION
8101 DORCHESTER RD.
                                 N CHARLESTON
                                      SC
<PHONE_NUMBER>69
CONTINENTAL TEVES
13456 LOVERS LANE
                                   CULPEPER
                                      VA
<PHONE_NUMBER>11
HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS AMERICAS INC-BEREA KY
301 MAYDE RD.
                                     BEREA
                                      KY
<PHONE_NUMBER>37
BREMBO NA
29991 M-60 EAST
                                     HOMER
                                      MI
<PHONE_NUMBER>82
FEDERAL MOGUL CENTURY FOUNDRY
3700 FOREST PARK AVE
                                  SAINT LOUIS
                                      MO
<PHONE_NUMBER>80
FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION
2410 PAPERMILL ROAD
                                  WINCHESTER
                                      VA
<PHONE_NUMBER>45
FEDERAL-MOGUL FRICTION PRODUCTS
1 GRIZZLY LANE
                                  SMITHVILLE
                                      TN
<PHONE_NUMBER>91

According to the ECHO website, the Cardone facility is a major source. Their Title V permit was not obtained (Pennsylvania does not maintain their Title V permits online). They do not report being subject to any MACT standards in the NEI, and a review of their NEI records identified no equipment to which 63QQQQQ is applicable.
According to the ECHO website, the Akebono facility is a major source. Their Title V permit was not obtained (Kentucky does not maintain their Title V permits online). They do not report being subject to any MACT standards in the NEI, and a review of their NEI records identified no equipment to which 63QQQQQ is applicable.
According to the ECHO website, the Honda facility is a major source.  Their Title V permit was obtained and reviewed.  This is an engine manufacturing plant.  The permit includes no equipment to which 63QQQQQ is applicable and no permit conditions related to 63QQQQQ.  In the NEI, they report being subject to 63EEEEE, 63MMMM, 63PPPPP, and 63ZZZZ.
According to the ECHO website, the Gunite facility is a major source.  Their Title V permit was obtained and reviewed.  This is an iron foundry, and is not a major source of HAP.  The permit includes no equipment to which 63QQQQQ is applicable and no permit conditions related to 63QQQQQ.
According to the ECHO website, the Robert Bosch facility is a major source.  Their Title V permit was obtained and reviewed. The permit states the facility is subject to 63N (Chromium Electroplating, 63 ZZZZ (Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE)), and is not subject to 63QQQQQ.
According to the ECHO website, the Continental facility is a synthetic minor facility.  No Title V permit could be located on the Virginia DEQ website.  They do not appear in the 2011 NEI.  They last reported for TRI in 2002 (which included only 500 pounds of polychlorinated alkanes emissions to the air).  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source of HAP.
According to the ECHO website, the Hitachi facility is a major source. Their Title V permit was not obtained (Kentucky does not maintain their Title V permits online).  In the NEI, they report being subject only to 63MMMM.  A review of their NEI records identified no equipment to which 63QQQQQ is applicable.
According to the ECHO website, the Brembo facility is a major source.  Their Title V permit was obtained and reviewed.  This facility is a major source for miscellaneous metal parts coating (63MMMM).  The permit includes no equipment to which 63QQQQQ is applicable and no permit conditions related to 63QQQQQ.
The three Federal Mogul facilities were previously identified in the ECHO search for major sources with a facility name including the term "friction," and are discussed above.
No additional major sources subject to 63QQQQQ were identified.
B. 	National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
The 2011 NEI was reviewed to identify facilities reporting a Regulatory Code of 63QQQQQ.[5] Two facilities were identified with 63QQQQQ as Regulatory Code 1. The search results are summarized in Table 5.
                Table 5. 2011 NEI, Regulatory Code 1 = 63QQQQQ
Facility Name
Street Address
City
State
FRS ID
TR MILLER MILL COMPANY INC
215 DEER ST
                                    BREWTON
                                      AL
<PHONE_NUMBER>99
KNOWLTON TECHNOLOGIES LLC
213 FACTORY STREET
                                   WATERTOWN
                                      NY
<PHONE_NUMBER>88

One facility was identified with 63QQQQQ as Regulatory Code 2. The search results are summarized in Table 6.
                Table 6. 2011 NEI, Regulatory Code 2 = 63QQQQQ
Facility Name
Street Address
City
State
FRS ID
RAILROAD FRICTION PRODUCTS CORP
13601 AIRPORT ROAD
                                    MAXTON
                                      NC
<PHONE_NUMBER>80

One facility was identified with 63QQQQQ as Regulatory Code 4. The search results are summarized in Table 7.
                Table 7. 2011 NEI, Regulatory Code 4 = 63QQQQQ
Facility Name
Street Address
City
State
FRS ID
DYNAX AMERICA CORP
568 E PARK DR
                                    ROANOKE
                                      VA
<PHONE_NUMBER>87

Regulatory Code 63QQQQQ does not appear in any other 2011 NEI Regulatory Code fields.
Each of these facilities was previously identified through the initial ECHO search for facilities subject to 63QQQQQ and their review is discussed above.  No additional major sources subject to 63QQQQQ were identified.
C. 	Trade Organizations
Two trade organizations were identified that are relevant to the friction products manufacturing industry: the Friction Materials Standards Institute (FMSI), and the Brake Manufacturers Council (BMC).  Member rosters for these organizations were reviewed for major source friction products manufacturing facilities.
 Friction Materials Standards Institute (FMSI)
The Friction Materials Standards Institute is a trade association of automotive aftermarket friction manufacturers.  Membership in FMSI is open to any manufacturer of friction and related products covered by the trademarked FMSI(R) and FMS(R) part numbers.[6] The FMSI active members list is provided in Appendix A.
Of the 26 member companies listed, 11 are located outside the US and are not considered further.
Three Advics facilities were identified.  None are major sources.
 LaGrange, Georgia<PHONE_NUMBER>77): synthetic minor source. Manufactures brake pads.
 Terre Haute, Indiana<PHONE_NUMBER>03): synthetic minor source. Does not appear to manufacture friction material.
 Lebanon, Ohio<PHONE_NUMBER>89): minor source. Does not appear to manufacture friction material.
Seven Akebono Brake facilities were identified.  One is a major source, but has no processes subject to 63QQQQQ.
 Clarksville, Tennessee<PHONE_NUMBER>30): minor source.
 West Columbia, South Carolina<PHONE_NUMBER>65): minor source.
 West Columbia, South Carolina<PHONE_NUMBER>39): no Title V air permit. No TRI report.
 Glasgow, Kentucky<PHONE_NUMBER>72): synthetic minor source.
 Elizabethtown, Kentucky<PHONE_NUMBER>03): no Title V air permit. No TRI report.
 Elizabethtown, Kentucky<PHONE_NUMBER>20): major source. This facility was previously identified in the ECHO search for major sources with a NAICS code of 33634, and is discussed above.
 Springfield, Kentucky<PHONE_NUMBER>80) (Amtec Brake LLC): synthetic minor.
Eight Bosch Brake facilities were identified.  None are major sources.
 Sumter, South Carolina<PHONE_NUMBER>20) Corporate Way: permanently shut down.
 Sumter, South Carolina<PHONE_NUMBER>76) 1 Corporate Way: no Title V air permit. Last reported for TRI in 2004 (which included only 1,306 pounds of combined HAP emissions to the air).  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
 Frankfort, Ohio<PHONE_NUMBER>38) 3186 County Road 550: permanently closed.
 Gallatin, Tennessee<PHONE_NUMBER>72): minor source.
 South Bend, Indiana<PHONE_NUMBER>35): no Title V air permit. No TRI report.
 Frankfort, Ohio<PHONE_NUMBER>51) 3186 County Road 550: no Title V air permit. No TRI report.
 Johnson City, Tennessee<PHONE_NUMBER>75): was a minor source; permanently closed.
 Sumter, South Carolina<PHONE_NUMBER>05) 1 Corporate Circle: was a minor source; permanently closed.
Nine Brake Parts, Inc. facilities were identified.  None are major sources.
 McHenry, Illinois<PHONE_NUMBER>17) 1100 Corporate Drive: no Title V air permit. No TRI report.
 Stanford, Kentucky<PHONE_NUMBER>88): synthetic minor source.
 Fredericksburg, Virginia<PHONE_NUMBER>70): was a major source; permanently closed.
 Dallas, Texas<PHONE_NUMBER>90) Cockrell Hill Road: no Title V air permit. No TRI report.
 McHenry, Illinois<PHONE_NUMBER>29) 1380 Corporate Drive: no Title V air permit. No TRI report.
 McHenry, Illinois<PHONE_NUMBER>07) 1415 North Industrial Drive: was a minor source; permanently closed.
 McHenry, Illinois<PHONE_NUMBER>14) 1600 North Industrial Drive: no Title V air permit. No TRI report.
 Dallas, Texas<PHONE_NUMBER>85) 5122 Cockrell Hill Road: no Title V air permit. Last reported for TRI in 2002 (which included no air emissions).  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
 Chowchilla, California<PHONE_NUMBER>89): no Title V air permit. No TRI report.
Brunner International, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER>84) located in Medina, New York has no Title V air permit. They last reported for TRI in 2006 (which included only 289 pounds of combined HAP emissions to the air).  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
Six Carlisle Brake facilities were identified.  None are major sources.
 Catoosa, Oklahoma<PHONE_NUMBER>65): synthetic minor source.
 Medina, Ohio<PHONE_NUMBER>39): minor source.
 Solon, Ohio<PHONE_NUMBER>95): minor source.
 Logansport, Indiana<PHONE_NUMBER>29): synthetic minor source.
 Bloomington, Indiana<PHONE_NUMBER>85): no Title V air permit. No TRI report.
 Nampa, Idaho<PHONE_NUMBER>78): no Title V air permit. No TRI report.
Ceco Friction Products Incorporated<PHONE_NUMBER>98) located in Landis, North Carolina has no Title V air permit. They also do not report for TRI.  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
FDP Virginia, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER>41) (Quality Automotive) located in Tappahannock, Virginia is a synthetic minor source.
Seven Federal Mogul friction products facilities were identified.  One is a major source, but has no processes subject to 63QQQQQ.
 Orangeburg, South Carolina<PHONE_NUMBER>78): was a synthetic minor facility; permanently closed.
 Berkely, Missouri<PHONE_NUMBER>56): minor source.  Last reported for TRI in 2006 (which included only 74 pounds of glycol ether emissions to the air).
 Mahwah Township, New Jersey<PHONE_NUMBER>51): no Title V air permit. No TRI report.
 Smithville, Tennessee<PHONE_NUMBER>91): major source.  This facility was previously identified in the ECHO search for major sources with a facility name including the term "friction," and is discussed above.
 Salisbury, North Carolina<PHONE_NUMBER>05): no Title V air permit.  Last reported for TRI in 2001 (which included only 2,775 pounds of asbestos and phenol emissions to the air).  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
 Manila, Arkansas<PHONE_NUMBER>93): no Title V air permit.  Last reported for TRI in 1999 (which included only 23 pounds of asbestos emissions to the air).  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
 Scottsville, Kentucky<PHONE_NUMBER>79): no Title V air permit.  Last reported for TRI in 2004 (10 pounds for all releases combined, which included no air emissions).  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
Two Fras-Le North America, Inc. facilities were identified.  None are major sources.
 Prattville, Alabama<PHONE_NUMBER>68) 103 Echlin Boulevard: no Title V air permit. 2015 TRI report includes only phenol air emissions (6,750 pounds).  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
 Prattville, Alabama<PHONE_NUMBER>39) 101 Echlin Boulevard (formerly Haldex): synthetic minor source.
Performance Friction<PHONE_NUMBER>23) located in Clover, South Carolina is a synthetic minor source.
Stemco Rome<PHONE_NUMBER>74) located in Rome, Georgia is a synthetic minor source. They manufacture brake shoes for medium and heavy duty truck and bus applications.
Three Tek-Motive facilities were identified.  None are major sources.
 East Haven, Connecticut<PHONE_NUMBER>11) 470A Frontage Road: no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
 East Haven, Connecticut<PHONE_NUMBER>54) 29 Baer Circle: no Title V air permit; TRI only for 1993 (barium only).
 East Haven, Connecticut<PHONE_NUMBER>03) 110 Commerce Street: no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
Two TMD Friction facilities were identified.  None are major sources.
 Troy, Michigan<PHONE_NUMBER>36): no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
 Dublin, Virginia<PHONE_NUMBER>58): synthetic minor source; temporarily closed.
Uni-Bond Brake, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER>06), located in Ferndale, Michigan is a minor source. They manufacture brake shoes.
No additional major sources subject to 63QQQQQ were identified.
 Brake Manufacturers Council
The Brake Manufacturers Council is an operating council of the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) and is managed by its affiliate, the Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA).[7] The BMC active members list is provided in Appendix B.
Of the 23 member companies listed, 5 are located outside the US and are not considered further.  Eight of the BMC member companies do not manufacture friction material (they are service providers, or manufacturers of related hardware or systems). Additionally, six of the BMC member companies are also FMSI members and were reviewed with the FMSI member list, above.
Four Brembo facilities were identified.  One is a major source, but has no processes subject to 63QQQQQ.
 Homer, Michigan<PHONE_NUMBER>82): major source.  This facility was previously identified in the ECHO search for major sources with a NAICS code of 33634, and is discussed above.
 Homer, Michigan<PHONE_NUMBER>91): no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
 Homer, Michigan<PHONE_NUMBER>94): no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
 Laredo, Texas<PHONE_NUMBER>45): no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
StopTech, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER>74), located in Compton, California does not have a Title V air permit, and does not report to TRI.  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.  No facilities were found for Centric Parts.
Five Continental Automotive Systems facilities were identified.  None are major sources.
 Auburn Hills, Michigan<PHONE_NUMBER>24): no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
 Dearborn, Michigan<PHONE_NUMBER>48): no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
 Dearborn, Michigan<PHONE_NUMBER>57): no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
 Auburn Hills, Michigan<PHONE_NUMBER>92): no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
 Rochester Hills, Michigan<PHONE_NUMBER>44): no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
Five Rayloc facilities were identified.  None are major sources.
 Payson, Utah<PHONE_NUMBER>48): minor source. Last reported to TRI for 2012.
 Memphis, Tennessee<PHONE_NUMBER>50): synthetic minor facility.
 Houston, Texas<PHONE_NUMBER>09): no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
 Hancock, Maryland<PHONE_NUMBER>44): was a minor source; permanently closed. Last reported for TRI in 2000.
 Morganfield, Kentucky<PHONE_NUMBER>99): was a major source; permanently shut down. Last reported for TRI in 2007.
No additional major sources subject to 63QQQQQ were identified.
D. 	State-Specific Review
The Background Information Document (BID) prepared for the proposal of 63QQQQQ noted that of the 147 friction products manufacturing facilities for which ICR responses were submitted, 4 were estimated to be potential major sources.[4]  All four of the major sources were resin-based friction materials manufacturers that utilize solvent mixers in the manufacturing process. These four facilities were located in Indiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.  These four states were reviewed more specifically for major source friction products manufacturing facilities.  The results of these searches are summarized below.  No additional major sources subject to 63QQQQQ were identified.
 Indiana
A search for friction products manufacturing facilities in Indiana identified six facilities in addition to those already identified above. The search results are summarized in Table 8.
                        Table 8. Indiana Search Results
Facility Name
Street Address
City
State
FRS ID
RAYBESTOS POWERTRAIN, LLC
110 INDUSTRIAL PARK DR.
                                   SULLIVAN
                                      IN
<PHONE_NUMBER>77
RAYBESTOS POWERTRAIN, LLC
1204 DARLINGTON AVE.
                                CRAWFORDSVILLE
                                      IN
<PHONE_NUMBER>85
RAYBESTOS POWERTRAIN, LLC
609 EAST CHANEY STREET
                                   SULLIVAN
                                      IN
<PHONE_NUMBER>14
RAYBESTOS POWERTRAIN, LLC
210 STEWART ST
                                   SULLIVAN
                                      IN
<PHONE_NUMBER>34
HIBBING INTERNATIONAL FRICTION
2001 TROY AVE
                                  NEW CASTLE
                                      IN
<PHONE_NUMBER>13
NF FRICTION COMPOSITES INCORPORATED
1441 HOLLAND ST
                                  LOGANSPORT
                                      IN
<PHONE_NUMBER>92

Four Raybestos facilities were identified.  One is a major source, but has no processes subject to QQQQQ.
 Sullivan, Indiana<PHONE_NUMBER>77): no Title V air permit. Their 2015 TRI report includes only lead and manganese air emissions (271 pounds, combined).  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
 Crawfordsville, Indiana<PHONE_NUMBER>85): major source.  Their Title V permit was obtained and reviewed. This is a major source for miscellaneous metal parts coating (63MMMM) and reciprocating engines (63ZZZZ) but has no equipment to which 63QQQQQ is applicable and no permit conditions related to 63QQQQQ. The permit notes a Banbury mixer (P019) which is a non-solvent mixer used for producing rubber friction material.
 Sullivan, Indiana<PHONE_NUMBER>14): synthetic minor.
 Sullivan, Indiana<PHONE_NUMBER>34): no Title V air permit; no TRI report.
Hibbing International Friction has a synthetic minor air permit; no TRI report.
NF Friction Composites Incorporated has no Title V air permit; no TRI report.  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
 North Carolina
A search for friction products manufacturing facilities in North Carolina identified no facilities in addition to those already identified above.
 Tennessee
A search for friction products manufacturing facilities in Tennessee identified one facility in addition to those already identified above. The search results are summarized in Table 9.
                       Table 9. Tennessee Search Results
Facility Name
Street Address
City
State
FRS ID
HONEYWELL BENDIX
3000 20TH STREET NORTH EAST
                                   Cleveland
                                      TN
<PHONE_NUMBER>31

Honeywell Bendix does not appear to have a Title V air permit (Tennessee does not maintain their Title V permits online).  They have not reported for TRI since 2005 (which included only 190 pounds of combined HAP emissions to the air).  They do not appear in the 2011 NEI.  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
 Wisconsin
A search for friction products manufacturing facilities in Wisconsin identified ten facilities in addition to those already identified above. The search results are summarized in Table 10.
                      Table 10. Wisconsin Search Results
Facility Name
Street Address
City
State
FRS ID
GREAT LAKES FRICTION PRODUCTS
8964 N 51ST STREET
                                   MILWAUKEE
                                      WI
<PHONE_NUMBER>14
GREAT LAKES FRICTION PRODUCTS / BUTZEN CO
8601 N 43RD ST
                                  BROWN DEER
                                      WI
<PHONE_NUMBER>37
GREAT LAKES FRICTION PRODUCTS INC
6591 N SIDNEY PL
                                   MILWAUKEE
                                      WI
<PHONE_NUMBER>94
OERLIKON FRICTION SYSTEMS (US) INC
10607 N BAEHR RD
                                    MEQUON
                                      WI
<PHONE_NUMBER>54
REXNORD INDUSTRIES
4701 W GREENFIELD AVE
                                   MILWAUKEE
                                      WI
<PHONE_NUMBER>08
REXNORD INDUSTRIES
5150 INTERNATIONAL DR
                                    CUDAHY
                                      WI
<PHONE_NUMBER>78
REXNORD INDUSTRIES
3001 W CANAL ST
                                   MILWAUKEE
                                      WI
<PHONE_NUMBER>02
REXNORD INDUSTRIES
5555 S MOORLAND RD
                                  NEW BERLIN
                                      WI
<PHONE_NUMBER>25
STOLPER-FABRALLOY LLC
115 N JANACEK RD
                                  BROOKFIELD
                                      WI
<PHONE_NUMBER>73
THERMOSET  -  JACKSON FACILITY
N CENTER ST
                                    JACKSON
                                      WI
<PHONE_NUMBER>58

Three Great Lakes Friction Products facilities were identified.  None are major sources.
 Milwaukee, Wisconsin<PHONE_NUMBER>14): no Title V air permit, and no TRI report.
 Brown Deer, Wisconsin<PHONE_NUMBER>37): no Title V air permit, and no TRI report.
 Milwaukee, Wisconsin<PHONE_NUMBER>94): no Title V air permit, and no TRI report.
Oerlikon Friction Systems in Mequon, Wisconsin has no Title V air permit, and no TRI report.  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
Four Rexnord facilities were identified.  None are major sources.
 Milwaukee, Wisconsin<PHONE_NUMBER>08): no Title V air permit.  Their 2015 TRI report includes only 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chromium, and manganese (6.85 pounds of air emissions, combined).  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
 Cudahy, Wisconsin<PHONE_NUMBER>78): no Title V air permit.  Their 2015 TRI report includes only lead and lead compounds (0.2 pounds of air emissions, combined).  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
 Milwaukee, Wisconsin<PHONE_NUMBER>02): synthetic minor. Title V permit was obtained and the facility has facility-wide 10/25 ton HAP limits.
 New Berlin, Wisconsin<PHONE_NUMBER>25): synthetic minor.
Stolper-Fabralloy in Brookfield, Wisconsin has no Title V air permit, and last reported for TRI in 1994 (which included only 5,400 pounds of 1,1,1-trichloroethane emissions to the air).  It is unlikely that this facility is a major source.
Thermoset in Jackson, Wisconsin is permanently shut down, and last reported for TRI in 2004.
E. 	Synthetic Minor Source Follow Up
During the course of the review for major sources, 18 synthetic minor sources were identified. Appropriate EPA Region and state agencies were contacted to confirm that none of these facilities are major for HAP, became synthetic minor after the 63QQQQQ compliance date (October 18, 2005), or have solvent mixers that would otherwise be subject to 63QQQQQ. In some instances, additional resources were reviewed, including facility operating permits, technical support documents, air emissions inventories, and Toxic Release Inventory submittals. No additional sources to be included in the risk modeling for 63QQQQQ were identified. The results of this follow up are summarized in Appendix C.
III.	References
 EPA ECHO: https://echo.epa.gov/facilities/facility-search?srch=adv
 T. R. Miller Mill Co., Inc.:  http://www.trmillermill.com/
 Brown Wood Preserving Co., Inc.:  http://www.brownwoodpoles.com/Home/tabid/38/Default.aspx
 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  2001.  Background Information Document: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Industry.  Publication No. EPA-453/R - 01-008.  September 2001.
 EPA 2011 National Emission Inventory: 2011 EIS v2 facility list 05142015.accdb; 2011NEIv2_ALLNEI_CAP_20150512.accdb; and 2011NEIv2_ALLNEI_OTH_20150512.accdb.
 Friction Materials Standards Institute (FMSI):  http://www.fmsi.org/members/active.php
 Brake Manufacturers Council (BMC):  https://www.aftermarketsuppliers.org/councils/BMC

Appendix A
Friction Materials Standards Institute Member List

Table A-1.  Friction Materials Standards Institute Member List
Member
Location
Website
Comment
ABS Friction Inc.
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
www.absfriction.com
Not in the U.S.
Advics North America
Plymouth, Michigan
www.advics-na.com
No major sources.
Akebono Brake Corporation
Elizabethtown, Kentucky
www.akebonobrakes.com
One major source (not subject to 63QQQQQ)
Auto Manufacturas Brake SA de CV
Hidalgo, Mexico
www.canabrake.com
Not in the U.S.
Bosch Brake Components LLC
Chicago, Illinois

No major sources.
Brake Parts Inc.
McHenry, Illinois
www.brakepartsinc.com
No major sources.
Brunner International Inc.
Medina, New York

No major sources.
C.M. Brake Inc.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
www.cmbrake.com
Not in the U.S.
Carlisle Brake & Friction
Solon, Ohio
www.carlislecbf.com
No major sources.
Ceco Friction Products
Landis, North Carolina
www.cecofriction.com
No major sources.
FDP Virginia, Inc.
Tappahannock, Virginia
www.fdpbrakes.com
No major sources.
Federal-Mogul
Southfield, Michigan
www.federal-mogul.com
One major source (not subject to 63QQQQQ)
Franco-Mex, S.A.
Naucalpan, Mexico

Not in the U.S.
Fras-Le North America, Inc.
Prattville, Alabama
www.fras-le.com
No major sources.
Friccion y Tecnologia SA de CV (FRITEC)
Mexico City, Mexico
www.fritec.com.mx
Not in the U.S.
Gonher de Mexico
Nuevo Leon, Mexico

Not in the U.S.
MaxPower Friction, Inc.
Brampton, Ontario, Canada
www.maxpowerfriction.com
Not in the U.S.
New World Friction
Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
www.autopartsource.com
Not in the U.S.
Nucap Industries
Scarborough, Ontario, Canada
www.nucap.com
Not in the U.S.
Performance Friction Corporation
Clover, South Carolina

No major sources.
Silverline America
Mexico City, Mexico

Not in the U.S.
STEMCO Rome
Rome, Georgia
www.stemcobrakeproducts.com
No major sources.
Tek-Motive, Inc.
East Haven, Connecticut
www.tek-motive.com
No major sources.
TMD Friction, Inc.
Troy, Michigan

No major sources.
Uni-Bond Brake, Inc.
Ferndale, Michigan

No major sources.
Util Canada Limited
Concord, Ontario, Canada
www.utilgroup.com
Not in the U.S.

Appendix B
Brake Manufacturers Council Member List

Table B-1.  Brake Manufacturers Council Member List
Member
Location
Website
Comment
ABS Friction, Inc.
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
www.absfriction.com
Not in the U.S.
Advics North America
Plymouth, Michigan
www.advics-na.com
FMSI List
Bosch Brake Components LLC
Chicago, Illinois

FMSI List
Brake Parts Inc.
McHenry, Illinois
www.brakepartsinc.com
FMSI List
Brembo North America
Plymouth, Michigan
www.brembo.com
One major source (not subject to 63QQQQQ)
Centric Parts  -  StopTech
Carson, California

No major sources.
Continental
Auburn Hills, Michigan
www.conti-online.com
No major sources.
FDP Brakes, Inc.
Tappahannock, Virginia
www.fdpbrakes.com
FMSI List
Federal-Mogul
Southfield, Michigan
www.federal-mogul.com
FMSI List
Fras-Le North America, Inc.
Northville, Michigan
www.fras-le.com
FMSI List
Friccion Y Tecnologia SA de CV
Mexico
www.fritec.com.mx
Not in the U.S.
Friction Materials Standards Institute
Madison, Connecticut
www.fmsi.org
Does not manufacture friction material.
Link Engineering
Plymouth, Michigan
www.linkeng.com
Does not manufacture friction material.
MAT Holdings
Long Grove, Illinois
www.matholdingsinc.com
Does not manufacture friction material.
NSF International Strategic Registrations, Ltd.
Ann Arbor, Michigan
www.nsf.org
Does not manufacture friction material.
NUCAP Industries, Inc.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
www.nucap.com
Not in the U.S.
OE Quality Friction, Inc.
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
www.oeqf.com
Not in the U.S.
Rayloc / Division of Genuine Parts Co.
Atlanta, Georgia
www.genpt.com
No major sources.
Specialty Lubricants Corp.
Macedonia, Ohio
www.speclubes.com
Does not manufacture friction material.
TRW Automotive
Washington, Michigan
www.trw.com
Does not manufacture friction material.
Trelleborg Rubore
South Haven, Michigan
www.rubore.com
Does not manufacture friction material.
UTIL Group
Concord, Ontario, Canada
www.ctdonline.com
Not in the U.S.
Wolverine Advanced Materials
Dearborn, Michigan
www.warmglobal.com
Does not manufacture friction material.

Appendix C
Summary of Synthetic Minor Source Follow Up

Table C-1.  Summary of Synthetic Minor Source Follow Up
Company
City
State
Disposition
Advics
Terre Haute
IN
Per EPA Region 5, the permit support document indicates that this facility does not manufacture friction materials, as defined in 40 CFR 63, Subpart QQQQQ. A review of the permit and technical support document reveals no friction material manufacturing or solvent mixing operations.
Advics (SAFA)
La Grange
GA
Per EPA Region 4, this facility received a synthetic minor permit on December 20, 2006. The facility has avoidance limits for VOC and HAP. Per the permit, this facility uses a dry mix process to manufacture automotive disc brake pads. This facility does not use a solvent-based manufacturing process and has no solvent mixer.
Akebono
Glasgow
KY
Per EPA Region 4, this facility is Title V due to VOC's, but is an area HAP source.
Akebono (Amtek Brake)
Springfield
KY
Per EPA Region 4, this facility closed in 2008.
Brake Parts Inc.
Stanford
KY
Per EPA Region 4, this facility closed in 2015.
Carlisle Brake
Catoosa
OK
Per Oklahoma DEQ, this facility has been a synthetic minor since applying for construction in 2005, and appears to be a true minor source for HAP. The permit lists no solvent mixing operations; products are sintered. The permit specifically indicates that there are no MACT standards that apply to operations or equipment at this facility.
Carlisle Brake
Logansport
IN
This facility's Title V permit with synthetic minor HAP emission limits was first issued on October 17, 2005 (prior to the QQQQQ compliance date). The permit includes one extrusion area with three extruders that appear to use toluene as a solvent. There is no mention of mixers, or HAP solvent mixers.
Continental Teves
Culpepper
VA
Per Virginia DEQ, Blue Ridge Regional Office, this facility has had VOC emission limits since 1992 and appears to be a natural minor source for HAP. Additionally, the facility does not appear to mix or manufacture friction materials, and there are no mixing operations listed in the permit.
FDP Virginia
Tappahannock
VA
Per Virginia DEQ, Piedmont Regional Office, this facility has had synthetic minor permit limits since at least 1999 (prior to the QQQQQ compliance date). Per a previous site visit report, this facility does not use a solvent mixing process.
Fras-Le (Haldex)
Prattville
AL
Per EPA Region 4, this facility received a synthetic minor permit for PM in 2009, and has always been considered a natural minor HAP source.
Hibbing International
New Castle
IN
This facility has synthetic minor emission limits for PM. The facility is a natural minor HAP source. A review of this facility's permit and technical support document reveals two dry mixers. Emissions estimates for these mixers indicate no HAP emissions. The facility has no HAP solvent mixing operations.
Performance Friction
Clover
SC
Per EPA Region 4, this facility obtained a synthetic minor operating permit on January 4, 2001 (prior to the QQQQQ compliance date). Per a previous site visit report, this facility does not use a solvent mixing process.
Raybestos
Sullivan
IN
A review of this facility's permit and technical support document reveals a saturation line, but emission estimates for this process include no HAP solvents. The saturant appears to be a phenol-formaldehyde based resin. There is no indication of mixing operations, or HAP solvent mixing operations.
Rayloc
Memphis
TN
This facility has synthetic minor emission limits for VOC, but is a true area source for HAP. A review of the facility's permit and technical support documents reveals that this facility is a brake shoe remanufacturer. The facility includes no friction material manufacturing processes or equipment.
Rexnord
Milwaukee
WI
Per EPA Region 5, this facility designs and manufactures gear drives, flexible shaft couplings, and related parts. Based on a review of their Title V permit, this facility is an iron and steel foundry; they do not manufacture friction materials.
Rexnord
New Berlin
WI
Per EPA Region 5, this facility is a power transmission coupling facility. Based on a review of their air emission inventory and last reported TRI submittal, there is no indication of any mixers or friction material manufacturing at this facility.
Stemco
Rome
GA
Per EPA Region 4, this facility received a synthetic minor permit on February 5, 2016. The permit describes this facility as a metal stamping facility. There is no indication of any mixers or friction material manufacturing at this facility.
TMD Friction
Dublin
VA
Per Virginia DEQ, Blue Ridge Regional Office, this facility has had synthetic minor HAP permit limits since at least 1999 (prior to the QQQQQ compliance date).


[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59696-59698]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-155]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58721; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-079]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating To Order Routing

October 2, 2008.
    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 September 29, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
NASDAQ. NASDAQ filed the proposed rule change as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify Rule 4758, Order Routing, to require that
orders routed to the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') or the
American Stock Exchange LLC (``AMEX'') through NASDAQ's DOT routing
strategy check the NASDAQ book prior to routing, except in the case of
orders directed for participation in the NYSE or AMEX opening or
closing processes. NASDAQ proposes to make the change operative on
October 1, 2008. The text of the proposed rule amendment is as follows,
with deletions in [brackets] and additions italicized: 4758. Order
Routing
    (a) Order Routing Process
    (1) The Order Routing Process shall be available to Participants
from 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and shall route orders as
described below: All routing of orders shall comply with Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act.
    (A) The System provides three routing options. Of these three, DOT
is only available for orders ultimately sought to be directed to either
the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') or the American Stock Exchange
(``AMEX''). The System will consider the quotations only of accessible
markets. The three System routing options are:
    (i) DOT (``DOT'')--under this option, after checking the System for
available shares [if so instructed by the entering firm], orders are
sent to other available market centers for potential execution, per
entering firm's instructions, before being sent to the destination
exchange, so long as the price at such market centers would not violate
the Order Protection Rule. Any un-executed portion will thereafter be
sent to the NYSE or AMEX, as appropriate, at the order's original limit
order price. This option may only be used for orders with time-in-force
parameters of either SDAY, SIOC, MDAY, MIOC, GTMC or market-on-open/
close. Notwithstanding the foregoing, orders designated for
participation in the NYSE or AMEX opening or closing processes will not
check the System for available shares prior to routing.
    (ii)-(iii) No change.
    (B) No change.
    (b) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is amending Rule 4758 to make its procedures for routing
orders to NYSE and AMEX more consistent with its procedures for routing
to other trading venues. Currently, a NASDAQ member seeking to route
orders that are eligible for posting on the NYSE or AMEX books has the
option of instructing NASDAQ Execution Services, the routing broker for
NASDAQ, to bypass the NASDAQ book altogether and route the order
directly to the destination exchange. By contrast, members seeking to
bypass the NASDAQ book to reach venues other than NYSE and AMEX may do
so only for the purpose of removing liquidity from the other venue
through the use of ``directed orders.'' As NYSE's and AMEX's share of
trading in U.S. cash equities decreases, less volume is being routed
through this specialized routing option. Accordingly, NASDAQ proposes
to eliminate the functionality that allows members to post liquidity on
the NYSE or AMEX books without first checking the NASDAQ book, while
continuing to allow members to post on NYSE or AMEX after checking the
NASDAQ book, or to route directed orders to NYSE or AMEX that remove
liquidity without first checking the NASDAQ book.
    Members seeking to use NASDAQ to route to NYSE and AMEX will
continue to have the following options: (i) Access available liquidity
on NASDAQ and then route for posting at the away market; \5\ (ii)
access available liquidity, route to the away market to access
available liquidity, and then return to NASDAQ for posting; \6\ (iii)
access only displayed liquidity on NASDAQ and other venues (including
NYSE and/or AMEX) prior to cancelling or returning to NASDAQ for
posting; \7\ or (iv) route directed orders to NYSE or AMEX without
checking the NASDAQ book, but on an immediate-or-cancel (IOC) basis
only.\8\ In addition, members seeking to route orders to NYSE or AMEX
for purposes of participating in opening or closing processes will
continue to have the option of bypassing the NASDAQ book.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NASDAQ Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(i) (including proposed
amendments).
    \6\ See NASDAQ Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii). Orders that
return for posting may, in turn, be designated as eligible either
for routing again if they subsequently become executable (``STGY'')
or designated to remain on the NASDAQ book after posting (``SCAN'').
    \7\ Id. Both SCAN and STGY allow market participants to instruct
whether the order should access all available liquidity or only
displayed liquidity.
    \8\ See NASDAQ Rule 4751(f)(9).
    \9\ See NASDAQ Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(i) (including proposed
amendments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The change will eliminate
functionality that allows members to post liquidity on the NYSE or AMEX
books without first checking the NASDAQ book, in accordance with
decreasing use of this functionality. Following the change, members
will continue to have numerous options for routing to NYSE and AMEX,
including the use of

directed IOC orders that bypass the NASDAQ book, and orders that are
eligible for posting at NYSE or AMEX after checking the NASDAQ book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ 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

    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 \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\14\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange states that
waiver of the 30-day operative delay will allow NASDAQ to make its
processes for routing to various exchanges consistent at the beginning
of October 2008. Because the current functionality for routing and
posting to NYSE and AMEX without checking the NASDAQ book has a
particular fee associated with it, elimination of this option will
affect the calculation of NASDAQ's bills to members, which are prepared
on a monthly basis. Therefore, making the proposed change effective at
the beginning of the month will promote efficiency and clarity in
NASDAQ's billing processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
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.
NASDAQ has complied with this requirement.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates the
proposal as operative beginning on October 1, 2008.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-079 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-079. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NASDAQ. 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-NASDAQ-2008-079 and should be submitted on or before
October 30, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23978 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 134)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34283-34285]
[DOCID:fr15jy09-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2009-0118]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishment of safety zones for
annual events in the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone. This
proposed rule adds events not previously published in Coast Guard
regulations. These safety zones are necessary to protect spectators,
participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks
displays or other events.

DATES: Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or
before August 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2009-0118 using one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call LCDR Christopher Friese, Prevention Dept. Chief, Sector
Sault Sainte Marie, 337 Water St, Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783; 906-
635-3220. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0118), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand delivery or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2009-0118'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand-delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material receiving during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert USCG-2009-0118 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Coast Guard Sector Sault
Sainte Marie at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Background and Purpose

    We propose these safety zones to control vessel traffic within the
immediate location of the fireworks launching area during annual
fireworks displays.
    The Coast Guard proposes to establish 7 permanent Safety Zones in
the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie zone. These safety zones are
necessary to protect vessels and people from the hazards associated
with fireworks displays or other events. Such hazards include
obstructions to the waterway that may cause marine casualties and the
explosive danger of fireworks and debris falling into the water that
may cause death or serious bodily harm.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule and associated safety zones are necessary to
ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual fireworks events
in the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie area of responsibility
that may pose a hazard to the public.
    The proposed safety zones will be enforced only immediately before,
during, and after events that pose hazard to the public, and only upon
notice by the Captain of the Port.
    The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie will notify the public
that that the zones in this proposal will be enforced by all
appropriate means to the affected segments of the public including
publication in the Federal Register. Such means of notification may
also include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners or
Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of
the safety zone established by this section is cancelled.
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative. Entry
into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie, or his
designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The Coast
Guard's use of these safety zones will be periodic, of short duration,
and designed to minimize the impact on navigable waters. These safety
zones will only be enforced immediately before, during, and after the
time the events occur. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse
impact to mariners from the activation of these safety zones.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners of operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the areas designated as safety zones
in subparagraphs (1) through (7) during the dates and times the safety
zones are being enforced.
    These safety zones would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this
proposed rule would be in effect for short periods of time, and only
once per year, per zone. The safety zones have been designed to allow
traffic to pass safely around the zone whenever possible and vessels
will be allowed to pass through the zones with the permission of the
Captain of the Port.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact LCDR Christopher
Friese, Prevention Dept. Chief, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, 337 Water
St, Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783;<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about
this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    The proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

    2. Add section 165.943 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.943  Safety Zones; Annual Events requiring safety zones in
the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone.

    (a) Safety Zones. The following areas are designated Safety Zones:
    (1) St. Ignace Fireworks, St. Ignace, MI.
    (i) Location. All waters of Lake Huron within a 1000-foot radius
from the fireworks launch site at the Mill Slip Pier in East Moran Bay,
with its center in position: 45[deg]52[min]25[sec] N;
084[deg]43[min]20[sec] W. (NAD 83).
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the
July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this
section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
    (2) Mackinac Island Fireworks, Mackinac Island, MI.
    (i) Location. All waters of Lake Huron within a 1000-foot radius
from the fireworks launch site off of Bindle Point, with its center in
position 45[deg]50'40'' N; 084[deg]37'05'' W. (NAD 83).
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the
July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this
section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
    (3) Cedarville Fireworks, Cedarville, MI.
    (i) Location. All waters of Lake Huron within a 1000-foot radius
from the fireworks launch site in Cedarville Bay, with its center in
position 45[deg]59'27'' N; 084[deg]21'46'' W. (NAD 83).
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the
July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this
section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
    (4) Sault Sainte Marie Fireworks, Sault Sainte Marie, MI.
    (i) Location. All waters of the St. Marys River within a 1000-foot
radius from the fireworks launch site at the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers Soo Locks North East Pier, in position 46[deg]30'20'' N;
084[deg]20'32'' W. (NAD 83).
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the
July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this
section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
    (5) Marquette Fireworks, Marquette, MI.
    (i) Location. All waters of Lake Superior bounded by the arc of a
circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in
Marquette Harbor's lower breakwater, with its center in position
46[deg]32'02'' N; 087[deg]22'49'' W. (NAD 83).
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the
July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this
section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
    (6) Whitefish Township Fireworks, Paradise, MI.
    (i) Location. All waters of Lake Superior within a 1000-foot radius
from the fireworks launch site in Whitefish Bay, with its center in
position 46[deg]36'53'' N; 085[deg]02'24'' W. (NAD 83).
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the
July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this
section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
    (7) Munising Fireworks, Munising, MI.
    (i) Location. All waters of Lake Superior within a 1000-foot radius
from the fireworks launch site at the end of the Munising City Dock,
with its center in position 46[deg]24'83'' N; 086[deg]39'14'' W. (NAD
83).
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the
July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this
section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
    (b) [Reserved]

    Dated: March 4, 2009.
M.J. Huebschman,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.

    Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the
Federal Register on July 10, 2009.

[FR Doc. E9-16826 Filed 7-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 76436]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29893]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Organization
Designation Authorization

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. This collection involves organizations applying to perform
certification functions on behalf of the FAA, including approving data
and issuing various aircraft and organization certificates.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0704.
    Title: Organization Designation Authorization.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8100-13.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Subpart D to part 183 allows the FAA to appoint
organizations as representatives of the administrator. As authorized,
these organizations perform certification functions on behalf of the
FAA. Applications are submitted to the appropriate FAA office and are
reviewed by the FAA to determine whether the applicant meets the
requirements necessary to be authorized as a representative of the
Administrator. Procedures manuals are submitted and approved by the FAA
as a means to ensure that the correct processes are utilized when
performing functions on behalf of the FAA. These requirements are
necessary to manage the various approvals issued by the organization
and to document approvals issued and must be maintained in order to
address potential future safety issues.
    Respondents: Approximately 83 applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 41.7 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,158 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 17, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-29893 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 90)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27217-27218]
[DOCID:fr10my06-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0015; FRL-8068-8]
RIN 2070-AJ18

Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates; Proposed Significant New Use Rule;
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This document extends the public comment period for the
proposed Significant New Use Rule for certain Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates
issued under the authority of section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) that was published in the Federal Register on March
10, 2006 (71 FR 12311) (FRL-7740-6). On April 10, 2006 (71 FR 18055)
(FRL-7779-7), EPA extended the end of the public comment period from
April 10, 2006 to May 10, 2006. In this action, EPA is further
extending the end of the comment period from May 10, 2006 to August 8,
2006.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES
in the Federal Register document of March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12311).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For technical information contact: Amy Breedlove, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    The Agency included in the proposed rule a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What Action is EPA Taking?

    This document extends the public comment period for the proposed
SNUR for certain perfluoroalkyl sulfonates issued under the authority
of section 5(a)(2) of TSCA that was published in the Federal Register
on March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12311). On April 10, 2006 (71 FR 18055), EPA
extended the end of the public comment period from April 10, 2006 to
May 10, 2006. In today's action,

EPA is further extending the end of the comment period from May 10,
2006, to August 8, 2006. The Agency is taking this action because EPA
has received a request from certain stakeholders in the semiconductor
industry to extend the comment period on the proposed SNUR, citing that
90 days is the minimum extension period they would require to provide
EPA with the necessary information it needs to finalize the SNUR.
Without this extension, the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
and Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI) believe
they would not have an adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed
SNUR.

III. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to
determine that a use of a chemical substance is a ``significant new
use.'' EPA must make this determination by promulgating a rule after
considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA
section 5(a)(2). These factors include the projected production volume
of a chemical substance; the extent to which a use changes or increases
the type, form, magnitude, or duration of exposure to the substance;
and the reasonably anticipated manner of producing, processing,
distributing, or disposing of the substance. EPA construes the statute
to allow consideration of any other relevant factors, in addition to
those listed in section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a
chemical substance is a significant new use, and promulgates a SNUR,
section 5(a)(1)(B) of TSCA requires persons to submit a Significant New
Use Notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture,
import, or process the chemical substance for that use.

IV. Do Any Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Action?

    No. This action is not a rulemaking, it merely extends the date by
which public comments on a proposed rule must be submitted to EPA on a
proposed rule that previously published in the Federal Register of
March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12311). For information about the applicability
of the statutory and executive order reviews to the proposed rule,
please refer to the discussion in Unit XII. of that document (71 FR
12311).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 4, 2006.
Charles M. Auer,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 06-4353 Filed 5-5-06; 1:01 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 13728]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05343]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Suburban Minerals Corp.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

March 7, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Suburban Minerals Corp. because of questions regarding the accuracy of
publicly available information about the company's operations.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on
March 7, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 20, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05343 Filed 3-7-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10523-10524]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04746]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028]

MET Laboratories, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for MET Laboratories, Inc., as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
March 9, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110; email: [email protected]. OSHA's web page includes
information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET), as a NRTL. MET's expansion
covers the addition of four test standards to its scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require
testing and certification of the products.
    The Agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial
recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page
for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages are
available from the Agency's website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    MET submitted four applications, one dated July 7, 2015 (OSHA-2006-
0028-0037), two dated December 14, 2016

(OSHA-2006-0028-0038 and OSHA-2006-0028-0039), and a fourth dated
January 11, 2017 (OSHA-2006-0028-0040), to expand its recognition to
include four additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a
comparability analysis and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA
did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing MET's expansion
application in the Federal Register on December 18, 2017 (82 FR 60053).
The Agency requested comments by January 2, 2018, but it received no
comments in response to this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this
final notice to grant expansion of MET's scope of recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
the MET's application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Docket No. OSHA-
2006-0028 contains all materials in the record concerning MET's
recognition.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined MET's expansion application, its capability to
meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent
information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that MET
meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its
recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below.
OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant MET's
scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of MET's recognition to
testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance
to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.

 Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in MET's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 50E......................  Enclosures for Electrical Equipment,
                               Environmental Considerations.
UL 60079-1..................  Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--Part
                               1: Equipment Protection by Flameproof
                               Enclosures ``d''.
UL 60335-2-40...............  Household and Similar Electrical
                               Appliances--Safety--Part 2-40: Particular
                               Requirements for Electrical Heat Pumps,
                               Air Conditioners and Dehumidifiers.
UL 61800-5-1................  Standard for Adjustable Speed Electrical
                               Power Drive Systems--Part 5-1: Safety
                               Requirements--Electrical, Thermal and
                               Energy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the
test standards listed above as American National Standards. However,
for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing
organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under
the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C,
paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may
use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI
version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test
standard is currently ANSI-approved.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
MET must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. MET must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. MET must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. MET must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on MET's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
scope of recognition of MET, subject to the limitation and conditions
specified above.

III. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 5, 2018.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2018-04746 Filed 3-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P