[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 26939-26940]
[DOCID:fr09my06-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-319-000]

Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 2, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 27, 2006, Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC
(DOMAC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First
Revised Volume No. 1, Twenty-First Revised Sheet No. 94 and Second
Revised Sheet

No. 94A, to become effective as of June 1, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6962 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38423-38424]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15224]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69807; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Exchange Rule 9.21

June 20, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On April 25, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act''), and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on May 14, 2013.\3\ The
Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69535 (May 14,
2013), 78 FR 28262 (May 14, 2013) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposed to update Exchange Rule 9.21, ``Options
Communications,'' to conform with changes recently made by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') to its
corresponding rule.\4\ The proposed changes to Exchange Rule 9.21 are
designed to alert Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') to their
requirements with respect to Options Communications while further
regulating all communications for compliance with Exchange Rules and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68650 (January 14,
2013), 78 FR 4182 (January 18, 2013) (Notice of Immediate
Effectiveness of SR-FINRA-2013-001). The Exchange also proposed
certain changes in Rule 9.21 to conform with aspects of the FINRA
rule that predated the recent FINRA amendment and were not changed
by that amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the proposed rule change amends Exchange Rule 9.21(a) to
reduce the number of defined categories of communication from six (in
the current rule) to three. The proposed three categories of
communications are: Retail communications, correspondence, and
institutional communications. Current definitions of ``sales
literature,'' ``advertisement,'' and ``independently prepared reprint''
are combined into a single category of ``retail communications.'' Thus,
the Exchange proposed to define ``retail communication'' as ``any
written (including electronic) communication that is distributed or
made available to more than 25 retail investors within any 30 calendar-
day period.'' The Exchange also proposed to update the definition of
``correspondence'' to ``any written (including electronic)
communication distributed or made available by a Trading Permit Holder
to 25 or fewer retail customers within any 30 calendar-day period.''
Finally, the Exchange proposed to define ``institutional
communication'' to include written

(including electronic) communications that are distributed or made
available only to institutional investors.
    Second, the Exchange proposed to amend Rule 9.21(b), ``Approval by
Registered Options Principal'', to replace the phrase ``advertisements,
sales literature, and independently prepared reprints'' in Rule
9.21(b)(i) with the new proposed term, ``retail communications.''
    Under proposed rule 9.21(b)(ii), correspondence would ``need not be
approved by a Registered Options Principal prior to use'' but would be
subject to the supervision and review requirements of Exchange Rule
9.8. The Exchange proposed to delete the requirement for principal
approval of correspondence that is distributed to 25 or more existing
retail customers within a 30 calendar-day period that makes any
financial or investment recommendation or otherwise promotes the
product or service of a TPH. Under the proposed Rule 9.21(b), such
communications would be considered retail communications and therefore
would be subject to the principal approval requirement. As such, the
proposed change would not substantively change the scope of options
communications that would require principal approval.
    Third, the Exchange proposed to modify the required approvals of
``Institutional communications'' by adding that a TPH shall ``establish
written procedures that are appropriate to its business, size,
structure, and customers for review by a Registered Options Principal
of institutional communications used by the Trading Permit Holder or
TPH organization.''
    Fourth, the Exchange proposed to amend Rule 9.21(c) to replace the
phrase ``advertisements, sales literature, and independently prepared
reprints'' with the new proposed term ``retail communications.'' The
Exchange also proposed to further exempt options disclosure documents
and prospectuses from Exchange review as other requirements apply to
these documents under the Securities Act of 1933.
    Fifth, the Exchange proposed to specify in Rule 9.21(d) that TPHs
may not use any options communications that ``constitute a prospectus''
unless the communications meet the requirements of the Securities Act
of 1933. Finally, the Exchange proposed to move and slightly modify
Rule 9.21(d) to state that any statement made referring to ``potential
opportunities or advantages presented by options'' must also be
accompanied by a statement identifying the potential risks posed.

III. Discussion

    As noted above, the Commission received no comments on the proposed
rule change. The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule
change and finds that it is generally consistent with the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange \5\ and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\
Specifically, the Commission finds the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange, among other things, be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Commission believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires that the rules of an
exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change will help TPHs that are also members of FINRA to comply with
their obligations regarding options communications by better aligning
the Exchange's requirements with those of FINRA. In addition, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change will help protect
investors from potentially false or misleading communications with the
public distributed by Exchange TPHs.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-69535) be, and hereby is,
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15224 Filed 6-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


January 26, 2005 NOTE SUBJECT: Communication with Solite Corporation Regarding Mercury Data FROM: Frank Behan, OSW/ OSWER, USEPA TO: Docket ID No. OAR 2004 0022 On December 29, 2004, I sent an email to Mr. Stephen Holt, Director, Environmental Affairs, Giant Cement Holding, Inc. ( parent company of Solite Corporation), requesting clarification on the hazardous waste mercury concentration data submitted with their July 6, 2004, public comments. See Solite comments OAR 2004 0022 0270 ( main body comments) and OAR 2004 0022 0333 ( Appendix B: Waste Fuel Mercury Concentration Data). I asked whether all measurements included in Appendix B were for hazardous waste fuels. On January 4, 2005, Mr. Holt confirmed that fuel measurements with an identification number beginning with an " n" or " N" are for non hazardous waste fuels. As a result, of the 359 measurements included in Appendix B, 311 measurements are for hazardous waste fuels and 48 are for non hazardous waste fuels.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20554-20556]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08589]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Consensus Standards, Light-Sport Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of eleven revised
consensus standards relating to the provisions of the Sport Pilot and
Light-Sport Aircraft rule issued July 16, 2004, and effective September
1, 2004. ASTM International Committee F37 on Light Sport Aircraft
developed the revised standards with Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) participation. By this notice, the FAA finds the revised
standards acceptable for certification of the specified aircraft under
the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Small
Airplane Directorate, Programs and Procedures Branch, ACE-114,

Attention: Terry Chasteen, Room 301, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. Comments may also be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Specify the standard being addressed by ASTM designation and title.
Mark all comments: Consensus Standards Comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Chasteen, Light-Sport Aircraft
Program Manager, Programs and Procedures Branch (ACE-114), Small
Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces the availability of
eleven revised consensus standards that supersede previously accepted
consensus standards relating to the provisions of the Sport Pilot and
Light-Sport Aircraft rule. ASTM International Committee F37 on Light-
Sport Aircraft developed the revised standards. The FAA expects a
suitable consensus standard to be reviewed periodically. The review
cycle will result in a standard revision or reapproval. A standard is
revised to make changes to its technical content or is reapproved to
indicate a review cycle has been completed with no technical changes. A
standard is issued under a fixed designation (e.g., F2245); the number
immediately following the designation indicates the year of original
adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A
number in parentheses following the year of original adoption or
revision indicates the year of last reapproval. For example, F2242-05
(2013) designates a standard that was originally adopted (or revised)
in 2005 and reapproved in 2013. A superscript epsilon ([egr]) indicates
an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. A notice of
availability (NOA) will only be issued for new or revised standards.
Reapproved standards issued with no technical changes or standards
issued with editorial changes only (i.e., superscript epsilon [[egr]])
are considered accepted by the FAA without need for an NOA.
    Comments Invited: Interested persons are invited to submit such
written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Communications
should identify the consensus standard number and be submitted to the
address specified above. All communications received on or before the
closing date for comments will be forwarded to ASTM International
Committee F37 for consideration. The standard may be changed in light
of the comments received. The FAA will address all comments received
during the recurring review of the consensus standard and will
participate in the consensus standard revision process.
    Background: Under the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport
Aircraft rule, and revised Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-119, ``Federal Participation in the Development and Use of
Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment
Activities'', dated February 10, 1998, industry and the FAA have been
working with ASTM International to develop consensus standards for
light-sport aircraft. These consensus standards satisfy the FAA's goal
for airworthiness certification and a verifiable minimum safety level
for light-sport aircraft. Instead of developing airworthiness standards
through the rulemaking process, the FAA participates as a member of
Committee F37 in developing these standards. The use of the consensus
standard process assures government and industry discussion and
agreement on appropriate standards for the required level of safety.

Comments on Previous Notices of Availability

    In the Notice of Availability (NOA) issued on February 21, 2014,
and published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2014 the FAA
asked for public comments on the new and revised consensus standards
accepted by that NOA. The comment period closed on April 28, 2014. No
public comments were received regarding the standards accepted by this
NOA.

Consensus Standards in This Notice of Availability

    The FAA has reviewed the standards presented in this NOA for
compliance with the regulatory requirements of the rule. Any light-
sport aircraft issued a special light-sport airworthiness certificate,
which has been designed, manufactured, operated and maintained, in
accordance with this and previously accepted ASTM consensus standards
provides the public with the appropriate level of safety established
under the regulations. Manufacturers who choose to produce these
aircraft and certificate these aircraft under 14 CFR 21.190 or 21.191
are subject to the applicable consensus standard requirements. The FAA
maintains a listing of all accepted standards on the FAA Web site.

The Revised Consensus Standard and Effective Period of Use

    The following previously accepted consensus standards have been
revised, and this NOA is accepting the later revision. Either the
previous revision or the later revision may be used for the initial
certification of special light-sport aircraft until October 15, 2015.
This overlapping period of time will allow aircraft that have started
the initial certification process using the previous revision level to
complete that process. After October 15, 2015, manufacturers must use
the later revision and must identify the later revision in the
Statement of Compliance for initial certification of special light-
sport aircraft unless the FAA publishes a specific notification
otherwise. The following Consensus Standards may not be used after
October 15, 2015:

ASTM Designation F2241-13, titled: Standard Specification for Continued
Airworthiness System for Powered Parachute Aircraft
ASTM Designation F2244-13, titled: Standard Specification for Design
and Performance Requirements for Powered Parachute Aircraft
ASTM Designation F2245-13b, titled: Standard Specification for Design
and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane
ASTM Designation F2352-11, titled: Standard Specification for Design
and Performance of Light Sport Gyroplane Aircraft
ASTM Designation F2355-13, titled: Standard Specification for Design
and Performance Requirements for Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport Aircraft
ASTM Designation F2415-09, titled: Standard Practice for Continued
Airworthiness System for Light Sport Gyroplane Aircraft
ASTM Designation F2564-13, titled: Standard Specification for Design
and Performance of a Light Sport Glider
ASTM Designation F2746-12, titled: Standard Specification for Pilot's
Operating Handbook (POH) for Light Sport Airplane
ASTM Designation F2840-11, titled: Standard Practice for Design and
Manufacture of Electric Propulsion Units for Light Sport Aircraft
ASTM Designation F2930-13, titled: Standard Guide for Compliance with
Light Sport Aircraft Standards

    The following previously accepted consensus standard has been
revised, and this NOA is accepting the later revision. Either the
previous revision or the later revision may be used for the initial
certification of special light-sport aircraft until October 14, 2016.
This overlapping period of time will allow aircraft that have started
the initial

certification process using the previous revision level to complete
that process. After October 14, 2016, manufacturers must use the later
revision and must identify the later revision in the Statement of
Compliance for initial certification of special light-sport aircraft
unless the FAA publishes a specific notification otherwise. The
following Consensus Standard may not be used after October 14, 2016:

ASTM Designation F2972-12, titled: Standard Specification for Light
Sport Aircraft Manufacturer's Quality Assurance System

The Consensus Standards

    The FAA finds the following revised consensus standards acceptable
for certification of the specified aircraft under the provisions of the
Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft rule. The following consensus
standards become effective April 16, 2015 and may be used unless the
FAA publishes a specific notification otherwise:

ASTM Designation F2241-14, titled: Standard Specification for Continued
Airworthiness System for Powered Parachute Aircraft
ASTM Designation F2244-14, titled: Standard Specification for Design
and Performance Requirements for Powered Parachute Aircraft
ASTM Designation F2245-14, titled: Standard Specification for Design
and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane
ASTM Designation F2352-14, titled: Standard Specification for Design
and Performance of Light Sport Gyroplane Aircraft
ASTM Designation F2355-14, titled: Standard Specification for Design
and Performance Requirements for Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport Aircraft
ASTM Designation F2415-14, titled: Standard Practice for Continued
Airworthiness System for Light Sport Gyroplane Aircraft
ASTM Designation F2564-14, titled: Standard Specification for Design
and Performance of a Light Sport Glider
ASTM Designation F2746-14, titled: Standard Specification for Pilot's
Operating Handbook (POH) for Light Sport Airplane
ASTM Designation F2840-14, titled: Standard Practice for Design and
Manufacture of Electric Propulsion Units for Light Sport Aircraft
ASTM Designation F2930-14a, titled: Standard Guide for Compliance with
Light Sport Aircraft Standards
ASTM Designation F2972-14[egr]1, titled: Standard Specification for
Light Sport Aircraft Manufacturer's Quality Assurance System

Availability

    ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 copyrights these consensus standards.
Individual reprints of a standard (single or multiple copies, or
special compilations and other related technical information) may be
obtained by contacting ASTM at this address, or at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), through<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(email), or
through the ASTM Web site at www.astm.org. To inquire about standard
content and/or membership or about ASTM International Offices abroad,
contact Christine DeJong, Staff Manager for Committee F37 on Light-
Sport Aircraft:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 27, 2015.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-08589 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33699]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13765]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0382]

Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Sausalito, San
Francisco Bay, Sausalito, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Fourth of
July Fireworks, City of Sausalito in the Captain of the Port, San
Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted
below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the
maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.
During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the
safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 10 will
be enforced from 9 a.m. to 9:40 p.m. on July 4, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade William Hawn, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a 100 foot
safety zone around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and
arrival of the fireworks barge at the display location and until the
start of the fireworks display. From 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. on July 4,
2014, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics off of Pier 50
in approximate position 37[deg]46'28'' N, 122[deg]23'06'' W (NAD 83).
From 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on July 4, 2014 the loaded fireworks barge
will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Sausalito, CA in
approximate position 37[deg]51'31'' N, 122[deg]28'28'' W (NAD83) where
it will remain until the conclusion of the scheduled fireworks display.
Upon the commencement of the fireworks display, scheduled to begin at
9:15 p.m. on July 4, 2014, the safety zone will increase in size and
encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge
within a radius 1,000 feet in approximate position 37[deg]51'31'' N,
122[deg]28'28'' W (NAD83) for the Fourth of July Fireworks, City of
Sausalito in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 10. This safety zone
will be in effect from 9 a.m. to 9:40 p.m. on July 4, 2014.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each
person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an
official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The
PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of
commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive
advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via
the Local Notice to Mariners.
    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: May 23 2014.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2014-13765 Filed 6-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


that the ozone impacts of the subject emission controls, as well as the
impacts of the NOX SIP call, are significant in Lake and
Porter Counties. IDEM used these modeling results to determine the
relative impacts on peak ozone concentrations in this area during 2007
and 2020. The modeling results indicate that the monitoring site ozone
design values in Lake County would be lowered to a range of 0.069 ppm
to 0.071 ppm (depending on the monitor) in 2007. Similar ozone design
values are indicated for 2020, although slightly reduced due to the
impacts of more years of implementation of the emission controls.
EPA Ozone Modeling for the Clean Air Interstate Rule
    EPA conducted ozone modeling to assess the ozone impacts resulting
from the NOX emission reduction expected to be produced by
the CAIR. Modeling was conducted for 2010 and 2015. Results of the CAIR
modeling show that Lake and Porter Counties will have attained the
ozone NAAQS in 2010, with a peak modeled 8-hour concentration below
0.085 ppm. With additional NOX emission reduction projected
through 2015, the modeling shows that monitoring site ozone design
values will further decrease through 2015. This supports maintenance of
the ozone standard in Lake and Porter through 2015.
LADCO Updated Round 4 Ozone Modeling
    LADCO recently completed updated ozone modeling using the CAMx
model for ozone and the most current emissions inventories and model
updates and inputs. This modeling was performed to support ozone
attainment demonstrations for the LADCO States. The Round 4 modeling
included scenarios considering the ``on-the-books'' emission controls
for future years, 2009 and 2012. Note that the State of Indiana is
developing a rule to implement CAIR requirements. Using the relative
change in the peak ozone concentrations indicated by the Round 4
modeling along with the 2003-2005 ozone design value, IDEM derived
future ozone design values for 2009 and 2012 for the Lake and Porter
Counties' monitoring sites. All estimated ozone design values for 2009
and 2012 are well below the ozone standard. This implies that the ``on-
the-book'' emissions controls will help to maintain the ozone standard
in Lake and Porter Counties.

B. Temperature--Ozone Exceedance Frequency Study

    IDEM analyzed the 1995-2005 trend in the annual number of days with
peak daytime temperatures equaling or

exceeding 90 degrees Fahrenheit versus the annual number of 8-hour
ozone standard exceedances at various monitoring sites. Although ozone
standard exceedance numbers showed some correlation to the annual
number of high temperature days, IDEM noted that this correlation is
changing. While the trend in the annual number of high temperature days
shows no distinct trend, the annual number of ozone standard
exceedances is showing a downward trend. IDEM attributes the difference
in trends to the impacts of VOC and NOX emission controls.
Based on this observation, IDEM attributes the improvement in ozone air
quality to the implementation of emission controls.

VIII. Review of Indiana's 2002 Base Year Emissions Submittal

    The CAA gives the States the responsibility to inventory emissions
contributing to the violation a NAAQS, to track these emissions over
time, and to ensure that emission control strategies have been
implemented and have achieved planned emission targets. States
containing ozone nonattainment areas are required, under section
182(a)(1) of the CAA, to submit comprehensive, accurate, and current
base year inventories of actual ozone precursor emissions (emissions of
VOC, NOX, and CO) for each ozone nonattainment area. These
emission inventories must include emissions from point, area, on-road
mobile, and non-road mobile man-made (anthropogenic) and biogenic
(natural or plant-generated) sources in the ozone nonattainment areas.
The States must also inventory facility-specific emissions for major
source facilities. The emission inventories must specify emissions for
typical summer weekdays.
    Two EPA guidance documents have been developed to cover the
emissions reviewed here. First, a November 18, 2002 memorandum (``2002
Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5
and Regional Haze Programs,'' memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman,
Director, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, and Peter
Tsirigotis, Director, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors) established 2002 as the base year to
be used in the current round of ozone, fine particulates
(PM2.5), and haze control planning. Second, SIP emissions
inventory guidance, including guidance specific to the base year
emissions, is given in an August 2005 EPA guidance document,
(``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations,'' EPA-454/R-05-001).
    On March 26, 2007, IDEM submitted documentation of 2002 statewide
emissions of VOC, NOX, and CO in response to an EPA request
for the documentation of the base year emissions for Lake and Porter
Counties. The 2002 statewide emissions, documented by county, were
prepared to comply with EPA's Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
(CERR), published on June 10, 2002 (67 FR 39602) (40 CFR part 51
subparts A and Q). Also included with the March 26, 2007 submittal was
a compact disk containing detailed emissions data, including input data
used to calculate the emissions.
    Emissions contained in the March 26, 2007 submittal cover the
general source categories of point sources, area sources, on-road
mobile sources, non-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. All
emission summaries were accompanied by source-specific descriptions of
emission calculation procedures and sources of input data along with
sample calculations for various counties in the State.
    To determine point source emissions, the State relied on data
collected from source facilities complying with the State's annual
emissions reporting requirements, 326 IAC 2-6. Major sources of any
criteria pollutant located anywhere in the State of Indiana are
required to annually submit to the State data specifying their annual
emissions of criteria pollutants along with seasonal information to
allow the calculation of seasonal emissions. Emissions for any
particular year are to be reported by April 15th of the following year.
In Elkhart, Floyd, Lake, Marion, Porter, St. Joseph, and Vanderburgh
Counties, sources with the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year
of VOC or NOX must report annually. In other portions of the
State, the reporting source size emissions cutoff is 100 tons per year.
    Point source emissions reporting submittals are checked by IDEM to
assure completeness. If the data are determined to be complete, the
emissions data are loaded into the State's emissions database. IDEM
also reviews the data for quality assurance, and, if needed, sources
are requested to correct the data. After completing data quality
assurance, the point source data are submitted to the EPA for
incorporation into the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), as required
by the CERR. The March 26, 2007 submittal includes VOC, NOX,
and CO emissions for each reporting facility statewide. The supplied
data files document a number of source-specific data used to determine
the source-specific emissions.
    Area source emissions were calculated using a variety of
information sources and guidance from the EPA. A primary source of
calculation procedures and applied guidance was EPA's Emission
Inventory Improvement Program. Where appropriate, point source
emissions were subtracted from the calculated area source emissions to
account for source coverage overlap with the reported point source
emissions and to avoid double counting of emissions in the emissions
totals. The documentation supplied in the March 26, 2007 submittal
shows how the county-specific emissions were calculated for each area
source category. County-specific source surrogates and associated
emission factors were generally used to calculate county-specific
emissions. Samples of area source emission calculations were provided
for selected Counties. Area source emissions for all 92 Indiana
Counties were documented in the March 26, 2007 submittal and in the
data files included in the accompanying data disk.
    The September 12, 2006 ozone redesignation request included a
detailed description of the procedures and input data used to determine
the mobile source emissions for Lake and Porter Counties for 2002, as
well as for emission projections used to document attainment year and
maintenance period mobile source VOC and NOX emissions (see
the discussion of mobile source emissions and emission budgets for Lake
and Porter Counties, above). The March 26, 2007 base year emissions
submittal documents the mobile source VOC, CO, and NOX
emissions for each of the counties in the State. The March 26, 2007
submittal notes that the mobile source emissions for Lake and Porter
Counties were derived by the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning
Commission, whereas the mobile source emissions for all other counties
were obtained from EPA's NEI.
    Non-road mobile source VOC, NOX, and CO emissions for
2002 were generated by the National Mobile Inventory Model. To update
and quality assure the emissions for locomotives, commercial and
recreational marine sources, and off-road mobile equipment sources,
LADCO contracted with several consultants to update source population
and distribution levels. Summaries of the consultants' results and
recommended emissions changes were included in the March 26, 2007
submittal. This submittal documented non-road mobile VOC,
NOX, and CO

emissions by county for all 92 Counties in Indiana.
    Biogenic VOC, NOX, and CO emissions for 2002 were taken
directly from the NEI for each county in Indiana.
    The March 26, 2007 submittal documents 2002 VOC, CO, and
NOX emissions for each Indiana county in units of tons per
year and tons per summer day. The 2002 summer day emissions of VOC,
NOX, and CO for Lake and Porter Counties are summarized in
Table 7.

  Table 7.--2002 Ozone Precursor Emissions in Lake and Porter Counties,
                Indiana--Emissions in Tons per Summer Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Source category                 VOC        NOX         CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake County
    Point..............................      19.88     106.33     466.11
    Area...............................      24.78       4.37       3.93
    On-Road Mobile.....................      15.35      40.15     186.39
    Non-Road Mobile....................      20.18      28.82     176.98
    Biogenic...........................      18.59       0.79       1.91
                                        --------------------------------
        Total..........................      98.78     180.46     835.32
Porter County
    Point..............................       4.70      80.11     405.01
    Area...............................       7.49       1.35       1.35
    On-Road Mobile.....................       4.85      14.95      63.66
    Non-Road Mobile....................      12.80      11.37      73.19
    Biogenic...........................      15.15       0.63       1.63
                                        --------------------------------
        Total..........................      44.99     108.41     544.84
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the state did not hold a separate public hearing on the
2002 base year inventory, the 2002 emissions for Lake and Porter County
were the primary source of emissions data used to project the
attainment year (2004) and maintenance period (2010 and 2020) VOC and
NOX emissions discussed in the State's September 12, 2006
ozone redesignation request, which was subject to public hearing. Since
this ozone redesignation request and ozone maintenance plan, including
the 2002 VOC and NOX emission totals for Lake and Porter
Counties, were discussed during a public hearing we believe that the
2002 base year VOC and NOX emissions for Lake and Porter
Counties have been addressed by a public hearing.
    We find the documentation of the 2002 base year VOC,
NOX, and CO emissions to be acceptable, and we are proposing
here to approve the 2002 base year emissions inventories for Lake and
Porter Counties as a revision of the Indiana SIP.

IX. What Are EPA's Proposed Actions?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
IL-IN 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and is also proposing to approve Indiana's request to redesignate
the Lake and Porter County, IN portion of the area to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA has evaluated the State of Indiana's
redesignation request and determined that it meets the redesignation
criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Final approval
of the redesignation request would change the official designation of
Lake and Porter Counties for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 CFR
part 81, from nonattainment to attainment. EPA is also proposing to
approve Indiana's ozone maintenance plan for Lake and Porter Counties
as a revision to the Indiana SIP because it meets the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA. Final approval would thus also incorporate
into the Indiana SIP a plan for maintaining the ozone NAAQS through
2020. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy
possible future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes
MVEBs of 6.00 tons per day for VOC and 12.60 tons per day for
NOX for 2020 and also MVEBs of 11.5 tons per day for VOC and
40.6 tons per day of NOX for 2010. EPA is proposing to
approve these MVEBs.
    EPA is also proposing to approve into the Indiana SIP the VOC and
NOX periodic inventories for 1999, 2002 and 2004, pursuant
to section 182(a)(3)(A) under the 1-hour standard as well as the 2002
base year VOC and NOX emission inventories for Lake and
Porter Counties, pursuant to section 182(a)(1) under the 8-hour
standard.
    EPA is also proposing to find that, if the 1-hour ozone standard is
deemed to be reinstated, the Chicago-Gary-Lake County area has attained
the 1-hour standard, and Lake and Porter Counties have met the
requirements for and would also qualify for redesignation to attainment
of the 1-hour ozone standard. Thus, EPA proposes to find that if the 1-
hour standard is reinstated, EPA would redesignate the area to
attainment for the 1-hour standard. EPA further proposes to approve and
to find that Indiana's maintenance plan for the 8-hour standard also
provides for maintenance of the 1-hour standard.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA does not impose any
new requirements on small entities. Redesignation of an area to
attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area
and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.
Accordingly, the Administrator

certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications
because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on
the relationship between the national government and the states, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to affect the status of a
geographical area does not impose any new requirements on sources, and
to approve state rules, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will 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, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes approval of
a state rule implementing a federal standard.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Absent a prior
existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
CAA. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a
geographical area but does not impose any new requirements on sources.
Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply.

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

    Executive Order 12898 establishes a Federal policy for
incorporating environmental justice into Federal agency actions by
directing agencies to identify and address, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health of environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and
low-income populations. Today's proposed actions would not result in
the relaxation of control measures on existing sources and therefore
would not cause emissions increases from those sources. Overall,
emissions in the area are projected to decline following redesignation.
Thus, these proposed actions would not have disproportionately high and
adverse effects on any communities in the area, including minority and
low-income communities.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: May 11, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7-9825 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50363-50364]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21750]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0613; FRL-9985-05-OW]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Implementation of Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Implementation of
Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,'' (EPA
ICR No. is 0824.07, OMB Control No. 2040-0008) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is
not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2015-0613. (our preferred method), by email to: [email protected] or by
mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. All comments
received will be included in the public docket without change including
any personal information provided, unless the comment includes
profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Kovatch, Oceans, Wetlands, and
Communities Division, mail code 4504T, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and,
Watersheds, mail code 4501T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-
0399; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), EPA is soliciting comments and information to
enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and
amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be
submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue
another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR
to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: With limited exceptions, ocean dumping--the
transportation of any material for the purpose of dumping in ocean
waters--is prohibited except in compliance with a permit issued under
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). EPA is
responsible for issuing ocean dumping permits for all materials except
dredged material. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is
responsible for issuing ocean dumping permits for dredged material
using EPA's environmental criteria, though for federal projects, the
USACE may apply the environmental criteria directly in lieu of the
permit process. Ocean dumping permits for dredged material are subject
to EPA review and concurrence. EPA is also responsible for designating
and managing ocean sites for the disposal of wastes and other
materials, and establishing Site Management and Monitoring Plans for
ocean disposal sites. EPA collects or sponsors the collection of
information for the purposes of permit issuance, reporting of emergency
dumping to safety of life at sea, compliance with permit requirements,
including general permits for burial at sea, for transportation and
disposal of vessels, and for ocean disposal of marine mammal carcasses.
    EPA collects this information to ensure that ocean dumping is
appropriately regulated and will not harm human health and the marine
environment, based on applying the Ocean Dumping Criteria. The Ocean
Dumping Criteria consider, among other things: The environmental impact
of the dumping; the need for the dumping; the

effect of the dumping on esthetic, recreational, or economic values;
land-based alternatives to ocean dumping; and the adverse effects of
the dumping on other uses of the ocean. The Ocean Dumping Criteria are
codified in 40 CFR parts 227-228. To meet U.S. reporting obligation
under the London Convention, an international treaty on ocean dumping,
EPA also reports some of this information in the annual United States
Ocean Dumping Report.
    EPA uses ocean dumping information to make decisions regarding
whether issue, deny, as well as to impose conditions on ocean dumping
permits issued by EPA in order to ensure consistency with the Ocean
Dumping Criteria. EPA uses monitoring and reporting data from
permittees to assess compliance with ocean dumping permits, including
associated monitoring activities.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents/affected entities may
include any private person or entity, or state, local, or foreign
governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit, specifically permit authorization and/or compliance with
permits required under MPRSA sections 102 and 104, 33 U.S.C. 1402 &
1404, and implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 220-229.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2,768 respondents per year.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of response varies for
application and reporting requirements for different permits. Other
than the general permit for transportation and disposal of vessels,
response is required once for each permit application, whether a single
notification to EPA or a permit application. Depending on the type of
MPRSA permit, a permit application would be required prior to
expiration if the permittee seeks re-issuance: General permit (once
every seven years), special permit (once every three years), and
research permit (once every 18 months).
    Total estimated burden: The public reporting and recordkeeping
burdens for this collection of information are estimated to be 3,497
hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: Annual costs are estimated to be $380,376,
which includes $184,503 for labor and $195,874 for capital or operation
& maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no significant increase in the
burden. There is an increase of 1 hour in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This
increase is due to a change in the program requirements and reflects
updated reporting burden estimates. Specifically, since the issuance of
the current ICR, EPA issued an additional general permit under the
MPRSA for the transport and disposal of marine mammal carcasses in
ocean waters under specified conditions. The estimates in the
supporting information reflect the increase associated with the general
permit, which was published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2016
[81 FR 87928].

    Dated: September 27, 2018.
John Goodin,
Acting Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
[FR Doc. 2018-21750 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34728-34731]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15631]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81176; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-33]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Eliminate Non-Regular Way Trading on the Exchange

July 20, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on July 10, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate non-regular way trading on the
Exchange. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate non-regular way trading on the
Exchange. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend or
delete the following rules:
     Rule 12 (``Business Day'');
     Rule 14 (Non-Regular Way Settlement Instructions for
Orders);
     Rule 14T (Non-Regular Way Settlement Instructions for
Orders);
     Dealings and Settlements (Rules 45--299C);
     Rule 64 (Bonds, Rights and 100-Share-Unit Stocks);
     Rule 64T (Bonds, Rights and 100-Share-Unit Stocks);
     Rule 66 (U.S. Government Securities);
     Rule 73 (Seller's Option);
     Rule 123 (Record of Orders);
     Rule 130 (Overnight Comparison of Exchange Transactions);
     Rule 132 (Comparison and Settlement of Transactions
Through A Fully-Interfaced or Qualified Clearing Agency);
     Rule 137 (Written Contracts);
     Rule 137A (Samples of Written Contracts);
     Rule 177 (Delivery Time--``Cash'' Contracts);
     Rule 179 (``Seller's Option'');
     Rule 189 (Unit of Delivery);
     Rule 235 (Ex-Dividend, Ex-Rights);
     Rule 235T (Ex-Dividend, Ex-Rights);
     Rule 236 (Ex-Warrants);
     Rule 236T (Ex-Warrants);
     Rule 241 (Interest--Added to Contract Price);
     Rule 257 (Deliveries After ``Ex'' Date);
     Rule 257T (Deliveries After ``Ex'' Date); and

     Rule 282 (Buy-in Procedures).

Background and Proposed Rule Change

    The current standard trade settlement cycle for most securities
transactions is three business days after trade date (``T+3'').\4\ The
standard settlement cycle is referred to as ``regular way'' settlement.
Settlement cycles that are longer or shorter than the standard cycle
are referred to as ``non-regular way'' settlement instructions. Rule
14(a)(i) defines non-regular way settlement instructions as
instructions allowing for settlement other than regular way. Non-
regular way settlement instructions are (1) cash; (2) next day; and (3)
seller's option.\5\ Currently, the Exchange only offers non-regular way
settlement instructions for orders manually represented by Floor
brokers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SEC Rule 15c6-1(a), 17 CFR 240.15c6-1(a). SEC Rule 15c6-
1(a) has been amended to shorten the settlement cycle to two
business days (``T+2''), which will be operative on September 5,
2017 (the ``T+2 regular way settlement initiative''). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 80295, 82 FR 15564 (May 30, 2017) (File No.
S7-22-16). The Exchange has also amended its rules to reflect the
T+2 regular way settlement initiative. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 80021 (February 10, 2017), 82 FR 10931 (February 16,
2017) (SR-NYSE-2016-87) (``Release No. 80021'').
    \5\ See Rule 14(b). Orders indicating cash settlement
instructions require delivery of the securities on the same day as
the trade date. Next day settlement instructions require delivery of
the securities on the first business day following the trade date.
Orders that have settlement instructions of seller's option afford
the seller the right to deliver the security at any time within a
specified period, ranging from not less than two business days to
not more than sixty days for securities and not less than two
business days and no more than sixty days for U.S. government
securities.
    \6\ In March 2009, the Exchange amended its rules to require
that all orders submitted to Exchange be submitted for regular way
settlement. See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 59446
(February 25, 2009), 74 FR 9323 (March 3, 2009)(SR-NYSE-2009-17)
(``Release No. 58446''). In July 2009, in response to certain
customer needs, the Exchange adopted Rule 14 to allow orders
containing non-regular way settlement instructions to be transmitted
directly to a Floor broker for manual order handling. See Securities
and Exchange Act Release No. 60216 (July 1, 2009), 74 FR 33283 (July
10, 2009)(SR-NYSE-2009-59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because non-regular way settlement instructions are infrequently
used by market participants,\7\ the Exchange proposes to eliminate non-
regular way settlement instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, in 2016, the Exchange and its affiliate NYSE
MKT LLC combined received a total of 5 orders with non-regular way
instructions, 2 of which were later reversed. All 5 orders were
received in the last two trading months of the year. No orders with
non-regular way instructions have been received on either market to
date in 2017. In contrast, at the time the Exchange eliminated non-
regular way settlement instructions in 2009, the Exchange was
receiving, on average, 28 cash orders, 48 next day orders, and 2
seller's option orders each day. See Release No. 58446, supra note
5, 74 FR at 9324 (based on a review of orders received during one
week in May 2008). During the last five trading days of 2007, when
the most cash, next day and seller's options orders were received,
the average daily submissions were 123 for cash, 199 for next day,
and 10 for seller's option. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend or delete the
following Rules:
     Rule 12 defines the term ``Business Day'' and provides
that on any business day that the banks, transfer agencies and
depositories for securities in New York State are closed, except for
orders containing non-regular way settlement instructions pursuant to
Rule 14, deliveries or payments ordinarily due on such a day shall be
due on the following business day. As discussed below, Rule 14 is being
amended to delete non-regular way settlement. The Exchange accordingly
proposes to delete the clause ``Except for orders containing non-
regular way settlement instructions pursuant to Rule 14,'' in Rule
12(1). The Exchange also proposes to delete the clause ``other than
``cash'' contracts made on such a day'' in Rule 12(3).
     As noted, Rule 14 provides for non-regular way settlement
instructions. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14 to provide that
all bids and offers will be deemed regular way. To effect this change,
the Exchange proposes to delete (i) the heading of current Rule 14 and
replace it with ``Bid or Offer Deemed Regular Way,'' and (ii) the
preamble to current Rule 14, the text of subsections (a) through (e),
and the subsection heading ``(f).'' The Exchange further proposes to
replace the rule text with the following text: ``Bids and offers will
be considered to be `regular way.''' This proposed rule is based on
NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. Rule 7.8.
     Rule 14T was adopted in 2016 to reflect the upcoming
transition to T+2 to reflect two day settlement.\8\ In light of the
proposed changes to Rule 14, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 14T
in its entirety as moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In 2016, the Exchange also adopted, among other rules,
Current Dealings and Settlements (Rules 45--299C), Rule 64T, Rule
235T, Rule 236T, and Rule 257T, and added preambles to the current
version of each amended rule and to the rules designated with a T.
See Release No. 80021, supra note 3, 82 FR at 10932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Current Dealings and Settlements (Rules 45--299C) sets
forth delivery dates for cash, regular way, seller's option and when
issued and when distributed contracts for the sale of securities (Rule
64, 65). The Exchange proposes to delete all references to the cash and
seller's options. The Exchange proposes the same changes to Current
Dealings and Settlements (Rules 45--299C). In the chart addressing
contracts for sale of U.S. government bonds (Rule 66), the Exchange
similarly proposes to delete all references to the cash and seller's
options.
     Rule 64 governs settlement instructions for bonds, rights
and 100-share-unit stocks. The Exchange proposes to delete the preamble
and all references to non-regular way settlement instructions from this
Rule. Specifically, the Exchange would delete ``(a) (i) Except as
provided in (ii) below, b'' and capitalize the ``b'' in bids in the
first sentence. The Exchange proposes to insert a period after
``regular way'' and delete the clause ``i.e., for delivery on the third
business day following the day of the contract.'' The Exchange further
proposes to delete the last sentence of current subsection (a)(i)
referring to non-regular way settlement instructions along with the
parentheses. Subsections (a)(ii) and (b) through (c) would also be
deleted.
     In light of the changes to Rule 64, the Exchange proposes
to delete Rule 64T in its entirety as moot.
     Rule 66 governs settlement instructions for U.S.
Government securities. The Exchange proposes to insert a period
following ``regular way'' and delete the clause ``for that security
i.e., for delivery on the business day following the day of the
trade.'' The Exchange also proposes to delete the final sentence of the
rule referring to non-regular way settlement instructions along with
the parentheses.
     Rule 73 governs seller's option. The heading and rule text
would be deleted in their entirety. ``Reserved'' would replace
``Seller's Option'' in the heading.
     Rule 123 sets forth certain record keeping requirements
for orders. Subsection (f) governs order execution reports and
specifies the data elements for such reports. The Exchange proposes to
delete data element 14, which relates to non-regular way settlement
instructions, and re-number the remaining elements.
     Rule 130 governs overnight comparison of Exchange
transactions. The Exchange proposes to delete the phrase ``contracts
for `regular way', `next day' and `seller's option' settlement, as
prescribed in Rule 14, in stocks, rights, warrants,'' in subsection
(c).
     Rule 132 governs comparison and settlement of transactions
through a fully-interfaced or qualified clearing agency (as defined
therein). Supplementary Material .30 of the Rule sets forth the
necessary trade data elements that clearing member organizations must
submit to a fully-interfaced or qualified clearing agency for the
comparison and/or settlement of a round-lot regular way contract. The
last paragraph of Supplementary Material .30 provides that clearing
member organizations that are a party to

a round lot non-regular way contract shall submit the same trade data
elements. The Exchange proposes to delete the last paragraph.
     Rule 137 addresses various aspect of written contracts
for, among other things, seller's option in stocks and bonds for more
than seven days, that are not submitted to the Exchange or to a
qualified clearing agency for comparison. The Exchange proposes to
delete the clause ```seller's option' transactions in stocks, on
`seller's option' transactions in bonds for more than seven days, as
prescribed in Rule 14 and on'' in the first paragraph of the Rule.
     Rule 137A sets forth examples of written contracts.
Supplementary Material .20 of the Rule provides a model for a seller's
option contract for stock. The Exchange proposes to delete
Supplementary Material .20 in its entirety and that current
Supplementary Material .30 become Supplementary Material .20.
     Rule 177 specifies the time for delivery of transactions
made for cash. The Exchange proposes to delete the rule text in its
entirety and mark it ``Reserved.''
     Rule 179 specifies the delivery and notice requirements
for securities sold seller's option. The Exchange proposes to delete
the rule text in its entirety and mark it ``Reserved.''
     Rule 189 provides that buyers shall accept any portion of
a lot of securities contracted for if tendered in lots of one trading
unit or multiples thereof, and may buy in the undelivered portion as
provided in Rule 284, except for sale made seller's option. The
Exchange proposes to delete the last clause of the rule addressing the
seller's option exception.
     Current Rule 235 provides that transactions in stocks,
except those made for cash as prescribed in Rule 14, shall be ex-
dividend or ex-rights on the second business day preceding the record
date fixed by the corporation or the date of the closing of transfer
books. The Exchange proposes to delete the references to transactions
made for cash. The same changes are proposed for Rule 235T.
     Current Rule 236 provides that transactions in securities
that have subscription warrants attached, except those made for cash as
prescribed in Rule 14, will begin on the second business day preceding
the date of expiration of the warrants, except that when expiration
occurs on a non-business day, in which case it will begin on the third
business day preceding date of expiration. The Rule further provides
that transactions in securities made for ``cash'' shall be ex-warrants
on the business day following the date of expiration of the warrants.
The Exchange proposes to delete the references to transactions made for
cash. The same changes are proposed for Rule 236T.
     Rule 241 governs computation of interest on the principal
amount in bonds, except that in the case of contracts made seller's
option such interest shall be computed only up to but not including the
day when delivery would have been due if the contract had been made
regular way. The Exchange proposes to delete the last clause in the
rule containing the exception for contracts made seller's option.
     Rule 257 governs deliveries after a security is sold
before it is ex-dividend or ex-rights. The Exchange proposes to delete
the clause referring to securities sold thereafter to and including the
record date for cash. The same change is proposed for Rule 257T.
     Rule 282A sets forth the procedures for a buyer to close
out a contract in securities, except one where its close-out is
governed by the rules of a Qualified Clearing Agency, which has not
been completed by the seller in accordance with its terms. Subsection
(d) provides that where the buyer is a customer (i.e., other than
another member organization), upon failure of a defaulting member
organization to effect delivery in accordance with a ``buy-in'' notice,
among the ways the contract may be closed-out is by purchasing for cash
as prescribed in Rule 14 in the best available market. The Exchange
proposes to eliminate this clause in Rule 282A(d). Further, the
Exchange proposes to delete references to contracts made for cash in
Supplemental Material .70.
* * * * *
    The Exchange will announce the operative date of the elimination of
non-regular way settlement instructions by Trader Update, which the
Exchange anticipates will be before the September 5, 2017
implementation of the T+2 regular way settlement initiative.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
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 remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that eliminating non-regular
way trading on the Exchange removes impediments to and perfects a
national market system by eliminating little-used order instructions
that involve manual handling by Floor traders, thereby furthering the
immediate and automatic execution of orders on the Exchange in the most
efficient manner. The Exchange believes that eliminating these order
instructions would be consistent with the public interest and the
protection of investors because investors will not be harmed by the
removal of little-used order instructions that are remnants of a time
when the Exchange functioned as a manual auction market.\11\ The
Exchange further believes that deleting corresponding references to
delete non-regular way order instructions also removes impediments to
and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that
members, regulators and the public can more easily navigate the
Exchange's rulebook and reduce potential confusion that may result from
having such references in the Exchange's rulebook. Removing such
obsolete cross references would also further the goal of transparency
and add clarity to the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Release No. 59446, supra note 8, 74 FR at 9323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather would remove
little used, anachronistic order instructions, thereby reducing
confusion and making the Exchange's rules easier to understand and
navigate.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
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)(iii) of the Act \14\ and subparagraph (f)(6) Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2017-33 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-33. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-33 and should be
submitted on or before August 16, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15631 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


"richardastrust.com"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 07/06/2007 12:37 PMTo

Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Dave Godwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Thundiyil/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Julius Banks/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

bcc

Subject

Re: white goods

For Follow Up:

Normal Priority

 History:

This message has been forwarded.

Dear Margaret

Just got this from Don at Mesa Gas - he explains the blending process in a refinery atmosphere. As we discussed this will be the most accurate way to blend my product.

When doing this, it is at it's highest level of safety devices and rules that is applied to the operator. He also tells of the type of cylinders that will be used for the refrigerant and the code.

Please note that I will not bottle in small 1 pound cans.The cylinder sizes here are for certified technicians only - ones that are licensed and have the proper training.  No do-it- yourselfer is likely to purchase 5 pounds only to use just a few ounces.

If I get the EPA clearance, then companies using this product would put training manuals and classes to their technicians under OSHA rules and regulations. I was told this morning  if HCR188c is not accepted by the EPA, why bother to put together any training manuals or classes.

On the weight percentage, I would like to keep that confidential.

Thank you

Richard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:

Richard,

Thank you for the clarification and the additional information. I will

share this with my colleagues, as well.

So, my understanding is that your submission is for household

refrigerators (which may include a freezer) and for residential and

light commercial air conditioning. In terms of air conditioning, you

are considering window units, but not heat pumps or central air

conditioning units. Is that correct?

I would like to place your email below in the docket, because it

clarifies your submission. Please let me know if there is anything in

that email that you would not want to be available to the general

public.

Margaret Sheppard

USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division

SNAP Program

Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

"richardastrust.

com"

.com> Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

07/04/2007 10:13

PM Subject

white goods

Dear Margaret:

My intention for HCR188C is to be used in new refrigerators and new home

air conditioners units.To retrofit a refrigerator or AC home unit is

not feasible because of cost.

The normal home window unit 12000 BTU is around $200.00 and the

normal-sized refrigerator is approx $500.00. Whenever one fails, it is

cheaper to buy a new one and not fix it.

I guess I did not clarify this.

Most of the exposure of HCR188c would be at a factory when they charge

the new system.

If there is a failure or warranty, they would just discard it and the

store would replace it with a new one. The old one is scrapped. Scrap

yards just recycle the unit by removing the refrigerant and sell it as

propane for the barbecue grill. It would be easier to blend the

refrigerant from new hydrocarbons.

I have used a Robin air EPA-approved reclaimer for HCR188c which has an

oil-separator

which separates the compressor oil from HCR188C and recycles HCR188C

back into a canister. I found it much more effective using the recycled

refrigerant in a BBQ charcoal burner. It can be reused as a refrigerant

but my own personal feeling is that it is such a small amount and that

part of the blend might get lost in the process so I would rather have a

brand new blend in an air conditioner. Although I've used it over and

over many times, the barbecue grill was the best.

At Cortland, New York while testing my refrigerant at Intertek in

February of this year, I did ask Rob Hill about a reclaimer for

Hydrocarbon Refrigerant, All he told me was that there was no company

that he knows is doing it since the EPA has not approved it as an

Alternative Refrigerant.

I will ask him again in writing and get his response.

If this is part of a satisfactory explanation then I will get the rest

of the clarification to you

in a formal letter.

Thank you

Richard


August 29, 2008

Ms. Alicia Kaiser

Designated Federal Officer

Office of the Administrator (1101A)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC  20460

Dear Ms. Kaiser,

The Delaware Farm Bureau recently learned that the EPA established the Farm,

Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC) with the

charge to advise the administrator on environmental policy issues impacting

farms and ranches. We would like to take this opportunity to share with you and

the committee our concerns pertaining to the “unannounced”  poultry farm

inspections EPA have conducted in Delaware.  The first “unannounced”

inspections occurred in April, 2008.  A notification was later received stating that

the EPA intended to visit an additional 40-46“unidentified” farms within a two

week period in July that coincided with the running of the Delaware State

Fair.  Many farmers and ranchers participate in various activities with their

children during the Fair and may not have been on the farm at the time of these

proposed inspections.

Delaware farmers and ranchers contacted local officials declaring the inspections

outrageous.  Shortly after the EPA’s “unannounced” poultry farm inspections

occurred, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of DNREC established

an advisory group to meet with EPA.  Unfortunately, most farmers and ranchers

perceive these meetings as a continuing attack on their industry and livelihood.

Today, many farmers and ranchers are uncertain about their future and fear that

this harassment will force many to consider alternative methods of farming and

force poultry plants to relocate to other states and or other countries.

Obviously, our farmers and ranchers perceived this action by EPA as aggressive,

unfriendly and unwarranted.  Unwarranted, because in 1999 Delaware adopted

 a Nutrient Management Law that has received national accolades as

model legislation.  This legislation developed a comprehensive environmental

and nutrient management strategy and program to monitor and regulate all crop

and  livestock operations.  The Delaware Department of Agriculture (DDA) and

the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)

Implemented the Delaware CAFO Nutrient Management Program under a

formal agreement signed by the respective Cabinet Secretaries in June 2000.

Page 2

August 29, 2008

The legislation also created a Nutrient Management Commission that oversees

the implementation of the law and the administrative staff.  The above agencies

adopted CAFO regulations and the responsibility for the enforcement is handled

by Nutrient Management Program staff.

It is felt that living under the threat of “surprise” EPA inspections is unjust and

unwarranted.  It is our understanding that the EPA’s test sample of soil and water

from the first set of inspections demonstrated a level of “0” contamination.  These

results clearly demonstrate, that our continued use of “Best Management

Practices” combined with local management and enforcement of the Delaware

Nutrient Management Program is yielding the end results, so desired.

We respectfully request that your committee consider and discuss the actions of

EPA conducting “unannounced” inspections, resulting in a blatant mistrust of

the EPA and our local agencies. Should your committee require additional

information or would like to have a Delaware representative attend your next

meeting or workgroup meeting, we would welcome that opportunity.

Thank you for considering our “plight” in Delaware.

Sincerely,

L. Edward Jestice, Jr.

President

LEJ: pt

Cc: 	Senator Biden

	Senator Carper

	Congressman Castle


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58711-58713]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23888]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0279; FRL-10001-31-OAR]

Release of Draft Policy Assessment for the Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: On or about October 31, 2019, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) will make available the document, Policy Assessment for
the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, External Review Draft
(draft PA). This draft document was prepared as part of the current
review of the national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for photochemical oxidants including ozone (O3). The
PA, when final, serves to ``bridge the gap'' between the currently
available scientific and technical information and the judgments
required of the Administrator in determining whether to retain or
revise the existing O3 NAAQS. The primary and secondary
O3 NAAQS are set to protect the public health and the public
welfare from O3 and other photochemical oxidants in ambient
air.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before December 16, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0279, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0279 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Include the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0279 in the subject line of the message.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this notice. Comments received may be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. This document will
be available on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/ozone-o3-air-quality-standards. The document will be accessible under
``Policy Assessments'' from the current review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Deirdre L. Murphy, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, (Mail Code C504-06), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
919-541-0729, fax number: 919-541-027; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0279, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written submission. The written submission is
considered the official submission and should include discussion of all
points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider
submissions or submission content located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Information About the Document

    Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) govern the
establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 directs the
Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then
issue ``air quality criteria'' for those pollutants. The air quality
criteria are to ``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge
useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on
public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of
such pollutant in the ambient air . . .'' (CAA section 108(a)(2)).
Under section 109 of the Act, the EPA is then to establish primary
(health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for each pollutant
for which the EPA has issued air quality criteria. Section 109(d)(1) of
the Act requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of
existing air quality criteria. Revised air quality criteria are to
reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the
pollutant on public health and welfare. Under the same provision, the
EPA is also to periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the
NAAQS, based on the revised air quality criteria.
    The Act additionally requires appointment of an independent
scientific review committee that is to periodically review the existing
air quality criteria and NAAQS and to recommend any new standards and
revisions of existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate (CAA
section 109(d)(2)(A)-(B)). Since the early 1980s, the requirement for
an independent scientific review committee has been fulfilled by the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
    Presently the EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and NAAQS
for photochemical oxidants and O3.\1\ The EPA's overall plan
for this review is presented in the Integrated Review Plan for the
Ozone NAAQS (IRP).\2\ As described in the IRP, the EPA is preparing an
Integrated Science Assessment for (ISA), a draft of which was released
in September 2019 for public comment and review by the CASAC (84 FR
50836).\3\ The PA, when final, serves to ``bridge the gap'' between the
scientific and technical information in the final ISA and any air
quality, exposure and risk analyses available in the review, and the
judgments required of the Administrator in determining whether to
retain or revise the existing ozone NAAQS. The draft PA builds upon
information presented in the draft ISA and the draft exposure and risk
analyses (presented in an appendix to the draft PA). The draft PA
document will be available on or about October 31, 2019, on the EPA's
website at https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/ozone-o3-air-quality-standards.
The EPA is soliciting advice and recommendations from the CASAC by
means of a review of this draft document at an upcoming public meeting
of the CASAC. Information about this public meeting, including the
dates and location, will be published as a separate notice in the
Federal Register. Following the CASAC meeting, the EPA will consider
comments received from the CASAC and the public in preparing revisions
to these documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA's call for information for this review was issued on
June 26, 2018 (83 FR 29785).
    \2\ The IRP (EPA-452/R-19-002, August 2019) is available at
https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/ozone-o3-standards-planning-documents-current-review.
    \3\ 3 The draft ISA is available at: https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/ozone-o3-standards-integrated-science-assessments-current-review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The draft document briefly described above does not represent and
should not be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint,
or determination. The EPA will consider any public comments submitted
in response to this notice when revising the document.

     Dated: October 28, 2019.
Panagiotis Tsirigotis,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2019-23888 Filed 10-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P