[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 107 (Monday, June 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30221-30224]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0211]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations, Choptank River, Cambridge, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish special local
regulations for certain waters of the Choptank River. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters located
at Cambridge, MD, during a high-speed power boat racing event on July
24, 2021, and July 25, 2021. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit
persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast
Guard Event Patrol Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0211 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Samuel M. Danus, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
Event PATCOM Event Patrol Commander
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On February 22, 2021, the Kent Narrows Racing Association of
Chester, MD, notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the
Thunder on the Choptank from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on July 24, 2021,
and from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on July 25, 2021. The high-speed power
boat racing event consists of approximately 50 participating inboard
and outboard hydroplane and runabout race boats of various classes, 16
to 21 feet in length. The vessels will be competing on a designated,
marked 1-mile oval course located in the Choptank River in a cove
located between Hambrooks Bar and the shoreline at Cambridge, MD.
Details of the event were provided to the Coast Guard on April 19,
2021. Hazards from the power boat racing event include risks of injury
or death resulting from near or actual contact among participant
vessels and spectator vessels or waterway users if normal vessel
traffic were to interfere with the event. Additionally, such hazards
include participants operating near designated navigation channels, as
well as operating near approaches to local public boat ramps, private
marinas and yacht clubs, and waterfront businesses. The COTP Maryland-
National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards
associated with the power boat races would be a safety concern for
anyone intending to operate within certain waters of the Choptank River
at Cambridge, MD.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants,
spectators, and transiting vessels on certain waters of Choptank River
before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes
this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041.
    The Coast Guard is requesting that interested parties provide
comments within a shortened comment period of 15 days instead of the
more typical 30 days for this notice of proposed rulemaking. The Coast
Guard believes the 15-day comment period still provides for a
reasonable amount of time for interested parties to review the proposal
and provide informed comments on it while also ensuring that the Coast
Guard has time to review and respond to any significant comments and
has a final rule in effect in time for the scheduled event.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region is proposing to establish
special local regulations to be enforced from 9

a.m. on July 24, 2021, until 6 p.m. on July 25, 2021. The special local
regulations would be enforced from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on July 24th and
those same hours on July 25th. The regulated area would cover all
navigable waters within Choptank River and Hambrooks Bay bounded by a
line connecting the following coordinates: Commencing at the shoreline
at Long Wharf Park, Cambridge, MD, at position latitude 38[deg]34'30''
N, longitude 076[deg]04'16'' W; thence east to latitude 38[deg]34'20''
N, longitude 076[deg]03'46'' W; thence northeast across the Choptank
River along the Senator Frederick C. Malkus, Jr. (US-50) Memorial
Bridge, at mile 15.5, to latitude 38[deg]35'30'' N, longitude
076[deg]02'52'' W; thence west along the shoreline to latitude
38[deg]35'38'' N, longitude 076[deg]03'09'' W; thence north and west
along the shoreline to latitude 38[deg]36'42'' N, longitude
076[deg]04'15'' W; thence southwest across the Choptank River to
latitude 38[deg]35'31'' N, longitude 076[deg]04'57'' W; thence west
along the Hambrooks Bay breakwall to latitude 38[deg]35'33'' N,
longitude 076[deg]05'17'' W; thence south and east along the shoreline
to and terminating at the point of origin in Dorchester County, MD.
    This proposed rule provides additional information about areas
within the regulated area, and the restrictions that apply to mariners.
These areas include a ``Race Area'', ``Buffer Area'' and ``Spectator
Area''.
    The proposed duration of the rule and size of the regulated area
are intended to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters
before, during, and after the high-speed power boat races, scheduled
from 9:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on July 24, 2021, and July 25, 2021. The
COTP and Coast Guard Event Patrol Commander (PATCOM) would have
authority to forbid and control the movement of all vessels and
persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When
hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the
regulated area would be required to immediately comply with the
directions given by the COTP or Event PATCOM. If a person or vessel
fails to follow such directions, the Coast Guard may expel them from
the area, issue them a citation for failure to comply, or both.
    Except for Thunder on the Choptank participants and vessels already
at berth, a vessel or person would be required to get permission from
the COTP or Event PATCOM before entering the regulated area while the
rule is being enforced. Vessel operators could request permission to
enter and transit through the regulated area by contacting the Event
PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16. Vessel traffic would be able to safely
transit the regulated area once the Event PATCOM deems it safe to do
so. A person or vessel not registered with the event sponsor as a
participant or assigned as official patrols would be considered a
spectator. Official Patrols are any vessel assigned or approved by the
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
    If permission is granted by the COTP or Event PATCOM, a person or
vessel would be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly
through the regulated area as instructed. Vessels would be required to
operate at a safe speed that minimizes wake while within the regulated
area. Official patrol vessels will direct spectator vessels while
within the regulated area. Vessels would be prohibited from loitering
within the navigable channel. Only participant vessels and official
patrol vessels would be allowed to enter the race area.
    The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this
document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the location, size
and duration of the regulated area, which impacts a portion of the
Choptank River for a total of 18 hours. The regulated area extends
across the entire width of the Choptank River between Cambridge, MD and
Trappe, MD. The majority of the vessel traffic through this area
consists of passenger, recreational and fishing vessels transiting
along the Choptank River or into Cambridge Creek. The Coast Guard would
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed

this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves
implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 for 18 hours.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L61of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. We review all comments received, but we will only post
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we
receive.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.501T05-0211 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.501T05-0211  Special Local Regulations, Choptank River,
Cambridge, MD

    (a) Locations. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
    (1) Regulated area. All navigable waters within Choptank River and
Hambrooks Bay bounded by a line connecting the following coordinates:
Commencing at the shoreline at Long Wharf Park, Cambridge, MD, at
position latitude 38[deg]34'30'' N, longitude 076[deg]04'16'' W; thence
east to latitude 38[deg]34'20'' N, longitude 076[deg]03'46'' W; thence
northeast across the Choptank River along the Senator Frederick C.
Malkus, Jr. (US-50) Memorial Bridge, at mile 15.5, to latitude
38[deg]35'30'' N, longitude 076[deg]02'52'' W; thence west along the
shoreline to latitude 38[deg]35'38'' N, longitude 076[deg]03'09'' W;
thence north and west along the shoreline to latitude 38[deg]36'42'' N,
longitude 076[deg]04'15'' W; thence southwest across the Choptank River
to latitude 38[deg]35'31'' N, longitude 076[deg]04'57'' W; thence west
along the Hambrooks Bay breakwall to latitude 38[deg]35'33'' N,
longitude 076[deg]05'17'' W; thence south and east along the shoreline
to and terminating at the point of origin. The following locations are
within the regulated area:
    (2) Race Area. Located within the waters of Hambrooks Bay and
Choptank River, between Hambrooks Bar and Great Marsh Point, MD. The
Race Area is within the Buffer Area.
    (3) Buffer Area. All navigable waters within Hambrooks Bay and
Choptank River (with the exception of the Race Area designated by the
marine event sponsor) bound to the north by the breakwall and
continuing along a line drawn from the east end of breakwall located at
latitude 38[deg]35'27.6'' N, longitude 076[deg]04'50.1'' W; thence
southeast to latitude 38[deg]35'17.7'' N, longitude 076[deg]04'29'' W;
thence south to latitude 38[deg]35'01'' N, longitude 076[deg]04'29'' W;
thence west to the shoreline at latitude 38[deg]35'01'' N, longitude
076[deg]04'41.3'' W.
    (4) Spectator Area. All navigable waters of the Choptank River,
eastward and outside of Hambrooks Bay breakwall, thence bound by line
that commences at latitude 38[deg]35'28'' N, longitude 076[deg]04'50''
W; thence northeast to latitude 38[deg]35'30'' N, longitude
076[deg]04'47'' W; thence southeast to latitude 38[deg]35'23'' N,
longitude 076[deg]04'29'' W; thence southwest to latitude
38[deg]35'19'' N, longitude 076[deg]04'31'' W; thence northwest to and
terminating at the point of origin.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--

    Buffer Area is a neutral area that surrounds the perimeter of the
Course Area within the regulated area described by this section. The
purpose of a buffer area is to minimize potential collision conflicts
with marine event participants or high-speed power boats and spectator
vessels or nearby transiting vessels. This area provides separation
between a Course Area and a specified Spectator Area or other vessels
that are operating in the vicinity of the regulated area established by
the special local regulations.
    Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means
the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region
or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.
    Course Area is an area described by a line bound by coordinates
provided in latitude and longitude that outlines the boundary of a
course area within the regulated area defined by this section.
    Event Patrol Commander or Event PATCOM means a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region.
    Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as participating in the ``Thunder on the Choptank'' powerboat
races, or otherwise designated by the event sponsor as having a
function tied to the event.
    Spectator means a person or vessel not registered with the event
sponsor as participants or assigned as official patrols.
    Spectator Area is an area described by a line bound by coordinates
provided in latitude and longitude that outlines the boundary of a
spectator area within the regulated area defined by this part.
    (c) Special Local Regulations. (1) The COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region or Event PATCOM may forbid and control the movement of
all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated
area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person
in the regulated area shall immediately comply with the directions
given by the patrol. Failure to do so may result in the Coast Guard
expelling the person or vessel from the area, issuing a citation for
failure to comply, or both. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region
or Event PATCOM may terminate the event, or a participant's operations
at any time the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM
believes it necessary to do so for the protection of life or property.
    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, a person
or vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this
section must immediately depart the regulated area.
    (3) A spectator must contact the Event PATCOM to request permission
to either enter or pass through the regulated area. The Event PATCOM,
and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area, can be
contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and
channel 22A (157.1 MHz). If permission is granted, the spectator must
enter the designated Spectator Area or pass directly through the
regulated area as instructed by Event PATCOM. A vessel within the
regulated area must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake. A
spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable channel while
within the regulated area.
    (4) Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are
allowed to enter the buffer area or race area.
    (5) A person or vessel that desires to transit, moor, or anchor
within the regulated area must obtain authorization from the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM. A person or vessel
seeking such permission can contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital
Region at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the Event PATCOM on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (6) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates
and times.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast Guard may be assisted with
marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other
federal, state, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9 a.m.
to 6 p.m. on July 24, 2021, and, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on July 25,
2021.

    Dated: June 1, 2021.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-11824 Filed 6-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7814-7815]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Chapter III

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27748]

Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Drivers of
Commercial Motor Vehicles: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Membership
and First Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee membership and public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces the appointment of members to the Entry-Level
Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC) established to complete a
negotiated rulemaking on Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) for
individuals who want to operate Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs).
ELDTAC is a negotiated rulemaking committee established to develop a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement section 32304 of the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) concerning ELDT
standards for individuals applying for a commercial driver's license
(CDL) or CDL upgrade. Additionally, the Agency announces that the first
meeting of the ELDTAC will be held on February 26 and 27, 2015. The
meeting is open to the public for its entirety and there will be a
public comment period at the end of each day.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday-Friday, February 26-27, 2015,
from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (E.T.), at the Hyatt
Regency Crystal City, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA
22202,<PHONE_NUMBER>, in the Tidewater room on the Ballroom level.
Copies of all ELDTAC materials and an agenda will be made available in
advance of the meeting at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/eldtac.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Policy
Advisor, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
(202) 366-2551<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Services for Individuals with Disabilities:
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Eran Segev at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>by Wednesday,
February 18.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Entry-Level Driver Training

    Section 32304 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
(MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012)) requires FMCSA
to establish new regulations concerning ELDT. MAP-21 requires ``that
the training regulations address knowledge and skills for motor vehicle
operation, specific requirements for hazmat and passenger endorsements,
create a certificate system for meeting requirements, and require
training providers to demonstrate that their training meets uniform
standards.'' The new requirements would apply to individuals seeking a
CDL to operate CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5.
    On August 19, 2014 (79 FR 49044), FMCSA announced that the Agency
would explore the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking
concerning entry-level driver training for drivers of CMVs. The Agency
announced the hiring of a convener to speak with interested parties
about the feasibility of conducting an ELDT negotiated rulemaking and
requested public comments by September 18, 2014. As part of the first
step in this process, the convener conducted these interviews and
submitted a report to the Agency on November 26, 2014, regarding the
feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking. The convening report
is available both in the rulemaking docket at FMCSA-2007-27748 and on
the Internet at eldtac.fmcsa.dot.gov.
    On December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73273), FMCSA announced its intent to
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to negotiate and develop
proposed regulations to implement the MAP-21 provision concerning ELDT
based on the recommendations of the convener.

ELDTAC

    The ELDTAC is established by charter in accordance with the Federal
Advisory committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Transportation
Secretary Anthony Foxx signed the ELDTAC charter on January 15, 2015,
which provides up to 2 years for the Committee's duration, in
accordance with section 14 of FACA. Additionally, as the ELDTAC is a
negotiated rulemaking committee (``Reg Neg''), it complies with the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 564). The Committee is effective
from the date of signature through January 15, 2017. The Agency
announced in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 its intention to
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to negotiate and develop
proposed regulations on entry-level driver training, as recommended by
the neutral convener, Mr. Richard Parker, in his report to FMCSA on the
feasibility of such a rulemaking. Mr. Parker, a professor of law at the
University of Connecticut School of Law and a contractor for Strategic
Consulting Alliances, LLC, will serve as the facilitator for the
ELDTAC. The convening report is available in the rulemaking docket at
FMCSA-2007-27748 and on the Internet at www.fmcsa.dot.gov/eldtac.

ELDTAC Membership

    In its December 10, 2014, Federal Register notice, the Agency
announced that it was soliciting applications and nominations for
membership on the ELDTAC. These members are experts in their respective
fields and appointed as Special Government employees or representatives
of entities or interests including but not limited to the following:
CMV driver training organizations; industry representatives;
representatives of driver training schools; motor carriers (of property
and passengers) and associations; State licensing agencies; State
enforcement agencies; labor unions; safety advocacy groups; insurance
companies; and others selected with a view toward achieving varied
perspectives on ELDT. In an effort to balance these interests to the
extent practicable, the FMCSA Acting Administrator hereby appoints the
following members, who will each serve for up to one two-year term:

 Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy, FMCSA
 Peter Kurdock, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety
 Kevin Lewis, Director, Driver Programs, American Association
of Motor Vehicle Administrators
 Clyde Hart, Vice President, Government Affairs, American Bus
Association
 Lauren Samet, Assistant Director, Paraprofessional and School-
Related Personnel, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
 Ed Watt, Director, Special Projects, Amalgamated Transit
Union, AFL-CIO
 Boyd Stephenson, Director, Hazardous Materials and Commercial
Licensing Policy, American Trucking Associations
 Ron Wood, Washington, DC, Volunteer Coordinator, Citizens for
Reliable and Safe Highways

 Bob Tershak, Master Trooper, Virginia State Police, Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance
 Carl Spatocco, Regional Vice President, Educational
Affiliates, Commercial Vehicle Training Association
 David R. Parker, Senior Legal Counsel, Great West Casualty
Company
 Al Smith, Director, Safety and Security, Greyhound Lines, Inc.
 LaMont Byrd, Director, Health and Safety, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters
 Margaret Rohanna, School Bus Program Manager, Massachusetts
Registry of Motor Vehicle Division, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation
 Martin Garsee, President, National Association of Publicly
Funded Truck Driving Schools
 Jim Edwards, Washington Representative, National Association
of Small Trucking Companies
 Charlie Hood, President, National Association of State
Directors of Pupil Transportation Services
 Bob Ramsdell, Chief Operating Officer, West, Durham School
Services, National School Transportation Association
 Scott Grenerth, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association
 David Money, Chairman, Board of Directors, Professional Truck
Drivers Institute
 Louis Spoonhour, Senior Advisor for CDL Programs, Stevens
Transport
 Bryan Spoon, Owner-Operator, Spoon Trucking
 David Heller, Director, Safety and Policy, Truckload Carriers
Association
 John Lannen, Executive Director, Truck Safety Coalition
 Ken Presley, Vice President, Industry Operations, and Chief
Operating Officer, United Motorcoach Association
 Ellen Voie, President and CEO, Women in Trucking

II. Meeting Participation

    Oral comments from the public will be heard during the last half-
hour of the meetings each day. Should all public comments be exhausted
prior to the end of the specified period, the comment period will
close.

III. Submitting Written Comments

    Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to
be considered during the meeting by Wednesday, February 18, to Federal
Docket Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2007-27748. If you
submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice
(FMCSA-2007-27748). You may submit your comments and material online or
by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that
FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2007-27748, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2007-27748, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

IV. Future Committee Meetings and Rulemaking Calendar

    Decisions with respect to future meetings will be made at the first
meeting and from time to time thereafter. Notices of all future
meetings will be published in the Federal Register at least 15 calendar
days prior to each meeting. In coordination with the Reg Neg
facilitator, FMCSA has developed a provisional schedule of committee
meetings, running through May 2015, which the facilitator plans to
finalize with the committee during the first meeting.
    FMCSA intends to complete the Reg Neg process for the proposed rule
within the first half of 2015 and to publish a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) this year, followed by a Final Rule in 2016. After
the conclusion of the committee meetings, the Agency will draft the
NPRM, which is expected to take approximately 6-8 weeks, depending on
the degree of consensus on the issues and the supporting data developed
by the committee. The NPRM will then be reviewed by DOT's Office of the
Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Agency
will then publish the NPRM for public comment.
    Following the close of the public comment period the Agency will
evaluate and respond to public comments as it drafts a final rule,
which will also undergo Departmental and OMB review. Although the time
needed to address public comments to an NPRM that has been developed
through a successful negotiated rulemaking process is typically shorter
than for rules conducted through the ordinary informal notice and
comment process, the Agency must nonetheless address substantive public
comments in the final rule, in accordance with the Administrative
Procedure Act. While the Agency cannot state with certainty the time
required to complete the Reg Neg process and notice and comment
rulemaking, the target date for publication of an NPRM is October 15,
2015.

    Issued on: February 9, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-02967 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 63279]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24738]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land; French Lick
Airport; French Lick, Indiana.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change a portion of
airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to
authorize the sale of airport property located at French Lick Airport,
French Lick, Indiana. The aforementioned land is not needed for
aeronautical use. The proposal consists of 18.606 acres located in the
southern section of airport property which is not being used by the
airport presently. The land is to be sold to Commissioners of Orange
County for the construction of County Road CR 300 South/Airport Road to
facilitate access to the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Airports District Office, Azra Hussain, Program Manager, 2300 E. Devon
Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/Fax:
(847) 294-7046 and Zachary D. Brown, French Lick Municipal Airport,
9764 West County Road 375 South, French Lick, Indiana, 47933.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to: Azra Hussain, Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Airports District Office, 2300 E. Devon Avenue, Des
Plaines, Illinois<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Azra Hussain, Program Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Airports District Office, 2300 E. Devon
Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/
FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title
49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that
requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    The subject land consists of two parcels. Parcel 1 (approx. 16.667
acres) was acquired through the Federal Aid to Airport Program dated
July 28, 1963 and Parcel 2 (approx. 1.939 acres) was acquired by the
sponsor as part of a larger parcel (approx. 9.97 acres) for the nominal
sum of One Dollar and zero cents ($1.00) on April 19, 2010. The
Commissioners of Orange County intend to purchase the property for a
nominal sum of One Dollar and zero cents ($1.00) for the construction
of County Road CR 300 South/Airport Road. Construction of the road will
facilitate access to the airport. The aforementioned land is not needed
for aeronautical use, as shown on the Airport Layout Plan. There are no
impacts to the airport by allowing the airport to dispose of the
property.
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at French Lick Airport, French Lick,
Indiana, subject to easements and covenants running with the land.
Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a
determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for
grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The disposition of proceeds from the
sale of the airport property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy
and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
Federal Register on February 16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on September 30, 2013.
James Keefer,
Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-24738 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63565-63568]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22149]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78800; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-035]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 6191 Relating to the Data
Collection Requirements of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement A Tick
Size Pilot Program

September 9, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 26, 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
and II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 6191 to modify certain data
collection requirements of the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick
Size Pilot Program (Plan).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On August 25, 2014, FINRA, and several other self-regulatory
organizations (the ``Participants'') filed with the Commission,
pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \4\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS
thereunder,\5\ the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (the
``Plan'').\6\ The Participants filed the Plan to comply with an order
issued by the Commission on June 24, 2014.\7\ The Plan was published
for comment in the Federal Register on November 7, 2014, and approved
by the Commission, as modified, on May 6, 2015.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \6\ See Letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Vice President,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated
August 25, 2014.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No 72460 (June 24,
2014), 79 FR 36840 (June 30, 2014).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015),
80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015) (``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants,
and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions
on the liquidity and trading of the common stock of small-
capitalization companies. Each Participant is required to comply, and
to enforce compliance by its member organizations, as applicable, with
the provisions of the Plan.
    The Plan provides for the creation of a group of Pilot Securities,
which shall be placed in a control group and three separate test
groups, with each subject to varying quoting and trading increments.
Pilot Securities in the control group will be quoted at the current
tick size increment of $0.01 per share and will trade at the currently
permitted increments. Pilot Securities in the first test group will be
quoted in $0.05 minimum increments but will continue to trade at any
price increment that is currently permitted.\9\ Pilot Securities in the
second test group (``Test Group Two'') will be quoted in $0.05 minimum
increments and will trade at $0.05 minimum increments subject to a
midpoint exception, a retail investor order exception, and a negotiated
trade exception.\10\ Pilot Securities in the third test group (``Test
Group Three'') will be subject to the same quoting and trading
increments as Test Group Two, and also will be subject to the ``Trade-
at'' requirement to prevent price matching by a market participant that
is not displaying at the price of a Trading Center's ``Best Protected
Bid'' or ``Best Protected Offer,'' unless an enumerated exception
applies.\11\ In addition to the exceptions provided under Test Group
Two, an exception for Block Size orders and exceptions that mirror
those under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS \12\ will apply to the Trade-at
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Section VI(B) of the Plan.
    \10\ See Section VI(C) of the Plan.
    \11\ See Section VI(D) of the Plan.
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also requires a Trading Center \13\ or a Market Maker \14\
to collect and transmit certain data to its designated examining
authority (``DEA''), and requires DEAs to transmit this data to the
Commission. Participants that operate a Trading Center also are
required under the Plan to collect certain data, which is then
transmitted directly to the Commission. With respect to Trading
Centers, Appendix B.I to the Plan (Market Quality Statistics) requires
a Trading

Center to submit to the Participant that is its DEA a variety of market
quality statistics. Appendix B.II to the Plan (Market and Marketable
Limit Order Data) requires a Trading Center to submit information to
its DEA relating to market orders and marketable limit orders,
including the time of order receipt, order type, the order size, and
the National Best Bid or National Best Offer (``NBBO'') quoted price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Plan incorporates the definition of a ``Trading
Center'' from Rule 600(b)(78) of Regulation NMS. Regulation NMS
defines a ``Trading Center'' as ``a national securities exchange or
national securities association that operates an SRO trading
facility, an alternative trading system, an exchange market maker,
an OTC market maker, or any other broker or dealer that executes
orders internally by trading as principal or crossing orders as
agent.'' See 17 CFR 242.600(b).
    \14\ The Plan defines a Market Maker as ``a dealer registered
with any self-regulatory organization, in accordance with the rules
thereof, as (i) a market maker or (ii) a liquidity provider with an
obligation to maintain continuous, two-sided trading interest.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Market Makers, Appendix B.III requires a
Participant that is a national securities exchange to collect daily
Market Maker Registration statistics. Appendix B.IV requires a
Participant to collect data related to Market Maker participation with
respect to each Market Maker engaging in trading activity on a Trading
Center operated by the Participant. Appendix C.I requires a Participant
to collect data related to Market Maker profitability from each Market
Maker for which it is the DEA. Appendix C.II requires the Participant,
as DEA, to aggregate the Appendix C.I data, and to transmit this data
to the Commission.
    The Commission approved the Pilot on a two-year basis, with
implementation to begin no later than May 6, 2016.\15\ On November 6,
2015, the SEC exempted the Participants from implementing the pilot
until October 3, 2016.\16\ As set forth in Appendices B and C to the
Plan, data that is reported pursuant to the appendices shall be
provided for dates starting six months prior to the Pilot Period
through six months after the end of the Pilot Period. Under the revised
Pilot implementation date, the Pre-Pilot data collection period
commenced on April 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Approval Order at 27533 and 27545.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76382 (November 6,
2015), 80 FR 70284 (November 13, 2015) (File No. 4-657).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 13, 2015, FINRA filed with the Commission a proposed
rule change to adopt FINRA Rule 6191(b) and amend FINRA Rule 7440 to
implement the data collection requirements of the Plan.\17\ On December
9, 2015, FINRA submitted an exemptive request to the Commission,
seeking an exemption from certain data collection and reporting
requirements set forth in the Plan.\18\ On February 17, 2016, the
Commission approved FINRA's rule change, as amended, to implement the
data collection requirements of the Plan, and also granted exemptive
relief from complying with certain data collection and reporting
requirements in the Plan.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76484 (November 19,
2015), 80 FR 73858 (November 25, 2015) (Notice of Filing of File No.
SR-FINRA-2015-048).
     FINRA also submitted a proposed rule change to implement the
quoting and trading requirements of the Plan. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76483 (November 19, 2015), 80 FR 73853
(November 25, 2015) (Notice of Filing of File No. SR-FINRA-2015-
047). The Commission approved that proposal on February 23, 2016.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77218 (February 23, 2016),
81 FR 10290 (February 29, 2016) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-
2015-047).
    \18\ See Letter from Marcia E. Asquith, Senior Vice President
and Corporate Secretary, FINRA, to Robert W. Errett, Deputy
Secretary, Commission, dated December 9, 2015 (``Exemptive
Request'').
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act No. 77164 (February 17, 2016),
81 FR 9043 (February 23, 2016) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-
2015-048); see letter from David S. Shillman, Associate Director,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, to Marcia E. Asquith,
Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated February
17, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA now proposes to further amend Rule 6191 to modify additional
data collection and reporting requirements.\20\ First, Appendix
B.I.a(21) through B.I.a(27) currently requires that Trading Centers
report the cumulative number of shares of cancelled orders during a
specified duration of time after receipt of the order that was
cancelled. FINRA and the other Participants believe that, for purposes
of reporting cancelled orders, it is appropriate to categorize
unexecuted Immediate or Cancel orders separately as one bucket
irrespective of the duration of time after order receipt, i.e., without
a time increment, to better differentiate orders cancelled subsequent
to entry from those where the customer's intent prior to order entry
was to cancel the order if no execution could be immediately obtained.
FINRA, therefore, proposes to modify Supplementary Material .05 to
provide that unexecuted Immediate or Cancel orders shall be categorized
separately for purposes of Appendix B.I.a(21) through B.I.a(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ FINRA notes that, in connection with this proposed rule
change, FINRA intends to file an exemptive request seeking relief
from certain of the Plan's data collection requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second change relates to the reporting of daily market quality
statistics pursuant to Appendix B.I. Currently, Appendix B.I sets forth
categories of orders, including market orders, marketable limit orders,
and inside-the-quote resting limit orders, for which daily market
quality statistics must be reported. FINRA and the other Participants
have determined that it is appropriate to include an order type for
limit orders priced more than $0.10 away from the NBBO for purposes of
Appendix B reporting. FINRA therefore proposes to amend Supplementary
Material .09 to provide that limit orders priced more than $0.10 away
from the NBBO shall be included as an order type for purposes of
Appendix B reporting, and shall be assigned the number (22). These
orders are not currently required to be reported pursuant to Appendix
B, and FINRA and the other Participants believe that requiring the
reporting of such orders will produce a more comprehensive data set.
    The third change relates to the reporting of market quality
statistics pursuant to Appendix B.I for a variety of order types,
including inside-the-quote resting limit orders (12), at-the-quote
resting limit orders (13), and near-the-quote resting limit orders
(within $0.10 of the NBBO) (14). FINRA and the other Participants
believe that it is appropriate to require Trading Centers to report all
orders that fall within these categories, and not just those orders
that are ``resting.'' FINRA, therefore, proposes to amend Supplementary
Material .09 to make this change.
    In the fourth change, FINRA proposes to add new Supplementary
Material .11 to modify the manner in which market maker participation
statistics are calculated. Currently, Appendix B.IV provides that
market maker participation statistics shall be calculated based on
share participation, trade participation, cross-quote share (trade)
participation, inside-the-quote share (trade) participation, at-the-
quote share (trade) participation, and outside-the-quote share (trade)
participation. FINRA and the other Participants have determined that it
is appropriate to add the count of the number of Market Makers used in
the calculation of share (trade) participation to each category. FINRA
is therefore proposing this change as part of Supplementary Material
.11. In addition, Appendix B.IV(b) and (c) currently require that, when
aggregating across Market Makers, share participation and trade
participation shall be calculated using the share-weighted average and
trade-weighted average, respectively. FINRA and the other Participants
believe that it is more appropriate to calculate share and trade
participation by providing the total count of shares or trades, as
applicable, rather than weighted averages, and FINRA is therefore
proposing this change as part of Supplementary Material .11.
    The fifth change relates to the NBBO that a Trading Center is
required to use when performing certain quote-related calculations.
When calculating cross-quote share (trade) participation pursuant to
Appendix B.IV(d) and inside-the-quote share (trade) participation
pursuant to Appendix B.IV(e), the Plan requires the Trading Center to
utilize the NBBO at the time

of the trade for both share and trade participation calculations. When
calculating at-the-quote share (trade) participation and outside-the-
quote share (trade) participation pursuant to Appendix B.IV(f) and (g),
the Plan allows the Trading Center to utilize the NBBO at the time of
or immediately before the trade for both share and trade participation
calculations. FINRA and the other Participants believe that it is
appropriate to calculate all quote participation (cross-quote share
(trade) participation, inside-the-quote share (trade) participation,
at-the-quote share (trade) participation and outside-the-quote share
(trade) participation) solely by reference to the NBBO in effect
immediately prior to the trade. FINRA therefore proposes to make this
change as part of Supplementary Material .11.
    Finally, FINRA proposes to change the end date until which the Pre-
Pilot Data Collection Securities shall be used to fulfill the Plan's
data collection requirements. Currently, Supplementary Material .13
provides that Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities are the securities
designated by the Participants for purposes of the data collection
requirements described in Items I, II and IV of Appendix B and Item I
of Appendix C to the Plan for the period beginning six months prior to
the Pilot Period and ending on the trading day immediately preceding
the Pilot Period. FINRA and the other Participants believe that it is
appropriate to use the Pilot Securities to satisfy the Plan's data
collection requirements prior to the commencement of the Pilot.
According, FINRA is revising Supplementary Material .13 (which will be
re-numbered as Supplementary Material .14) to provide that the Pre-
Pilot Data Collection Securities shall be used to satisfy the Plan's
data collection requirements through thirty-one days prior to the Pilot
Period, after which time the Pilot Securities shall be used for
purposes of the data collection requirements.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ After regular trading hours on September 2, 2016, the
national securities exchanges will establish which securities will
be included as Pilot Securities for purposes of the Plan. FINRA and
the other Participants have determined that members should use the
Pilot Securities list for data collection purposes once it becomes
available. Thus, the proposed rule change requires that, beginning
thirty days prior to the first day of the Pilot Period--i.e.,
September 3, 2016--FINRA and FINRA members will comply with the data
collection obligations of the Plan by collecting data on the Pilot
Securities. As a result, beginning on September 3, 2016, members
must migrate from using FINRA's published Pre-Pilot Data Collection
Security list and begin using the Pilot Securities list. September
2, 2016 will be the last day that members use the Pre-Pilot Data
Collection Security list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. FINRA has requested that the SEC waive the 30-day
operative period so that the proposed rule change can become operative
on August 30, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\22\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act,\23\ which requires
that FINRA rules not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act
because it implements and clarifies the provisions of the Plan, and is
designed to assist FINRA in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant
to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Pilot was an
appropriate, data-driven test that was designed to evaluate the impact
of a wider tick size on trading, liquidity, and the market quality of
securities of smaller capitalization companies, and was therefore in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA believes that this
proposal is in furtherance of the objectives of the Plan, as identified
by the SEC, and is therefore consistent with the Act because the
proposal implements and clarifies the requirements of the Plan.

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

    FINRA notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions
of the Plan, and is designed to assist FINRA in meeting its regulatory
obligations pursuant to the Plan. FINRA also notes that, other than the
change to require use of the Pilot Securities beginning thirty days
prior to the beginning of the Pilot Period, the proposed changes will
not affect the data collection and reporting requirements for members
that operate Trading Centers; the proposed changes will only affect how
FINRA and Participants that operate Trading Centers collect and report
data. FINRA notes that, with respect to the change to require the use
of the Pilot Securities beginning thirty days prior to the start of the
Pilot Period, the proposed change reduces the number of securities on
which affected members otherwise would have been required to collect
data pursuant to the Plan and FINRA Rule 6191. In addition, the
proposed rule change applies equally to all similarly situated members.
Therefore, FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \24\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \25\ thereunder
because the proposal does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden
on competition; and (iii) by its terms, become operative for 30 days
from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \26\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\27\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. FINRA has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that so that the
proposed rule change can become operative on August 30, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow FINRA to implement the proposed rules immediately
thereby preventing delays in the implementation of the Plan. The
Commission notes that the Plan is scheduled to start on October 3,
2016. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposed rule change to

be operative upon filing with the Commission.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-FINRA-2016-035 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2016-035. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2016-035 and should be
submitted on or before October 6, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22149 Filed 9-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Date: November 7, 2003 Subject: Estimates of Ancillary Plywood and Composite Wood Products Process Emissions for Use in Risk Modeling EPA Contract No. 68 D 1 079; EPA Work Assignment No. 2012 RTI Project No. 08550.002.012 From: Katie Hanks To: Mary Tom Kissell, ESD/ WCPG ( C439 03) Dennis Pagano, ESD/ REAG ( C404 01) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 I. Introduction When developing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for the plywood and composite wood products ( PCWP) industry, emission sources were identified based on responses to the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA's) maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) surveys and available emissions test data. Facility specific emissions estimates were developed based on emission factors and process throughput provided in the responses to the MACT surveys. The emission factors were developed using available emissions test data from nearly 100 test reports collected through EPA's MACT survey, data from EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources ( commonly referred to as AP 42), and extensive data from the industry sponsored test program performed by the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement ( NCASI). Separate memoranda discuss in detail how the emission factors were developed and emissions were estimated. 1,2 Some ancillary PCWP processes were not included in the facilityspecific emissions estimates described in these memoranda because no emissions test data were available for these processes. The mass of HAP emitted from these processes was expected to be minute compared to the mass of HAP emitted from dryers, presses, and the other PCWP processes for which emissions data were available.

Following development of the emission estimates described above, the EPA has considered the carcinogenic and non carcinogenic risk associated with PCWP emissions. The mass of HAP emitted does not always dictate the risk associated with emissions. The potency of each individual pollutant is considered when determining risk. Emissions of a small mass of a highly potent pollutant may have more risk than emissions of a greater mass of a less potent 2 pollutant. Therefore, for purposes of conducting a conservative screening of the risk associated with PCWP emissions, emission estimates of all pollutants from all processes ( including ancillary processes with low HAP emissions) are necessary. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide conservative estimates of the HAP emissions from ancillary processes for which emissions estimates were not previously developed. This memorandum discusses the methodology used to generate emission estimates for HAP metals emissions associated with combustion ( see section II), and organic HAP emissions associated with resin tanks, miscellaneous coating operations, and wastewater operations ( see section III). This memorandum also provides an estimated emissions release height for these ancillary processes.

II. Emissions of HAP Metals From Combustion The PCWP industry uses combustion to provide process heat and generate steam for both indirect fired processes ( where combustion gases do not mix with process gases) and direct fired processes ( where the combustion gases mix with process gases). Separate NESHAP are under development for industrial boilers and process heaters; these NEHASP cover boilers and process heaters that indirectly fire PCWP process units. Combustion in direct fired process units is not covered by the Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP and is covered by the PCWP NESHAP. 3 The EPA's MACT survey requested information on emissions of all HAP. Approximately 100 emissions test reports containing HAP data were submitted with the responses to the MACT survey. However, no emissions test data for HAP metals were received. The emissions estimates developed previously for direct fired process units account for any organic HAP emitted from combustion sources used to directly fire PCWP process units. Because no emissions data were available for metal HAP, the emissions estimates developed previously for direct fired process units do not include metal HAP emissions, and HAP metals emissions were not considered for purposes of developing the PCWP NESHAP. 1 The EPA is aware that combustion of certain fuels can result in metal HAP emissions, and that certain metal HAP are relatively potent. Thus, HAP metal emissions were estimated for direct fired PCWP process units for purposes of conducting a conservative risk screening analysis for the PCWP source category. The fuels most predominantly used in the PCWP industry include wood and natural gas. Combustion of natural gas typically does not produce HAP metals, so the estimates of HAP metals emissions were limited to those PCWP process units that fire wood ( i. e., direct wood fired dryers). The process units most commonly direct fired using wood fuel include oriented strandboard ( OSB) rotary dryers, particleboard rotary dryers, hardboard and medium density fiberboard ( MDF) tube dryers, and some veneer dryers. The types of combustion units used to directly fire PCWP dryers vary from suspension burners that are part of the dryer to stand alone combustion units that supply combustion exhaust to heat multiple dryers. To estimate metals HAP emissions from direct wood firing, we used the trace element emission factors from AP 42 Section 1.6, Wood Residue Combustion in Boilers, to the industry average burner capacity for each of the four types of dryers described above. 4,5 Table 1 presents the metal HAP emissions 3 associated with each dryer based on these estimates. These metal HAP emissions from Table 1 were then multiplied by the number of dryers at each facility to estimate the potential facility total HAP metal emissions.

We acknowledge that there may be differences in the types of combustion units used in PCWP processes and wood residue fired boilers. For example, all of the emission tests referenced in developing the AP 42 trace element emission factors were boilers as opposed to suspension burners. Wood residue includes hogged wood, bark, sawdust, shavings, wood chips, mill rejects, sanderdust or wood trim. Bark is more commonly fired in boilers than in suspension burners. Suspension burners may have some bark mixed in their fuel, but typically fire other types of wood residue ( e. g., sawdust, trim, and sanderdust). Regardless of the potential differences in the boiler data used to develop the AP 42 emission factors and PCWP combustion units, in the absence of more PCWP industry specific emissions data, we believe the approach outlined above is appropriate for purposes of developing a conservative estimate of potential HAP metals emissions from PCWP direct wood fired process units.

Emissions from the direct fired dryers for which HAP metals were estimated are released through a dryer stack approximately 70 feet ( ft) high. 6 III. Organic HAP Emissions From Resin Tanks, Miscellaneous Coating Operations, and Wastewater Operations The following three subsections describe the methodology used to develop estimates of organic HAP emissions from resin tanks, miscellaneous coating operations, and wastewater operations. These sections also described the limitations of the data used to develop the emission estimates, and present an estimate of the emissions release height for each of the ancillary processes.

A. Resin Tanks Resin storage tanks are located at most PCWP plants. The tanks contain ureaformaldehyde ( UF), phenol formaldehyde ( PF), methylene diphenyl diisocyanate ( MDI), or other types of resins or additives ( e. g., wax, scavenger). Specific information on storage tanks was collected through EPA's general MACT survey, but was not requested for hardwood plywood or engineered wood products plants. Based on the general survey responses, there are at least 809 storage tanks in use in the PCWP industry. The average tank volume is around 12,000 gallons. The majority of the storage tanks are fixed roof tanks with no vapor recovery system. 5 The MACT survey requested information on resin tanks used to store PCWP resins. These resins exhibit low vapor pressures and are not volatile. The MACT survey also requested information on potential HAP emissions from resin tanks. Only about 35 percent of survey respondents provided information on HAP emissions from resin tanks, and these estimates varied by four orders of magnitude ( e. g., 1.3E 5 to 7.6E 1 tons per year ( tpy) for formaldehyde). The 4 maximum emissions reported for any single tank are summarized in Table 2.5 The number of tanks reported by survey respondents ranged from one to 14 tanks per facility, with an average of four tanks per facility. The reported tank capacity varied from 100 to 130,000 gallons, and there was also a large variation in tank throughput. To estimate potential facility wide HAP emissions associated with resin storage tanks for use in risk screening, the emissions estimates in Table 2 were multiplied by the average number of tanks per facility. These estimates are uncertain given that few survey respondents provided tank emission estimates, the wide range of reported tank emissions, the wide range in the number of tanks per facility, and the wide range in tank capacity and throughput.

Resin storage tanks are typically located outside of PCWP buildings. Emissions are released through a vent in the fixed roof of the tank. Assuming that PCWP resin storage tanks are cylindrical, a 12 ft tank diameter ( obtained from an OSB facility permit), and the average capacity of 12,000 gallons per storage tank, it is estimated that the release height for resin storage tank emissions is roughly 14 ft above ground. This estimate appears to be conservative because the tank heights reported in the permit were 34 ft for two MDI tanks and 20 ft for two wax tanks. However these tanks mentioned in the permit had capacities greater than 12,000 gallons. 7 B. Miscellaneous Coating Operations Most PCWP plants perform some type of miscellaneous coating operations. These miscellaneous coating operations are finishing operations such as application of anti skid coatings, concrete forming oil, edge seals, fire retardants, inks, nail lines, primers, patches, edge fillers, or putty. Information on these miscellaneous coating operations, such as the type of operation and amount of coating material used, was requested in the EPA's general MACT survey. However, no information on potential emissions from these operations was requested, although a few facilities provided the percentage of HAP ( if any) contained in some of their coatings. Some HAP percentages were provided for solvent based paints or inks used to apply company logos and trademarks/ gradestamps to PCWP products. Company logos and gradestamps typically are applied to all types of PCWP products. One facility reported using 3,300 gallons per year ( gal/ yr) of logo paint with 20 percent ethylene glycol and 4 percent methanol. This same facility reported using 270 gal/ yr trademark/ gradestamp ink with up to 5 percent ethylene glycol. Worst case emission estimates were developed assuming all of the ethylene glycol and methanol is emitted. Table 3 shows the amount of HAP emitted from the miscellaneous coating operations at this facility. Assuming that all of the ethylene glycol and methanol is emitted is an overestimate because, in reality, only a fraction of the HAP contained in a coating is emitted. The remainder of the HAP remains in the paint or ink after it is applied to the substrate. At ambient temperature, ethylene glycol has a vapor pressure three orders of magnitude lower than the vapor pressure of water, and therefore is much less volatile than water. It is reasonable to expect that very little of the ethylene glycol evaporates into emissions. Methanol, on the other hand, is slightly more volatile than water.

The same facility for which logo and gradestamp emissions were estimated also uses two 5 part synthetic patches ( i. e., the two parts of the patch material are mixed immediately prior to application). Part 2 of the patch contains 45 percent MDI and 55 percent higher oligomers of MDI. The facility reported use of 4,097 gal/ yr of Part 2. The MDI emissions from this patching operation are likely to be negligible because nearly all of the MDI remains in the patch. In appendix H to the baseline emission memo, we estimated that less than one percent of the MDI contained in an MDI resin is emitted during hot pressing operations. 1 The MDI resins used by the PCWP industry have a similar percentage of MDI in them as the synthetic patch. However, synthetic patches are not hot pressed. MDI is a solid under atmospheric conditions, and therefore, is not prone to evaporation. Another reason for not including MDI emissions in the worst case estimate is because synthetic patches are only applied to plywood products as opposed to all products like logos and gradestamps; thus MDI emissions are not typical for all types of PCWP facilities..

Based on the available information, it appears as if the worst case facility emissions associated with miscellaneous coating operations are 3.1 tpy of ethylene glycol and 0.4 tpy of methanol, as shown in Table 3. These estimates were based on information provided by one facility that provided the highest of the HAP percentages included in the survey responses. However, it should be noted that different facilities use different coatings ( many with no HAPs) and different amounts of coatings. The available information is not conducive to meaningful comparisons among coatings ( e. g., coating usage amounts were reported in lb/ yr, gal/ yr, rolls/ yr, etc. and HAP percentages in the coatings ( if any) generally were not provided). The worst case estimated emissions presented in Table 3 may not be representative of any other facilities, and are likely an overestimate for the facility at hand ( because some of the HAP remains in the coating after it is applied). While this worst case estimate may be used for conservative estimates of risk, the estimate is not representative of every facility in the PCWP industry. However, the worstcase estimate does indicate that the potential emissions from miscellaneous coating operations are not of the same magnitude as drying and pressing operations at PCWP facilities.

Miscellaneous coatings are typically applied manually inside a building. Emissions associated with miscellaneous coating operations are expected to exit through building ventilation. Building height at PCWP facilities is roughly 40 ft. Thus, an emissions release height of 40 ft may be assumed for miscellaneous coating operations.

C. Wastewater Operations Wastewater operations ( e. g., lagoons, log vats, clarifiers, settling ponds, tanks, etc.) are used for handling process waters or wastewaters, which may contain traces of HAP. Wastewater sources at PCWP plants include hardboard process water, various wash waters ( e. g., from washing of the glue line, blender, dryers, regenerative thermal oxidizers, etc.), control device recirculated and blowdown water, and condensates. Information on wastewater flow was provided in the non confidential MACT survey responses for 241 wastewater operations. ( An additional 92 wastewater operations were reported, but no flow rates were provided.) However, HAP concentration data were provided for only 23 of the 241 wastewater operations for which 6 flow rates were provided. The highest reported HAP concentration was 41.5 milograms per liter ( mg/ l) of methanol in wet scrubber water. Another stream of wastewater from a wet electrostatic precipitator ( WESP) was reported to contain 4.34 mg/ l acetaldehyde, 5.72 mg/ l methanol, and 1.07 mg/ l methyl ethyl ketone ( MEK). These are the only two wastewater streams with concentrations and flow rates great enough to trigger applicability under the Hazardous Organic NESHAP ( HON) ( had these facilities actually been subject to the HON). The potential methanol emissions associated with the 41.5 mg/ l wastewater stream were determined to be 0.31 tpy. The potential HAP emissions from the WESP wastewater stream with are 0.016 tpy which includes acetaldehyde ( 0.0091 tpy), methanol ( 0.0043 tpy), and MEK ( 0.0023). 8 Thus, for purposes of conservatively determining risk associated with wastewater operations based on the available data, one could assume that each PCWP facility emits 0.31 tpy methanol, 0.0091 tpy acetaldehyde, and 0.0023 tpy MEK from wastewater operations. However, it is not known how the potential emissions from PCWP wastewater operations could vary from facility to facility because HAP concentrations were only reported for 23 wastewater operations, there are various sources of wastewater, and there is a wide range of wastewater flow rates and handling methods.

It is not clear from the MACT survey data where wastewater emissions may occur for the two wastewater streams with HAP emission estimates above. Assuming the wastewater streams mentioned above are collected in ponds, then the emissions would be released as fugitive emissions at ground level. There is no additional information beyond the estimates provided above to use in estimating potential emissions from wastewater storage tanks.

D. Conclusions Regarding Organic HAP from Ancillary Processes Table 4 presents a summary of the worst case organic HAP emissions estimates and emissions release heights for resin tanks, miscellaneous coating operations, and wastewater operations. The sum of the organic HAP emitted is 9.8 tpy. Based on these worst case estimates, the HAP emissions associated with resin tanks, miscellaneous coating operations, and wastewater operations alone would not cause a facility to be a major source of HAP emissions ( i. e., the emissions do not exceed the 10/ 25 tpy emission thresholds to trigger major source status). For comparison, the average facility baseline total HAP emissions previously estimated are as follows: 9 ° Particleboard 121 tpy ° MDF 103 tpy ° OSB 90 tpy ° Hardboard 86 to 240 tpy ( depending on process)

° Softwood plywood 36 tpy The worst case emission estimates for resin tanks, miscellaneous coating operations, and 7 wastewater operations were based on the best available information. However, as noted in the previous subsections, the information used to develop the emission estimates is very limited. Therefore, it is recommended that the estimates presented in this memorandum be used only for proposes of developing a conservative risk screening model. 8 Table 1. Estimated HAP metals emissions for various PCWP dryer types.

Pollutant Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Hexavalent chromium Cobalt Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Emission factors ( lb/ MMBTU) a 7.94E 06 2.20E 05 1.09E 06 4.09E 06 2.06E 05 3.51E 06 6.50E 06 4.77E 05 1.55E 03 3.54E 06 3.33E 05 2.79E 06 Process unit Burner capacity MMBTU/ hrb Metals emissions ( lb/ yr)

OSB rotary dryer 39 2.5 6.9 0.34 1.3 6.4 1.1 2.0 15 484 1.1 10 0.87 Particleboard rotary dryer 33 2.1 5.8 0.29 1.1 5.4 0.93 1.7 13 409 0.93 8.8 0.74 Tube dryer 35 2.2 6.2 0.31 1.1 5.8 1.0 1.8 13 434 1.0 9.3 0.78 Veneer dryer 26 1.7 4.6 0.23 0.85 4.3 0.73 1.4 9.9 322 0.74 6.9 0.58 aAP 42 Section 1.6, Wood Residue Combustion in Boilers bThe typical capacity of each burner was estimated based on the average of the burner capacities listed in the general survey data base for each type of process unit.

lb = pounds, MMBtu = million British thermal units, yr = year, hr = hour 9 Table 2. Worst case HAP emissions from resin storage tanks.

Pollutant Emissionsa ( tons/ yr) Estimated emissions per PCWP facilityb Formaldehyde 0.76 3.0 Phenol 0.70 2.8 Methanol 0.032 0.13 MDI 0.005 0.02 a Maximum reported uncontrolled emissions for each HAP from any individual storage tank. 5 b The PCWP facility wide tank emissions were estimated by multiplying the individual tank emissions by an average of four tanks per facility.

Table 3. Worst case facility HAP emissions from miscellaneous coatings.

Coating Pollutant Percent in coating Coating use ( gal/ yr) Maximum emissions ( tpy)

trademark and gradestamp ink Ethylene glycol 5% 270 0.1 logo paint Ethylene glycol 20% 3,300 3.0 logo paint Methanol 4% 3,300 0.4 Total Ethylene glycol Methanol 3.1 tpy 0.4 tpy Emissions ( tpy) = (% HAP in coating) x ( gallons/ yr coating used) x ( density of HAP ( lb/ gallon)) / ( 2000 lb/ ton) 10 Table 4. Summary of worst case facility wide emission estimates for miscellaneous coating operations, wastewater operations, and resin tanks.

Ancillary process Release height ( ft) Worst case estimates HAP emissions ( tpy)

Acetaldehyde Ethylene glycol Formaldehyde MDI MEK Methanol Phenol Miscellaneous coatings 40 3.1 0.4 Wastewater operations ground level 0.0091 0.0023 0.31 Resin tanks 14 3.0 0.02 0.13 2.8 Pollutant total 0.0091 3.1 3.0 0.02 0.0023 0.84 2.8 Total HAP emissions 9.8 tpy 11 IV. References 1. Memorandum from K. Hanks and D. Bullock, MRI, to M. Kissell, EPA/ ESD. June 9, 2000. Baseline Emission Estimates for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Industry.

2. Memorandum from D. Bullock and K. Hanks, MRI, to M. Kissell, EPA/ ESD. April 27, 2000. Documentation of Emission Factor Development for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Manufacturing NESHAP.

3. National Emission Standards for hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/ Commercial/ Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. Proposed Rule. 68 FR 1660. January 13, 2003.

4. Background Document Report on Revisions to 5th Edition AP 42, Section 1.6, Wood Residue Combustion in Boilers. Prepared by Eastern Research Group for U. S. EPA. July 2001.

5. Memorandum from D. Bullock, K. Hanks, and B. Nicholson, MRI to M. Kissell, EPA/ ESD. April 28, 2000. Summary of Responses to the 1998 EPA Information Collection Request ( MACT Survey)  General Survey.

6. Memorandum from M. Icenhour, MRI, to Project file. February 20, 2002. Documentation of Stack Parameters Provided in 2002 submittal of National Emission Inventory ( NEI) data and as Inputs for Risk Assessment 7. Title V Permit Application for Louisiana Pacific Corporation Oriented Strandboard Mill in Roxboro, North Carolina. February 18, 1997.

8. Memorandum from K. Hanks, MRI, to Plywood and Composite Wood Products Project File. June 29, 2000. Applicability of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP ( HON) Provisions to Plywood and Composite Wood Products Tanks and Wastewater Operations.

9. U. S. EPA. Background Information Document for Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. September, 2000.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43820-43821]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18239]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC12-121-000.
    Applicants: Direct Energy Services, LLC, Energetix, Inc., NYSEG
Solutions, Inc.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Direct Energy Services, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG12-90-000.
    Applicants: Russell City Energy Company, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1635-002.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Oden IFA FERC Rate Schedule No. 9 to be effective 4/
27/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/16/12.
    Accession Number: 20120716-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1946-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Beckjord, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to MBR Filing to be effective 10/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1948-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Conesville, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 10/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1951-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Dicks Creek, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 10/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1954-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Killen, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 10/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1956-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Miami Fort, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to MBR Filing to be effective 10/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1958-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Piketon, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 10/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1959-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Stuart, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 10/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5084
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1961-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Zimmer, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 10/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2080-001.
    Applicants: GenOn Power Midwest, LP.
    Description: Revised Effective Date and Request to Defer Action to
be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2145-001.
    Applicants: EC&R O&M LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Application for Market-Based Rate
Authority to be effective 6/29/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2257-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: SA 2017 Barton Windpower-ITC Midwest to be effective
7/19/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2258-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: SA 2456 Emmet County-ITC Midwest GIA to be effective
7/19/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2259-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: SA 1902 Harvest Windfarm LLC-ITC Transmission GIA to
be effective 7/19/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2260-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: NYISO Tariff Amendments to Permit Recovery of Charges
for ITC PARs to be effective 4/5/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2261-000.
    Applicants: Russell City Energy Company, LLC.
    Description: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be
effective 7/19/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2262-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance Filing per Order dated 4/19/2012 in ER09-
1063-004 to be effective 10/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120718-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2263-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Amendment to Rate Schedule No. 217, Exhibit B to be
effective 10/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/19/12.
    Accession Number: 20120719-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2264-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing--ER12-1600--Exelon Market
Participant Service Agreement to be effective 4/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120717-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 19, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18239 Filed 7-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P