Mary Dominiak 07/ 03/ 2003 01: 53 PM To: Mary Dominiak/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: ( bcc: Mary Dominiak/ DC/ USEPA/ US) Subject: TRP Submission  Document Reference Lists TO: PFOA ECA Technical Workgroup Meeting Attendees At the PFOA ECA Telomer Technical Workgroup meeting on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, the Telomer Research Program ( TRP) agreed to provide a reference list of data submissions from the TRP, relating to its Letter of Intent ( LOI) commitments, that have been transmitted to Administrative Record AR 226 and/ or docket OPPT 2003 0012. The TRP transmittal letter and document reference lists are attached, and will appear in both AR 226 and the electronic PFOA ECA docket.

The file named " TRP Study Report Submissions to EPA ( June03). pdf" includes references to TRP submissions on May 5, 2003 and June 30, 2003 for which no AR or docket numbers appear. These submissions are currently being processed into AR 226, and will be available shortly.

If you have questions concerning these documents, or experience any difficulty with the files, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Mary F. Dominiak U. S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA East, Mail Code 7405M 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 564 8104 Fax: 202 564 4775 Courier deliveries: 1201 Constitution Ave., NW, Room 4410; 564 4760 TRP Submission  Document Reference Lists ( 30 June TRP Study Report Submissions to EPA ( June 0 TRP LOI Submissions to EPA ( June 03


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71619-71621]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29600]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0166]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Grant of
Temporary Exemption for Con-way Freight, TK Holdings, Inc., and Iteris,
Inc.

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to grant an exemption to enable Con-way Freight
(Con-way), TK Holdings, Inc. (Takata), and Iteris, Inc. (Iteris) to
mount lane departure warning system sensors lower in the windshield of
a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) than is currently permitted by the
Agency's regulations. The lane departure warning system

alerts drivers who unintentionally drift out of their lane of travel,
thus promoting improved safety performance.

DATES: This exemption is effective November 18, 2011 through November
18, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations,
MC-PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the prohibition on obstructions to the driver's field of view
requirements in 49 CFR 393.60(e) for a two-year period if it finds
``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be
achieved absent such exemption,'' (49 CFR 381.305(a)).

Applications for Exemptions

    On November 11, 2009, Con-way applied for an exemption from 49 CFR
393.60(e)(1) to allow it to install lane departure warning system
sensors on 1,272 of its newly purchased power units. Takata and Iteris
submitted nearly identical exemption applications for their lane
departure warning system sensors on December 15, 2009 and on February
25, 2010, respectively. On June 14, 2010, FMCSA published a notice of
these applications, and asked for public comment (75 FR 33666).
    Section 393.60(e)(1) of the FMCSRs prohibits the obstruction of the
driver's field of view by devices mounted at the top of the windshield.
Antennas, transponders and similar devices (collectively, devices) must
not be mounted more than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the
windshield. These devices must be located outside the area swept by the
windshield wipers and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and
highway signs and signals.
    Con-way, Takata, and Iteris state that over the last several years,
truck manufacturers have increased the windshield area to maximize
driver visibility. As a result, manufacturers have voluntarily
installed larger windshield wipers on these windshields that increase
the swept area beyond that which is minimally required by Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, ``Windshield wiping and
washing systems.'' FMVSS No. 104 establishes the requirements
applicable to vehicle and equipment manufacturers for windshield wiper
system coverage for passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses.
    Con-way, Takata, and Iteris provided diagrams and photos showing
the dimensions of the lane departure sensors and their mounting
locations on vehicle windshields. Specifically, the lane departure
sensor device itself measures 2 inches by 3.5 inches and is mounted
within the top 2 inches of the windshield wiper sweep. The lane
departure system requires the forward lens of the sensor to be in the
swept area of the windshield for a clear view in inclement weather.
    Con-way, Takata, and Iteris cited the findings of a report
published by FMCSA's Office of Analysis, Research and Technology titled
``Benefit-Cost Analyses of Onboard Safety Systems,'' which summarizes
the projected safety benefits for various CMV onboard safety
technologies, including lane departure warning systems. Using projected
efficacy rates ranging from 23 percent to 53 percent, the report
estimated that, based on industry-wide use, lane departure warning
systems have the potential to eliminate approximately 1,609-2,463
single-vehicle roadway departure crashes, 627-1,307 single-vehicle
roadway departure rollovers, 1,111-2,223 same-direction lane departure
sideswipes, 997-1,992 opposite-direction lane departure sideswipes, and
59-118 opposite-direction lane departure head-on collisions. Con-way,
Takata, and Iteris each stated that without the exemption, they will be
unable to (1) implement the lane departure warning system, and (2)
realize the potential safety benefits that can be expected with the
utilization of this technology as estimated in the FMCSA report
described above.

Comments

    In response to its notice requesting public comment, the Agency
received one comment, from the American Trucking Associations (ATA).
The ATA supports the use of lane departure warning systems and
identified no specific objection to the exemption applications. The ATA
stated that the devices present relatively minor visual obstruction
when placed near the upper edge of the windshield wiper sweep, and
should not adversely impact the driver's ability to clearly see out of
the windshield.

FMCSA Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated the Con-way, Jakarta, and Iteris exemption
applications. The Agency believes that granting the temporary
exemptions to allow the placement of lane departure warning system
sensors lower in the windshield than is currently permitted by the
Agency's regulations will provide a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than the level of safety achieved without the exemption
because (1) based on the technical information available, there is no
indication that the lane departure warning system sensors would
obstruct drivers' views of the roadway, highway signs and surrounding
traffic; (2) generally, trucks and buses have an elevated seating
position that greatly improves the forward visual field of the driver,
and any impairment of available sight lines would be minimal; and (3)
the location within the top two inches of the area swept by the
windshield wiper and out of the driver's normal sightline will be
reasonable and enforceable at roadside. In addition, the Agency
believes that the use of lane departure warning systems by fleets is
likely to improve the overall level of safety to the motoring public.
    This action is consistent with previous Agency actions permitting
the similar placement of video event recorders on CMVs, within the
swept area of the windshield wipers. FMCSA has granted temporary
exemptions to Greyhound Lines, Inc. and to DriveCam, Inc. regarding the
use of the video event recorders to increase safety through (1)
identification and remediation of risky driving behaviors such as
distracted driving and drowsiness, (2) enhanced monitoring of passenger
behavior on CMVs in passenger service, and (3) enhanced collision
review and analysis. Both of these exemptions have been renewed for a
second 2-year period, as FMCSA is not aware of any evidence showing
that the installation of the devices in the upper area of the
windshield has resulted in any degradation in safety. Further, FMCSA
continues to believe that the potential safety gains from the use of
video event recorders to improve driver behavior will improve the
overall level of safety to the motoring public. The Agency believes the
same is true regarding the use of lane departure warning systems.

Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    The Agency hereby grants the exemptions for a two-year period,
beginning November 18, 2011 and ending November 18, 2013. During the
temporary exemption period, Con-way and motor carriers using the Takata
and Iteris lane departure warning systems must ensure that the sensors
are mounted not more than 50 mm (2 inches) below the upper edge of the
area swept by the windshield wipers, and

outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and
signals. The exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Motor
carriers and/or commercial motor vehicles fail to comply with the terms
and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a
lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
    Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate
that Con-way commercial motor vehicles using lane departure warning
systems or commercial motor vehicles using lane departure warning
systems manufactured by Takata and Iteris are not achieving the
requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA.
The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if safety is being
compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is not consistent
with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take immediate steps to
revoke the exemptions granted to Con-way, Takata, and Iteris.

Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent
with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the
exemption.

    Issued on: November 8, 2011.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-29600 Filed 11-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28131-28133]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10054]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88816; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend Its Definition of Bulk Messages in Rule 1.1 and Amend Rule
5.5(c)(3)

May 6, 2020.
    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 April 24, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its definition of bulk messages in Rule 1.1 and amend Rule
5.5(c)(3). The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit
5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules in connection with bulk
message functionality to offer this functionality exclusively to
Market-Makers on the Exchange. Currently, Cboe Options Market-Makers
generally submit their quotes electronically using bulk messages. A
bulk message is a single electronic message a User may submit to the
Exchange in which the User may enter, modify, or cancel up to an
Exchange-specified number of bids and offers. Bulk message
functionality was adopted by the Exchange in connection with a recent
technology migration and made available to all Users in place of the
Exchange's prior quoting functionality, which was available only to
Market-Makers and permitted them to update their electronic quotes in
block quantities.\3\ Currently, the definition of a bulk message in
Rule 1.1 provides that a User may submit a bulk message through a bulk
port, which is a dedicated logical port. Current Rule 5.5(c)(3)
provides that a bulk message submitted through a logical port is
subject to the following: (1) It has a Time-in-Force of Day; (2) a
Market-Maker with an appointment in a class may designate a bulk
message for that class as Post Only or Book Only, and other Users must
designate a bulk message for that class as Post Only; and (3) a User
may establish a default MTP Modifier of MCN, MCO, or MCB, and a default
value of Attributable or Non-Attributable, for a bulk port, each of
which applies to all bulk messages submitted to the Exchange through
that bulk port. Additionally, Users may submit single orders through a
bulk port in the same manner as Users may submit orders to the Exchange
through any other type of port, including designated with any order
instruction and any time-in-force,\4\ and as auction responses (using
auction response messages). The primary purpose of bulk ports and bulk
messages is to encourage liquidity provision, particularly by Market-
Makers, on the Exchange.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 86374 (July 15, 2019) 84
FR 34963 (July 19, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-033).
    \4\ A Market-Maker with an appointment in a class may designate
an order for that class submitted through a bulk port only as Post
Only or Book Only, and other Users must designate an order for that
class submitted through a bulk port as Post Only. See Rule
5.5(c)(3)(B).
    \5\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of bulk messages in
Rule 1.1 so that Market-Makers may exclusively submit bulk messages
(the same quotation functionality that was prior offered exclusively to
Market-Makers up until October 2019 \6\) and proposes to update Rule
5.5(c)(3) regarding bulk ports accordingly. Specifically, the proposed
rule change amends the definition of bulk messages to provide that the
term ``bulk message'' means a single electronic message a User submits
with an M Capacity (i.e., for the account of a Market-Maker) to the
Exchange in which the User may enter, modify, or cancel up to an
Exchange-specified number of bids and offers. In this way, the bulk
messages submitted through bulk ports would be attributed only to
Market-Maker quotes. In line with the proposed amendment to the User
Capacity permitted to submit bulk messages, the proposed rule change
also updates Rule 5.5(c)(3)(A)(ii) to provide that, while a Market-
Maker with an appointment in a class may designate a bulk message for
that class as a Post Only or Book Only, a non-appointed Market-Maker,
as opposed to any other User, must designate a bulk message for that
class as Post Only. This is currently the case for Market-Makers
submitting bulk messages in non-appointed classes and the proposed rule
change merely reflects the specific type of other User (i.e., Market-
Makers not appointed in a class) that will be able to submit bulk
messages. The Exchange also notes that the proposed rule change updates
the term User to Market-Maker in Rule 5.5(c)(3)(A)(iii) to reflect the
proposed amendment to the User Capacity permitted to submit bulk
messages and provide uniformity for the terms used throughout Rule
5.5(c)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the vast majority of bulk messages
submitted through bulk ports are for the account of a Market-Maker.
Indeed, over the second half of March 2020 the Exchange observed that
no non-Market-Makers submitted bulk messages through bulk ports.
Because so few non-Market-Maker Users opt to use this functionality,
the Exchange believes that the current demand does not warrant the
Exchange resources necessary for ongoing System support for non-Market-
Maker bulk messaging. The Exchange notes that the use of bulk messages
is voluntary and non-Market-Maker Users will continue to be able to
submit their single orders and auction responses through bulk ports and
other logical ports in the same manner as they currently do.

    The Exchange notes that limiting the offering of quoting
functionality to Market-Makers is not new or unique as other options
exchanges currently offer quoting functionality only to their market
makers.\7\ Indeed, bulk message functionality (including submission
through bulk ports) is geared toward encouraging Market-Maker quoting
on the Exchange. For example, the requirement that bulk messages have a
time-in-force of Day is intended to be consistent with a Market-Maker's
obligation to update its quotes in response to changed market
conditions in its appointed classes, and the provision that allows
Market-Makers to designate their bulk messages as Post Only or Book
Only (as opposed to the limitation to Post Only for other Users' bulk
messages) is intended to provide Market-Makers with flexibility to use
these instructions with respect to their bulk messages as additional
tools to meet their quoting obligations in a manner they deem
appropriate.\8\ Additionally, as noted above, the Exchange offered
quote message functionality (which was substantially similar to current
bulk message functionality) only to Market-Makers until October 7,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Nasdaq Phlx Options 1, Section 7(a)(B), which provides
for its ``Specialized Quote Feed'', a quoting interface offered
specifically to market makers on Phlx; and see generally MIAX
Options Rule 517, which provide for the different types of quotes
and quoting mechanisms offered specifically to market makers on MIAX
Options.
    \8\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and national market system and benefit investors, because it
will delete from the Rules a functionality that is currently unused and
as a result, the Exchange will no longer offer, thereby promoting
transparency in its Rules. The Exchange notes that other options
exchanges currently offer their quoting functionality and/or interfaces
exclusively to market makers on their exchanges.\12\ Additionally, as
noted above, the Exchange only offered quote message functionality
(which corresponds to bulk message functionality) until approximately
six months ago. Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change raises any new or novel issues for Users and will
not affect the protection of investors and the public interest because
this functionality is not currently used by non-Market-Makers. In
addition to this, the Exchange notes that the submission of bulk
messages to the Exchange is voluntary, and, as stated, non-Market-
Makers will continue to be able to submit single order and auction
responses through bulk ports and other logical ports to connect to the
Exchange and enter orders, receive date, and access information. Also,
the Exchange believes that the low non-Market-Maker usage rate of bulk
message functionality does not warrant the continued resources
necessary for System support of bulk messaging for non-Market-Maker
Users. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
also remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and national market system by allowing the Exchange to
reallocate System capacity and resources to other System functionality,
which benefits all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
change would permit unfair discrimination as, according to March 2020
data, non-Market-Makers are not submitting bulk messages to the
Exchange, and, as stated above, bulk message functionality is
principally designed to assist Market-Makers in providing liquidity to
the Exchange. The options market is driven by Market-Maker quotes, and
thus Market-Maker quotes are critical to provide liquidity to the
market and contribute to price discovery for investors. Additionally,
Market-Makers are subject to continuous quoting obligations (which
other Users are not), and bulk message functionality provides Market-
Makers with a means to help them satisfy these obligations. Indeed,
when bulk messages were adopted, the Exchange expected Market-Makers
regularly to use bulk messages to input and update prices on multiple
series of options at the same time, and noted that the functionality
was intended primarily for the use of Market-Makers.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will change will impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because bulk messages
functionality will be available for all Exchange Market-Makers in the
same manner as it is today. Non-Market-Makers will continue to be able
to submit their single orders and auction responses through bulk ports,
as well as all orders and other data through logical ports, in the same
manner as they currently do. As noted above, this is consistent with
the primary purpose of bulk messages, which is to encourage Market-
Maker quoting and liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange further notes
that if any non-Market-Makers wish to submit liquidity to the Exchange
using bulk messages they are free to register as an Exchange Market-
Maker and choose the appointed classes in which they wish to quote.
Non-Market-Makers currently do not use bulk message functionality, so
the proposed rule change is not expected to have any impact on their
business need.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because other
options exchanges currently limit their quoting functionality and/or
interface to market makers on their exchanges.\14\ As noted above, the
Exchange similarly limited quoting functionality (which corresponds to
bulk message

functionality) to Market-Makers until approximately six months ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \15\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission has waived the five-day prefiling requirement in this
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \17\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \18\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange represents that it disseminated advance notice of the
proposed change to market participants on March 27, 2020 and plans to
announce a specific implementation date in the near future. In
addition, the Exchange states that the proposal is consistent with
quoting functionality on other options exchanges which currently offer
such functionality only to their market makers. The Commission notes
that the proposed rule change does not present any unique or novel
regulatory issues. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-041 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-CBOE-2020-041. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-041 and should be submitted on
or before June 2, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10054 Filed 5-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 46194]
[DOCID:fr08se09-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ08-4-002]

East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing

August 31, 2009.
    Take notice that on August 14, 2009, East Kentucky Power
Cooperative, Inc. filed amendments to Attachment M, Transmission
Planning Processes, of its safe harbor Open Access Transmission Tariff
in compliance with the Commission's June 18, 2009 Order, Order
Conditionally Granting Petition for Declaratory Order, East Kentucky
Power Cooperative, Inc., 127 FERC 61,280 (2009).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 4, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21488 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46672-46674]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18592]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30968 Amdt. No. 3599]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient

use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations
under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective August 11, 2014. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of August 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to:http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 3, 2014.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 21 AUGUST 2014

Brookfield, MO, North Central Missouri Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1,
CANCELED
Newcastle, WY, Mondell Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1
Newcastle, WY, Mondell Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1
Newcastle, WY, Mondell Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Newcastle, WY, Mondell Field, VOR RWY 32, Amdt 4

Effective 18 SEPTEMBER 2014

Bay Minette, AL, Bay Minette Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-D
Parker, AZ, Avi Suquilla, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig
Parker, AZ, Avi Suquilla, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Parker, AZ, Avi Suquilla, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 3
Greeley, CO, Greeley-Weld County, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 35, Amdt 3
Greeley, CO, Greeley-Weld County, NDB RWY 34, Orig-A, CANCELED
Greeley, CO, Greeley-Weld County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1
Greeley, CO, Greeley-Weld County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1
Greeley, CO, Greeley-Weld County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1
Greeley, CO, Greeley-Weld County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 4
Greeley, CO, Greeley-Weld County, VOR-A, Amdt 10
Naples, FL, Naples Muni, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Naples, FL, Naples Muni, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig
Tampa, FL, Peter O Knight, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2B
Statesboro, GA, Statesboro-Bulloch County, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 3
Statesboro, GA, Statesboro-Bulloch County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 3
Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R. Ford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 8R, Amdt 6A
Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R. Ford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 26L, Amdt 21A
Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R. Ford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Amdt 1B
Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R. Ford Intl, VOR RWY 17, Orig-D
Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R. Ford Intl, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 1A
Hastings, MI, Hastings, VOR RWY 12, Orig-E
Holland, MI, West Michigan Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 10D
Ludington, MI, Mason County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig-B
Sparta, MI, Paul C. Miller-Sparta, VOR-A, Amdt 4A
Waxhaw, NC, Jaars-Townsend, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig-A
Waxhaw, NC, Jaars-Townsend, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig-A
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22R, Amdt 1D
Arlington, TX, Arlington Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Brenham, TX, Brenham Muni, VOR/DME RWY 16, Amdt 2, CANCELED
Dallas, TX, Dallas Executive, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7
Decatur, TX, Decatur Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Denton, TX, Denton Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Fort Worth, TX, Bourland Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
2
Fort Worth, TX, Fort Worth Alliance, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Fort Worth, TX, Fort Worth Meacham Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 7
Grand Prairie, TX, Grand Prairie Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 5
Lancaster, TX, Lancaster Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Mesquite, TX, Mesquite Metro, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Midlothian/Waxahachie, TX, Mid-Way Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 2
Rockwall, TX, Ralph M Hall/Rockwall Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 1
Bremerton, WA, Bremerton National, ILS OR LOC RWY 20, Amdt 17
Bremerton, WA, Bremerton National, NDB RWY 2, Amdt 2, CANCELED
Bremerton, WA, Bremerton National, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 5
Madison, WI, Blackhawk Airfield, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
2
Wheatland, WY, Phifer Airfield, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1

[FR Doc. 2014-18592 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PBT Profiler Online Model The PBT Profiler is an online screening model and does not exist in a stand alone format.

Because the model can only be accessed on the Internet, a copy of the model can not be provided in this docket. During the developmental stages, beta test, and peer review the model is on a password protected site to control access to the model.

– The URL (universal resource locator) of the model during the Peer Review period is: http:// esc. syrres. com/ pbtd .

– The User Name assigned to Peer Reviewers is "ppr" and the Password is "tbp2!!"

0002 PBT Profiler Screen Shots May 2001. ppt #1: Opening Screen #2: Second Screen, accessed by clicking on the Opening Screen's "Start the PBT Profiler" Button #3: Data Entry Screen, accessed by clicking on the Second Screen's "Start the PBT Profiler" Button #4: Screen displaying retrieved chemical structure for CAS RN entered, indicating the structure is in the accompanying database. Now the model is ready to run. #5: Results for the chemical screened.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 27, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67990-67992]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22339]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0597]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Morehead City, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation (SLR) for certain navigable waters of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AICW) and Beaufort Inlet in Morehead City, North
Carolina. This SLR restricts vessel traffic on the AICW and Beaufort
Inlet during high-speed boat races. The restriction of vessel traffic
movement in the SLR protects participants and spectators from the
hazards posed by these events. Entry of vessels or persons into this
regulated area is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port (COTP) North Carolina or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. on October 23, 2020, to 5
p.m. to October 25, 2020. It will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
each day the rule is in effect.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0597 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Chief Petty Officer Joshua O'Rourke, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was unable to publish
an NPRM and hold a comment period for this rulemaking due to the short
time period between event planners notifying the Coast Guard of the
event and required publication of this rule. Immediate action is needed
to protect persons and vessels from the hazards associated with this
event. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to
publish an NPRM because a final rule needs to be in place by October
23, 2020, to minimize potential danger to the participants and the
public during the event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to public interest
because immediate action is needed to protect persons and vessels from
the hazards associated with this event on October 23, 2020, and October
25, 2020.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041. The COTP North Carolina has determined that potential hazards
associated with the Crystal Coast Grand Prix World Championship race
scheduled for 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. on October 23, 2020, and October
25, 2020, is a safety concern for mariners during a high speed boat
race on portions of the Alantic Intra Coastal Waterway (AICW) and
Beaufort Inlet in Morehead City, North Carolina. This rule is necessary
to protect safety of life from the potential hazards associated with
the high-speed boat race.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes an SLR on a portion of the AICW and Beaufort
Inlet from 9 a.m. on October 23, 2020 to 5 p.m. October 25, 2020. It
will be enforced from 9 a.m. on October 23, 2020, and those same hours
on October 25, 2020. The time of enforcement will be broadcast locally
over VHF-FM marine radio. The SLR will include a race area on all
navigable waters of the AICW and Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina, from
approximate positions: Latitude 34[deg]42'52'' N, longitude
076[deg]43'16'' W, then east to latitude 34[deg]42'52.2'' N, longitude
076[deg]42'11.04'' W, then east to latitude 34[deg]42'53.76'' N,
longitude 076[deg]41'38.04'' W, then southeast to latitude
34[deg]42'10.8'' N, longitude 076[deg]40'44.4'' W, then south to
latitude 34[deg]42'4.3'' N, longitude 076[deg]40'48.1'' W, then
northwest to latitude 34[deg]42'47.34'' N, longitude 076[deg]41'49'' W,
then west to latitude 34[deg]42'50'' N, longitude 076[deg]43'16'' W,
then north to the point of origin. This rule also temporarily
establishes a portion of the AICW to be used as a spectator zone. The
spectator area will be marked with temporary buoys and will be at least
100 yards from the race course, south of Sugarloaf Island, North
Carolina, from approximate positions: Latitude 34[deg]42'42'' N,
longitude 076[deg]43'15'' W, then east to latitude 34[deg]42'41'' N,
longitude 076[deg]42'14'' W, then south to latitude 34[deg]42'32'' N,
longitude 076[deg]42'14'' W, then west to latitude 34[deg]42'32'' N,
longitude 076[deg]43'15'' W, then north to the point of origin. This
rule also temporarily establishes a buffer area around the perimeter of
the race area, from approximate positions: latitude 34[deg]42'55'' N,
longitude 076[deg]43'15'' W, then east to latitude 34[deg]42'56'' N,
longitude 076[deg]42'13'' W, then east to latitude 34[deg]42'57'' N,
longitude 076[deg]41'41'' W, then east to latitude 34[deg]42'57'' N,
longitude 076[deg]41'25'' W, then south east to latitude 34[deg]42'23''
N, longitude 076[deg]40'44'' W, then south to latitude 34[deg]41'59''
N, longitude 076[deg]40'43'' W, then north west to latitude
34[deg]42'41'' N, longitude 076[deg]42'05'' W, then west to latitude
34[deg]42'42'' N, longitude 076[deg]43'15'' W, then north to its point
of origin.
    The duration of this SLR is intended to protect participants and
spectators on the navigable waters of the AICW and Beafort Inelt during
the high-speed boat race. Vessels may request permission to pass
through the SLR between race heats. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the SLR without obtaining permission from the COTP
North Carolina or a designated representative. The regulatory text
appears at the end of this document.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the SLR. Vessel traffic will not be allowed
to enter or transit a portion of the AICW or Beaufort Inlet during an
active race event from 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. October 23, 2020, and
October 25, 2020. The Coast Guard will transmit a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the enforcement period
of the SLR. This rule allows vessels to request permission to pass
through the regulated area between race heats.

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

C. Collection of Information

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

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

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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves an SLR
in effect from 9 a.m. on October 23, 2020, to 5 p.m. on October 25,
2020, to be enforced during active race events from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
October 23, 2020, and October 25, 2020. It is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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.T500-0468 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T500-0597  Crystal Coast Grand Prix World Championship,
Morehead City, NC.

    (a) Regulated areas. The regulations in this section apply to the
following areas:
    (1) The Race Area is designated as all navigable waters of the AICW
and Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina, from approximate positions:
Latitude 34[deg]42'52'' N, longitude 076[deg]43'16'' W, then east to
latitude 34[deg]42'52.2'' N, longitude 076[deg]42'11.04'' W, then east
to latitude 34[deg]42'53.76'' N, longitude

076[deg]41'38.04'' W, then southeast to latitude 34[deg]42'10.8'' N,
longitude 076[deg]40'44.4'' W, then south to latitude 34[deg]42'4.3''
N, longitude 076[deg]40'48.1'' W, then northwest to latitude
34[deg]42'47.34'' N, longitude 076[deg]41'49'' W, then west to latitude
34[deg]42'50'' N, longitude 076[deg]43'16'' W, then north to the point
of origin.
    (2) The Spectator Area is designated as all waters of the AICW,
North Carolina, from approximate positions: Latitude 34[deg]42'42'' N,
longitude 076[deg]43'15'' W, then east to latitude 34[deg]42'41'' N,
longitude 076[deg]42'14'' W, then south to latitude 34[deg]42'32'' N,
longitude 076[deg]42'14'' W, then west to latitude 34[deg]42'32'' N,
longitude 076[deg]43'15'' W, then north to the point of origin.
    (3) The Buffer Area is designated as all waters of the AICW and
Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina, from approximate positions: Latitude
34[deg]42'55'' N, longitude 076[deg]43'15'' W, then east to latitude
34[deg]42'56'' N, longitude 076[deg]42'13'' W, then east to latitude
34[deg]42'57'' N, longitude 076[deg]41'41'' W, then east to latitude
34[deg]42'57'' N, longitude 076[deg]41'25'' W, then south east to
latitude 34[deg]42'23'' N, longitude 076[deg]40'44'' W, then south to
latitude 34[deg]41'59'' N, longitude 076[deg]40'43'' W, then north west
to latitude 34[deg]42'41'' N, longitude 076[deg]42'05'' W, then west to
latitude 34[deg]42'42'' N, longitude 076[deg]43'15'' W, then north to
its point of origin.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Buffer Area is a neutral area that surrounds the perimeter of the
Race 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 and spectator vessels or nearby
transiting vessels. This area provides separation between a Race 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 means the Commander, Sector North Carolina.
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
designated by the Captain of the Port North Carolina (COTP) for the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    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) Regulations. (1) Everyone other than participants are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or getting
underway within the regulated area described in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section unless authorized by the COTP North Carolina or their
designated representative.
    (2) Everyone other than particpants, including those engaged in
spectating, may be directed by a designated representative to the
regulated area described in section (a) of this section, where they
must remain during the effective period unless otherwise authorized or
directed by a designated representative.
    (3) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP by calling the
Sector North Carolina Command Center at<PHONE_NUMBER> or contact the
COTP's designated representative on Marine band Radio, VHF-FM channel
16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful
orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and
local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement. This SLR will be enforced from 9 a.m. through 5
p.m. on October 23, 2020, and those same hours on October 25, 2020.

    Dated: October 2, 2020.
Matthew J. Baer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2020-22339 Filed 10-23-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 106]
[DOCID:fr03ja06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-147-000]

Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd; Notice of Tariff Filing

December 27, 2005.
    Take notice that on December 19, 2005, Wyoming Interstate Company,
Ltd (WIC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 2, the following tariff sheets, to become effective
January 16, 2006:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1,
Second Revised Sheet No. 103,
Second Revised Sheet No. 104,
First Revised Sheet No. 117.

    WIC states that it is also filing three firm transportation service
agreements (FTSAs), and two precedent agreements (PAs).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-8179 Filed 12-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION 1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OSWER/ OSW 2. OMB control number b.

None a. 2050 0041 3. Type of information collection ( check one)

a. New collection  b. Revision of a currently approved collection

c. Extension of a currently approved collection

d. Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired

e. Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired

f. Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one)

 a. Regular

b. Emergency

c. Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes  No 6. Requested Expiration Date  a. Three years from the approval date

b. Other 7. Title Final Authorization for Hazardous Waste Management 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) ICR # 0969.07 9. Keywords Authority delegations, hazardous waste 10. Abstract In order for a State to obtain final Authorizatin for a State hazardous waste program, it must sumbit an official application to EPA for review. EPA will use the information submitted by the State to determine whether the State's program meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for authorization.

11. Affected public

a. Individuals or households

b. Business or other for profit

c. Not for profit institutions

d. Farms  e. Federal Government  f. State, Local or Tribal Government Primary affected public: f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond

a. Voluntary  b. Required to obtain or retain benefits  c. Mandatory Primary obligation to respond: c. Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 50 b. Total annual responses 50 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total annual hours requested 19,968 d. Current OMB inventory 19,968 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 0 d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection

a. Application for benefits  b. Program evaluation  c. General purpose statistics

d. Audit  e. Program planning or management

f. Research  g. Regulatory or compliance Primary purpose of information collection: g. Regulatory or compliance 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply)

a. Recordkeeping

b. Third party disclosure  c. Reporting

1. On occasion Q 2. Weekly Q 3. Monthly Q 4. Quarterly Q 5. Semi annually  6. Annually Q 7. Biennually Q 8. Other ( describe )

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

Q Yes  No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Kathy Rafferty Phone: 703 308 0589 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Office Official Bob Hall, Director Permits and State Programs Division Office of Solid Waste Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been collected; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

10/ 95


Personal Care Product Use Survey Results

June 2004. A personal care product use survey of more than 2,300 people,
conducted by the Environmental Working Group and the Campaign for Safe
Cosmetics shows that the average adult uses 9 personal care products
each day, with 126 unique chemical ingredients. More than a quarter of
all women and one of every 100 men use at least 15 products daily. Among
the findings of this survey are the following:

12.2 million adults - one of every 13 women and one of every 23 men -
are exposed to ingredients that are known or probable human carcinogens
every day through their use of personal care products.

One of every 24 women, 4.3 million women altogether, are exposed daily
to personal care product ingredients that are known or probable
reproductive and developmental toxins, linked to impaired fertility or
developmental harm for a baby in the womb or a child. These statistics
do not account for exposures to phthalates that testing shows appear in
an estimated three quarters of all personal care products but that, as
components of fragrance, are not listed on product ingredient labels
(EWG et al. 2002).

One of every five adults are potentially exposed every day to all of the
top seven carcinogenic impurities common to personal care product
ingredients — hydroquinone, ethylene dioxide, 1,4-dioxane,
formaldehyde, nitrosamines, PAHs, and acrylamide. The top most common
impurity ranked by number of people exposed is hydroquinone, which is a
potential contaminant in products used daily by 94% of all women and 69%
of all men.

Women use more products than men, and are exposed to more unique
ingredients daily, but men use a surprisingly high number of products as
well. The average woman uses 12 products containing 168 unique
ingredients every day. Men, on the other hand, use 6 products daily with
85 unique ingredients, on average.

The personal care product industry's self-policing safety panel, the
Cosmetic Ingredient Review, approaches each safety assessment as if
consumers are exposed to just one chemical at a time, and as if personal
care products are the only source of exposure for each chemical
considered. The panel is often wrong on both counts.

The results of this survey in combination with other studies show that
people are exposed to hundreds of chemicals over the course of a day
(CDC 2003, Thornton et al. 2002, EWG 2003), and that people face
multiple sources of exposure from multiple consumer products for some of
the common industrial chemicals used as cosmetic ingredients. Exposures
can add up. The industry's panel does not consider the reality of
patterns of human exposures — additive effects of exposures to
multiple chemicals linked to common health harms — in declaring
chemicals "safe as used" in cosmetics.

By considering the human body to be a "clean slate" free of background
contamination, free of related chemicals linked to common health harms,
and free of exposures from other kinds of consumer products, the
industry's panel will every time underestimate the potential for a
particular personal care product ingredient to harm human health.

Survey methodology.

Personal care product use survey data collection. Between January and
May 2004, six public interest and environmental health organizations
conducted an in-depth survey on personal care product use, compiling
information from more than 2,000 survey respondents. The groups involved
in this effort included The Breast Cancer Fund, Women's Voices for the
Earth, Health Care Without Harm, the Massachusetts Breast Cancer
Coalition, Clean Water Action, and the Environmental Working Group.

These groups and some of their affiliated organizations distributed
surveys in both paper and electronic form, through membership mailings
and organizational newsletters, and by canvassing college campuses,
community forums, and high volume retail areas. Surveys were entered
electronically; results were stored in a database housed at
Environmental Working Group. The vast majority of surveys were collected
in hard copy and entered electronically by the groups mentioned above.
Some individual respondents chose to complete the survey online instead
of on paper, in which case their responses were recorded directly into
the database.

Personal care product use survey data analysis. Using Monte Carlo
modeling techniques, EWG analyzed product use rates and ingredient
exposure profiles from 2,335 valid survey responses (those for which all
requested information essential to the analysis was completed). The
model generated one million usage profiles from sequential, random
selections of survey responses from among valid surveys. Using the
frequency of use, product type, and brand of product, we selected
products from our product database to match the survey response. When
our product database did not contain the brand identified by the survey
respondent, we randomly assigned the person a product of that type. From
the one million generated usage profiles, we generated statistics on the
ingredients contained in the products these usage profiles indicated, as
well as statistics on the toxicity profiles of those ingredients.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003). Second National
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Available online at
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/2nd/.

Environmental Working Group (EWG), Healthcare Without Harm, and Womens
Voices for the Earth (Houlihan, Brody, and Schwan) (2002). Not Too
Pretty. Phthalates, beauty products, and the FDA. July 2002. Available
online at http://www.ewg.org/issues/cosmetics and
http://www.safecosmetics.org.

Environmental Working Group (2003). Body Burden. Pollution in People.
January 2003. Available online at
http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden/index.php.

Thornton JW, McCally M, Houlihan J. (2002). Biomonitoring of industrial
pollutants: health and policy implications of the chemical body
burden.Public Health Rep. 2002 Jul-Aug;117(4):315-23

Campaign Steering Committee

Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow

Breast Cancer Fund

Commonweal

Environmental Working Group

Friends of the

Earth

Health Care Without Harm

National Environmental Trust