[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37608-37609]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15221]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 721

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577; FRL-9352-7]
RIN 2070-AB27

Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances;
Withdrawal of Significant New Use Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing significant new use rules (SNURs)
promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for seven
chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices
(PMNs). EPA published these SNURs using direct final rulemaking
procedures. EPA received a notice of intent to submit adverse comments
on the rule. Therefore, the Agency is withdrawing these SNURs, as
required under the expedited SNUR rulemaking process. EPA intends to
publish in the near future proposed SNURs for these seven chemical
substances under separate notice and comment procedures.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 26, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the Federal
Register of April 27, 2012 (77 FR 25236) (FRL-9343-4). If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What rule is being withdrawn?

    In the Federal Register of April 27, 2012 (77 FR 25236), EPA issued
several direct final SNURs, including SNURs for seven chemical
substances that are the subject of this withdrawal. These direct final
rules were issued pursuant to the procedures in 40 CFR part 721,
subpart D. In accordance with Sec.  721.160(c)(3)(ii), EPA is
withdrawing these rules issued for seven chemical substances which were
the subject of PMNs P-10-548, P-10-550, P-10-551, P-10-552, P-10-553,
P-10-554, and P-10-555 because the Agency received notice of intent to
submit adverse comments. EPA intends to publish proposed SNURs for
these chemical substances under separate notice and comment procedures.
    For further information regarding EPA's expedited process for
issuing SNURs, interested parties are directed to 40 CFR part 721,
subpart D, and the Federal Register of July 27, 1989 (54 FR 31314). The
record for the direct final SNUR for these chemical substances that are
being withdrawn was established at EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577. That record
includes information considered by the Agency in developing this rule
and the notice of intent to submit adverse comments.

III. How do I access the docket?

    To access the electronic docket, please go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the on-line instructions to access
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577. Additional information about
the Docket Facility is provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register
of April 27, 2012 (77 FR 25236). If you have questions, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule revokes or eliminates existing regulatory
requirements and does not contain any new or amended requirements. As
such, the Agency has determined that this withdrawal will not have any
adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory and executive
order review requirements applicable to the direct final rule were
discussed in the Federal Register of April 27, 2012 (77 FR 25236).
Those review requirements do not apply to this action because it is a
withdrawal and does not contain any new or amended requirements.

V. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 721

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

    Dated: June 15, 2012.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.

    Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1,

300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-
7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

0
2. The table in Sec.  [emsp14]9.1 is amended by removing under the
undesignated center heading ``Significant New Uses of Chemical
Substances'' Sec. Sec.  721.10402, 721.10403, 721.10404, 721.10405,
721.10406, and 721.10407.

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

Sec. Sec.  721.10402, 721.10403, 721.10404, 721.10405, 721.10406, and
721.10407  [Removed]

0
4. Remove Sec. Sec.  [emsp14]721.10402, 721.10403, 721.10404,
721.10405, 721.10406, and 721.10407.

[FR Doc. 2012-15221 Filed 6-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12322-12323]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. DOT-NHTSA-2018-0001]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A Federal Register Notice with a
60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following information
collection was published on April 11, 2018. No comments were received.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LeErnest Wells, Program Support
Division, Office of Defect Investigation (NEF-110),<PHONE_NUMBER>,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W43-481, Washington, DC
20590. Please identify the relevant collection of information by
referring to its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits
a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first
publish a document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment
period and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB
has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a
document. Under OMB's regulation at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), an agency must ask
for public comment on the following:
    (i) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collections of information:
    Title of Collection: Record Retention.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0042.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Under 49 U.S.C. 30166(e), NHTSA ``reasonably may require
a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to keep
records, and a manufacturer, distributor or dealer to make reports, to
enable NHTSA to decide whether the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer
has complied or is complying with this chapter or a regulation
prescribed under this chapter.'' To ensure that NHTSA will have access
to this type of information, the agency exercised the authority granted
in 49 U.S.C. 30166(e) and promulgated 49 CFR part 576 Record Retention,
initially published on August 20, 1974 and most recently amended on
July 10, 2002 (67 FR 45873), requiring manufacturers to retain one copy
of all records that contain information concerning malfunctions that
may be related to motor vehicle safety for a period of five calendar
years after the record is generated or acquired by the manufacturer.
Manufacturers are also required to retain for ten years (five

years for manufacturers of child seats and tires) the underlying
records related to early warning reporting (EWR) information submitted
under 49 CFR part 579. The information collected supports NHTSA's goal
of improving highway safety.
    The total burden hours for this estimate consist of:
    (1) Approximately 1,000 manufacturers of vehicles and equipment
(including tires, child restraint systems and trailers) are required to
maintain records.
    (2) We estimate their burden at 40 hours each for a subtotal of
40,000 hours (1,000 respondents x 40 hours).
    (3) In addition, we estimate that an additional 20 equipment
manufacturers have record retention requirements imposed by Part 576,
limited to the submission of death reports. Based on recent year's
counts of death reports received by NHTSA, we estimate that it will
take one hour each to maintain the necessary records for a subtotal
burden of 20 hours (20 respondents x one hour).
    Accordingly, the estimate of total annual burden hours is 40,020
hours (1,000 respondents x 40 hours + 20 respondents x 1 hour).
    NHTSA estimates that the hourly cost associated with the burden
hours of 40,020 is approximately $20 per hour, consisting of both
computer time and clerical time. Accordingly, the agency estimates that
the total annual costs associated with the burden hours is $800,400
(40,020 annual burden hours x $20 per hour).
    Affected Public: Manufacturers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,020.
    Frequency: As needed.
    Number of Responses: 1,020.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 40,020.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $800,400.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

Stephen A. Ridella,
Director, Office of Defects Investigation.
[FR Doc. 2019-06271 Filed 3-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 27140]
[DOCID:fr08jn09-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1196-000]

Lost Creek Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

May 29, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Lost Creek Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 19, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13227 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49605]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23297]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-97-000]

MS Solar 3, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding MS
Solar 3, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 8, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic 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
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 19, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23297 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


How OPP Conducts Ethics Reviews of How OPP Conducts Ethics Reviews of Human Studies Human Studies John M. Carley April 4, 2006 2 December 2001 Moratorium December 2001 Moratorium

EPA asked the NAS for advice, and announced it would not rely on third party human toxicity studies until their review was complete and regulations were issued

This announced moratorium was challenged by CropLife America and others, and was overturned by the court 3 CropLife Decision CropLife Decision " The agency's previous practice of considering third party human studies on a case by case basis, applying statutory requirements, the Common Rule, and high ethical standards as a guide, is reinstated and remains in effect unless and until it is replaced by a lawfully promulgated regulation." 4 EPA Human Studies Work Group EPA Human Studies Work Group

EPA staff were charged with developing guidance to ensure consistent interpretation and implementation of the CropLife decision

Assigned a subcommittee to develop guidance for ethics reviews applying " statutory requirements, the Common Rule, and high ethical standards" 5 HSWG Ethics Subcommittee HSWG Ethics Subcommittee

Conducted literature search

Focused on Emanuel et al. article from JAMA, " What makes clinical research ethical?"

Supplemented it with Miller article " Clinical Research with Healthy Volunteers: An Ethical Framework" 6 Emanuel Requirements Emanuel Requirements

Social or Scientific Value

Scientific Validity

Fair Subject Selection

Favorable Risk Benefit Ratio

Independent Review

Informed Consent

Respect for Potential and Enrolled Subjects 7 1. Value 1. Value e. What organization funded the research?

d. Will society benefit from the knowledge gained from the research?

c. Does it test a hypothesis that can generate important knowledge?

b. Does it evaluate a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention?

a. What was the stated purpose of the research? 8 2. Scientific Validity 2. Scientific Validity e. To what purpose is the study used, or proposed for use, in the Agency?

d. Did the research design have sufficient power to definitively test the objective?

c. How were human subjects exposed? What endpoints were measured?

b. Was the research designed using accepted principles, methods, and reliable practices?

a. Did the research have a clear scientific objective? 9 3. Fair Subject Selection 3. Fair Subject Selection b. Were any susceptible groups used in the study, such as children, prisoners, the infirm or impoverished? Did the burden of participation fall disproportionately on a particular group?

a. Were the groups and individuals recruited and enrolled determined solely on the basis of the scientific goals of the study? 10 4. Risk 4. Risk Benefit Ratio Benefit Ratio c. What compensation was paid to the participants in the study?

b. If the research presents no health related benefits to individual subjects, what are the societal benefits . . . ,

and do these justify the excess risk to individual subjects?

a. How were the risks to individual subjects minimized? 11 5. Independent Ethics Review 5. Independent Ethics Review e. Was the research conducted in compliance with another ethical standard?

d. Did the research institution hold an FWA during the period of the study?

c. Was the research conducted in compliance with the Common Rule?

b. Was ethics review by individuals unaffiliated with the clinical research?

a. Was the research reported to have been overseen by an ethics review body? 12 6. Informed Consent 6. Informed Consent b. How and under what circumstances was informed consent obtained?

a. Does the research assert that informed consent was obtained from participants? 13 7. Respect for Subjects 7. Respect for Subjects b. Were subjects free to withdraw from the research without penalty?

a. Was information about individual subjects managed so as to ensure their privacy? 14 Early Lessons Early Lessons

Published articles rarely include more than cursory mention of IC and IRB review.

The matrix was useful to organize the more extensive information often available in unpublished studies submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs

Emanuel framework cannot be applied in sequence to reports of completed work 15 Review Experience Review Experience

We have applied this framework to several hundred human studies

Most studies evaluated have been of exposure of pesticide handlers or of workers who enter a site treated with a pesticide

Others have included studies of repellent efficacy, metabolism, skin irritation or sensitization, and toxicity 16 Steps in Ethics Review Steps in Ethics Review

Scan study; find all the pieces

Figure out what happened

Highlight everything relevant to review

Complete unshaded cells in matrix

Develop summaries in shaded cells

Transfer topic summaries to narrative

Compare to applicable prevailing standard

Develop conclusions 17 Summary of Experience to Date Summary of Experience to Date

Reporting is better on the procedural aspects of study conduct ( informed consent, IRB review)

Reporting is weak on the substantive aspects of ethical study conduct, especially:

 Societal or scientific value of the research  The nature and distribution of the anticipated societal benefits of the research  How those benefits were weighed against risks to individual subjects 18 The Dilemma:

The Dilemma:

Without a clear presentation of the societal or scientific value of the research, or a frank array and discussion of its risks and benefits, it is very difficult to conclude that research is justified. 19 Criteria for Acceptance of Completed Criteria for Acceptance of Completed Research Research

NAS recommendation, the 2/ 05 FR Notice, and the final rule are essentially the same:

Do not rely on completed research " if there is clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the research was fundament ally unethical, .

. .

or was significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing at the time the research was conducted." 20 No Clear Evidence of Fundamentally No Clear Evidence of Fundamentally Unethical Research Unethical Research

We have not found clear and convincing evidence to suggest that any of the research we're presenting to you this week is fundamentally unethical 21 Comparison to Prevailing Standards Comparison to Prevailing Standards

To apply this criterion we've had to answer many subordinate questions:

 What ethical standards prevailed where and when the research was conducted?

 Do all published ethical standards apply to all subsequent research?

 How strictly should standards be applied? 22 Rules of Thumb Rules of Thumb

Since 1964 some version of The Declaration of Helsinki applies to human clinical research in all countries

Since 1972 FIFRA 12( a)( 2)( P) applies to all human research with a pesticide in the US

Since 1991 the Common Rule applies to human research in the US

Other standards may apply in specific circumstances 23 Generic Questions for HSRB Generic Questions for HSRB

For each study presented:

 Have we identified the appropriate standard of ethical conduct?

 Is there clear and convincing evidence of deficiency in research conduct?

 Is the deficiency significant?

 Is the study ethically acceptable under 26 CFR 26.1704?


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62863-62866]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19731]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98320; File No. SR-PHLX-2023-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 3,
Section 13 Concerning PIXL

September 7, 2023.
    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 30, 2023, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission

(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules at Options 3, Section 13,
Price Improvement XL (``PIXL'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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
    Phlx proposes to amend Options 3, Section 13, Price Improvement XL
(``PIXL''), to harmonize its price improvement rule text regarding
entry checks in Options 3, Section 13(a)(1) through (3) to mirror the
rule text of Nasdaq GEMX, LLC's (``GEMX''), Nasdaq MRX, LLC's
(``MRX''), and Nasdaq ISE, LLC's (``ISE'') PIM, and BX's PRISM, without
changing the substantive operations of these price improvement
auctions. The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 13(a)(1)
through (3) to harmonize the language, to the extent possible, with
other Nasdaq affiliated markets. The harmonization will allow market
participants to compare Phlx's PIXL entry checks with similar
mechanisms on Nasdaq affiliated markets.
    The Exchange also proposes to make two technical amendments to
Options 4A at Section 6, Position Limits, and Section 12, Terms of
Index Options Contracts. The Exchange also proposes additional changes
described below.
PIXL Entry Checks
    Phlx proposes to add ``a price that is'' to the end of Options 3,
Section 13(a)(1) and add new subparagraphs (A) and (B) to distinguish
opposite and same side checks for a PIXL Order for less than 50 options
contracts.\3\ The opposite side check for a PIXL Order for less than 50
options contracts is currently specified in the current rule text which
is being relocated to Options 3, Section 13(a)(1)(A). The same side
check for a PIXL Order for less than 50 options contracts currently
does not specify the NBBO check. Today, if the PIXL Order is for less
than 50 option contracts, and if the difference between the NBBO is
$0.01, the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL Order at a price
that is on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order, equal to or
better than the NBBO \4\ and better than any Limit Order on the Limit
Order Book. This language represents current System functionality.
Additionally, Phlx proposes to add more detail to describe the current
System functionality. If the PIXL Order is for a Non-Public Customer,
the PIXL Order must also be better than any quote on the same side of
the market as the PIXL Order. Today, the System will check if the PIXL
Order is better than any quote on the same side of the market as the
PIXL Order if the PIXL Order is for a Non-Public Customer. The addition
of this detail within Options 3, Section 13(a)(1)(B) will bring
transparency to the current System checks for a PIXL Order for less
than 50 options contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The proposed language below in Options 3, Section 13(a)(1)
through (3) excludes Complex Orders which are described in Options
3, Section 13(a)(4).
    \4\ For example, if the market is 0.98 bid and 0.99 offer, a
Public Customer PRISM Order to buy for less than 50 contracts must
be stopped at 0.98 cents in this scenario to be accepted into a
PRISM Auction, provided there is no resting order or quote on the BX
order book at 0.98 in which case the PRISM Order would be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx proposes to amend Options 3, Section 13(a)(2) to add a ``:''
to the end of (a)(2) and add new subparagraphs (A) and (B) which
distinguish the opposite side and same side checks if the PIXL Order is
for the account of a Public Customer and such order is for 50 option
contracts or more. The opposite side check for a PIXL Order for the
account of a Public Customer for 50 option contracts or more is
currently specified in the current rule text, which is being relocated
to Options 3, Section 13(a)(2)(A). The same side check for a PIXL Order
for the account of a Public Customer for 50 option contracts or more
currently does not specify the manner in which the PIXL Order must
improve on the same side or the NBBO check. The Exchange proposes to
amend the same side check in Options 3, Section 13(a)(2)(B) to state
that if the PIXL Order is for the account of a Public Customer and such
order is for 50 option contracts or more, or if the difference between
the NBBO is greater than $0.01, the Initiating Member must stop the
entire PIXL Order at a price that is, on the same side of the market as
the PIXL Order, (1) at least $0.01 better than any Limit Order on the
Limit Order book; (2) at or better than the PIXL Order's limit price
(if the Order is a Limit Order); and equal to or better than the NBBO.
This rule text represents current System functionality. This new rule
text makes clear the various same side entry checks that are performed
by the current System.
    Phlx proposes to amend Options 3, Section 13(a)(3) to add ``:'' to
the end of (a)(3) and add new subparagraphs (A) and (B) which
distinguish the opposite side and same side checks for a PIXL Order for
the account of a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is
not a Public Customer and such order is for 50 option contracts or
more. The Exchange currently does not specify the opposite side check
in the case whether the PIXL Order is for an account of a broker dealer
or any other person that is not a Public Customer and the order is for
50 contracts or more. The Exchange proposes to note the current entry
check performed by the System by amending the language in Options 3,
Section 13(a)(3)(A) to provide, if the PIXL Order is for the account of
a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a Public
Customer and such order is for 50 option contracts or more, or if the
difference between the NBBO is greater than $0.01, the Initiating
Member must stop the entire PIXL Order at a price that is: (A) equal to
or better than the NBBO and the internal market PBBO (the ``Reference
BBO'') on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order.\5\ This
language represents current System functionality. Phlx notes that the
Reference BBO was defined in Options 3, Section 13(a)(3)(A). The
Exchange proposes to amend the same side check in the case whether the
PIXL Order is for an account of a broker dealer or any other person
that is not a Public Customer and the order is for 50 contracts or
more. The Exchange proposes to state if the PIXL Order is for the
account of a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a
Public Customer and such order is for

50 option contracts or more, or if the difference between the NBBO is
greater than $0.01, the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL
Order at a price that is on the same side of the market as the PIXL
Order, the better of: (1) the Reference BBO price improved by at least
$0.01, (2) the PIXL Order's limit price (if the order is a Limit
Order), or (3) equal to or better than the NBBO. The Exchange is
removing the clause in current Options 3, Section 13(a)(3)(2) which the
Exchange believes is confusing as current Options 3, Section
13(a)(3)(1) notes the Reference BBO must be improved by at least $0.01.
Also, the NBBO entry check is being relocated to new subparagraph
(a)(3)(B)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange also proposes to amend Options 3, Section
13(a)(3)(B) to re-number current (A) and (B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange is making a technical amendment to Options 3,
Section 13(a)(4)(A) to remove a semicolon and replace it with a comma.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments will bring
greater clarity to the current System functionality as the various
System checks are noted for each side of the PIXL Order. Further, the
NBBO check is specifically noted as this check on the same side check
ensures the order does not trade-through. The Exchange is not
substantively amending the current System functionality.
Auction Process
    The Exchange proposes a technical amendment to Options 3, Section
13(b)(4) to remove the ``an'' at the beginning of the paragraph as this
is unnecessary. Next, the Exchange proposes to replace references to
``Limit Order,'' ``order'' and ``orders'' within Options 3, Section
13(b)(4) with the word ``interest'' because an order or quote on the
order book may interact with a PIXL Order. This represents current
System functionality.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 13(b)(6)
to remove the term ``then-existing'' from the paragraph. The phrase is
not necessary as the clause ``cPBBO at the time of the conclusion of
the Auction'' makes clear which cPBBO will be referenced.
Technical Amendments
    The Exchange proposes to make two technical amendments within
Options 4A, Options Index Rules. The Exchange proposes to renumber
Options 4A, Section 6(a)(iv) to Options 4A, Section 6(a)(ii). The
Exchange also proposes to re-letter Options 4A, Section 12(a)(2)(H),
(I) and (J), respectively, as Options 4A, Section 12(a)(2)(G), (H) and
(I).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

PIXL Entry Checks
    Phlx's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(a)(1)-(3) to
harmonize the language within the PIXL entry checks with language
within GEMX's PIM, ISE's PIM, MRX's PIM and BX's PRISM, without
changing the substantive operations of these price improvement
auctions, is consistent with the Act and the protection of investors
and the general public because by utilizing similar language, market
participants will be able to compare Phlx's PIXL entry checks with
similar mechanisms on Nasdaq affiliated markets.
    Amending Options 3, Section 13(a)(1) and adding new subparagraphs
(A) and (B) to distinguish opposite and same side checks for a PIXL
Order for less than 50 options contracts and specifying the same side
NBBO check is consistent with the Act and the protection of investors
and the general public because it will add more detail to describe the
current System functionality. The NBBO check is always relevant in the
same side check to avoid a trade-through. Specifying that if the PIXL
Order is for a Non-Public Customer, the PIXL Order must also be better
than any quote on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order is
consistent with the Act so that the PIXL Order improves the order book
and provides a meaningful opportunity for price improvement. Further,
the addition of this detail within Options 3, Section 13(a)(1)(B) will
bring transparency to the current System checks for a PIXL Order for
less than 50 options contracts.
    Amending Options 3, Section 13(a)(2) to add new subparagraphs (A)
and (B) to distinguish the opposite side and same side checks if the
PIXL Order is for the account of a Public Customer and such order is
for 50 option contracts or more, and specifying the manner in which the
PIXL Order must improve on the same side or the NBBO check is
consistent with the Act and the protection of investors and the general
public. The Exchange currently requires, if the PIXL Order is for the
account of a Public Customer and such order is for 50 option contracts
or more, that the PIXL Order must be at or better than the PIXL Order's
limit price and it must also not trade-through the order book. The
eligibility requirements if the PIXL Order is for the account of a
Public Customer and such order is for 50 option contracts or more
should provide a meaningful opportunity for price improvement, and
thereby benefit investors and others in a manner that is consistent
with the Act.
    Amending Options 3, Section 13(a)(3) to add new subparagraphs (A)
and (B) to distinguish the opposite side and same side checks for a
PIXL Order for the account of a broker dealer or any other person or
entity that is not a Public Customer and such order is for 50 option
contracts or more and specifying the opposite side check and same side
NBBO check is consistent with the Act and the protection of investors
and the general public. The opposite side check must be equal to or
better than the NBBO and any non-displayed order on the Exchange's
order book to avoid a trade-through. Also, the NBBO check is always
relevant in the same side check to avoid a trade-through. The
eligibility requirements if the PIXL Order is for the account of a
broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a Public
Customer and such order is for 50 option contracts or more should
provide a meaningful opportunity for price improvement, and thereby
benefit investors and others in a manner that is consistent with the
Act.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments will bring
greater clarity to the current System functionality as the various
System checks are noted for each side of the PIXL Order. Further, the
NBBO check is specifically noted as this check on the same side check
ensures the order does not trade-through. The Exchange is not
substantively amending the current System functionality.
Auction Process
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(b)(4) to
replace references to ``Limit Order,'' ``order'' and ``orders'' with
the word ``interest'' is consistent with the Act and the protection of
investors and the general public because an order or quote on the order
book may currently interact with a PIXL Order. The proposed rule text
makes clear that a quote will participate in a PIXL as unrelated
marketable interest. The clarification will make the rule text
transparent.
    Amending Options 3, Section 13(b)(6) to remove the term ``then-
existing'' from the paragraph is consistent with the Act

because the phrase is not necessary as the subsequent clause makes
clear which cPBBO will be referenced.
Technical Amendments
    The Exchange's proposal to make two technical amendments within
Options 4A, Options Index Rules, are consistent with the Act as the
amendments to Options 4A, Sections 6 and 12 are non-substantive.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
PIXL Entry Checks
    Phlx's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(a)(1)-(3) to
harmonize the language within the PIXL entry checks with language
within GEMX's PIM, ISE's PIM, MRX's PIM and BX's PRISM, without
changing the substantive operations of these price improvement
auctions, does not impose an undue burden on competition because market
participants will be able to compare Phlx's PIXL entry checks with
similar mechanisms on Nasdaq affiliated markets.
    Amending Options 3, Section 13(a)(1)-(3) to specify the entry
checks that are utilized by Phlx's System today to initiate a PIXL does
not impose an undue burden on competition because these checks will
apply uniformly to any order entered into PIXL. Further, the proposed
amendments will add transparency to the current System functionality as
the various System checks are noted for each side of the PIXL Order.
Further, the Exchange is not substantively amending the current System
functionality.
Auction Process
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(b)(4) to
replace references to ``Limit Order,'' ``order'' and ``orders'' within
Options 3, Section 13(b)(4) with the word ``interest'' does not impose
an undue burden on competition because all quotes will participate in a
PIXL as an unrelated order. The clarification will make the rule text
transparent.
    Amending Options 3, Section 13(b)(6) to remove the term ``then-
existing'' from the paragraph does not impose an undue burden on
competition because the phrase is not necessary as the subsequent
clause makes clear which cPBBO will be referenced.
Technical Amendments
    The Exchange's proposal to make two technical amendments within
Options 4A, Options Index Rules, do not impose an undue burden on
competition as the amendments to Options 4A, Sections 6 and 12 are non-
substantive.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-PHLX-2023-41 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-PHLX-2023-41. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-PHLX-2023-41 and should be
submitted on or before October 4, 2023.

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

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19731 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 126)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36825-36830]
[DOCID:fr30jn08-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 155 and 156

[USCG-2001-9046]
RIN 1625-AB12

Tank Level or Pressure Monitoring Devices on Single-Hull Tank
Ships and Single-Hull Tank Barges Carrying Oil or Oil Residue as Cargo

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove its regulations for tank
level or pressure monitoring (TLPM) devices because compliant devices
remain unavailable. In July 2005, we published a final rule suspending
Coast Guard regulations for TLPM devices with a request for public
comments on the status of TLPM technology development and other means
of detecting leaks from oil cargo tanks into the water. We received two
comments supporting our suspension of the regulations for TLPM devices.
We received no new information on TLPM devices or alternatives for
detecting leaks into the water from single-hull tank vessels carrying
oil or oil residue as cargo. Based on the public response to the
suspension, the absence of new information regarding TLPM devices or
alternatives, and the results of a Congressionally-mandated study, the
Coast Guard revisited the feasibility and practicality of retaining
regulations for TLPM devices on single-hull tank vessels and concluded
that it is appropriate to remove these regulations.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before August 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2001-9046 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    (3) Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Deliveries
may be made between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and materials received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You can also find this
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact Mr. Vincent Berg, Regulatory Development Manager, Office of
Standards Evaluation and Development (CG-523), Coast Guard, telephone
202-372-1493, or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical
questions concerning tank level or pressure monitoring devices contact
Ms. Dolores Mercier, Technical Program Manager, Systems Engineering
Division (CG-521), Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting comments
    B. Viewing comments and documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public meeting
II. Background and Purpose
III. Regulatory Evaluation
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with
the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2001-9046), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name, mailing address, and
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your
document to ensure that you can be identified as the submitter. This
also allows us to contact you in the event further information is
needed or if there are questions. For example, if we cannot read your
submission because of technical difficulties and you cannot be
contacted, your submission may not be considered. You may submit your
comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to
the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you
submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number
for this rulemaking (USCG-2001-9046) in the Docket ID box, and click
enter. You may also visit 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., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

D. Public Meeting

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

II. Background and Purpose

    The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L. 101-380), directed
the Coast Guard to promulgate a number of regulations, including a
variety of standards for the design and operation of equipment to
reduce the number and severity of tank vessel oil spill incidents.
Section 4110 of OPA 90 (46 U.S.C 3703 note) addressed initiatives to:
     Establish standards for devices that measure oil levels in
cargo tanks or devices that monitor cargo tank pressure level
(Functionally, these tank level or pressure monitoring (TLPM) devices
measure changes in cargo volume, thereby detecting possible oil leaks
into the water); and
     Issue regulations establishing requirements concerning the
use of these devices on tank vessels carrying oil or oil residue as
cargo.
    In May 1991, the Coast Guard published in the Federal Register an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comments
related to TLPM devices on tank vessels carrying oil cargo. 56 FR
21116. In August of 1992, the Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center completed a feasibility study (Volpe study) on TLPM devices for
the Coast Guard Marine Technical and Hazardous Materials Division. Some
important features of the Volpe study were:
     Identifying ship motions, sloshing, air pocketing, and the
formation of foam in cargo tanks as the major obstacles to accurate
tank-level detection;
     Finding that the attainable accuracy with electronic
surface level sensing systems is within 2 percent of the actual cargo
level; and
     Concluding that the high cost of installing a modern tank
level sensing system will naturally lead to development of alternative
approaches to leak detection and alarming.
    In February 1993, we solicited public comment on the study via
Federal Register Notice and we held a public meeting at Coast Guard
Headquarters in December 1994 to discuss proposed standards and rules
for TLPM devices. 58 FR 7292 and 59 FR 58810, respectively. As a result
of the comments received, on August 21, 1995, we published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish minimum performance standards
for TLPM devices. 60 FR 43427.
    In March 1997, we published a temporary rule on performance
standards for TLPM devices. 62 FR 14828. In the temporary rule, we
advised the public of our conclusion that current technology could not
meet the sensitivity requirements proposed in the NPRM and requested
the submission of new or modified TLPM devices that could meet the
performance standards set out in the proposed rule. It was our intent
to evaluate submitted devices and confirm that they met the performance
standards required by the temporary rule. We would have assessed the
costs and benefits offered by these devices and used that information
to decide whether or not to develop regulations on the installation and
use of TLPM devices; but when the temporary rule expired in April 1999,
no devices had been submitted to us for evaluation. Therefore, based on
the absence of devices that would satisfy our proposed requirements and
the negligible contribution TLPM devices would make to prevent oil
pollution compared to the rest of the OPA 90 initiatives, we decided
not to proceed with regulations that required the use of TLPM devices
on single-hull tank vessels.
    In 1999, Bluewater Network and Ocean Advocates brought suit in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In their
suit, the petitioners asked the Court for a Writ of Mandamus ordering
us to promulgate TLPM regulations. In December 2000, the Court agreed
with the petitioners on this item and directed the Coast Guard to
promptly promulgate regulations setting TLPM standards and requiring
use of TLPM devices on tank vessels.
    In October 2001, we published in the Federal Register another NPRM
entitled ``Tank Level or Pressure Monitoring Devices.'' 66 FR 49877. In
September 2002, we published the Final Rule for ``Tank Level or
Pressure Monitoring Devices.'' 67 FR 58515. This final rule detailed
TLPM performance criteria and described the vessels required to install
and use TLPM devices by 2007. To date, however, we have identified no
devices meeting the performance criteria established in the final rule,
and none have been submitted by industry for our evaluation.

    In 2004, Congress amended the language of section 4110 of OPA 90 in
section 702 of the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Authorization
Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-293, 118 Stat 1028 (2004)). The amended
statute grants the Coast Guard discretion in establishing performance
standards and carriage requirements for TLPM devices. Congress also
directed the Coast Guard to study alternatives to TLPM devices for
detecting leaks from oil cargo tanks into the water. We submitted the
final report to Congress entitled ``Report to Congress on Costs and
Benefits of Alternatives to Tank Level or Pressure Monitoring Devices''
(Final Report) in March 2006. A copy of this report was added into the
docket for the original TLPM device rulemaking, USCG-2001-9046. We also
notified the public of the availability of the final report to Congress
through a notice published in the Federal Register on November 17,
2006. 71 FR 66960.
    In July 2005, we published a final rule suspending the regulations
for TLPM devices for three years until July 21, 2008. 70 FR 41614. In
the final rule, we also solicited public comment on the status of TLPM
technology development and alternatives to TLPM devices. In response,
we received two comments supporting our suspension of the regulations
for TLPM devices and no new information on TLPM devices or
alternatives. In our Final Report, referenced above, we concluded that
the ratio of cost versus effectiveness for TLPM devices is greater than
it was when the original regulations were published in 2002. 67 FR
58515. As a result, we revisited the feasibility and practicality of
retaining regulations for TLPM devices on single-hull tank vessels and
concluded that it is appropriate to remove these regulations.
    Since the suspension of regulations for TLPM devices would expire
on July 21, 2008 and no TLPM devices have been submitted to the Coast
Guard for approval, we published another final rule on May 5, 2008
extending the suspension for three additional years until May 5, 2011.
    Now, given this background and the continued unavailability of
devices meeting the performance criteria established in the final rule,
we propose to remove the regulations in 33 CFR parts 155 and 156 for
TLPM devices.

III. Regulatory Evaluation

A. Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    A draft Regulatory Assessment follows:
    The effectiveness of TLPM devices and alternatives are dependent
upon the crew's ability to take corrective action when alerted. Some of
the factors affecting the amount of oil saved, or not spilled, include:
     The alarm threshold;
     The size and number of tanks involved;
     The leakage rate;
     The crew's capacity for taking action, such as equipment
and training; and
     The time required to respond to an alarm.
    While developing the 2002 TLPM device regulations (67 FR 58515,
September 17, 2002), we identified 27 pollution incidents during the
period from 1992 to 2001 where a TLPM device would have reduced the
amount of oil spilled. Our analysis included estimating the barrels of
oil that would have been prevented from entering the water by a TLPM
device, based on the amount spilled, the failure mechanism (such as
tank overfill and hull failure), and factors representing the
probability of effectiveness. After analyzing these cases, we found an
average of 339 barrels of oil per year would have been prevented from
entering the water from 1992 to 2001. We further projected that a TLPM
device would result in a benefit of preventing 874 barrels of oil
(discounted) from entering the water for the period 2006, when the
benefits began accruing, to 2015, when all single-hull tank vessels
would be phased out. This figure took into account the dwindling number
of single-hull tank vessels between the years 2000 and 2015 and the
diminishing risk of pollution.
    For the 2002 rule, we estimated the cost to industry was $166.4
million (discounted at 7%) for the five-year phase-in period of the
rule, between 2003 and 2007. We calculated a cost-effectiveness figure
of about $190,000 per barrel of oil not spilled by dividing the cost of
the rule by the projected 874 barrels of oil (discounted at 7%)
prevented from entering the water. This means that it costs society
approximately $190,000 to keep each barrel of oil out of the water
through installation of a compliant TLPM device. The estimate of
benefits was based on an assumption that compliant TLPM device
technology would be available by 2005. However, no compliant TLPM
device technology existed at the publishing of the final rule in 2002
and none has been marketed since then. Table 1 shows the original
projections of oil not spilled for 2000 to 2015 as a result of the TLPM
device regulations. The full regulatory analysis for the 2002
rulemaking can be found in docket for USCG-2001-9046.

                                                Table 1.--Barrels Not Spilled Attributable to TLPM Device
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Present value PV
                                                            Percent of total     Schedule of       Implementation    Benefit for TLPM   benefit (barrels
                    Calendar year (CY)                         available         barrels not        schedule (%)       (barrels not       not spilled,
                                                            capacity (U.S.)        spilled                               spilled)           2002) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         All Tank Ships (U.S. and International)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2000..................................................             100.00              91.10  .................  .................  .................
CY 2001..................................................              96.17              87.61  .................  .................  .................
CY 2002..................................................              88.16              80.32  .................  .................  .................
CY 2003..................................................              83.59              76.15  .................  .................  .................
CY 2004..................................................              74.90              68.23  .................  .................  .................
CY 2005..................................................              66.60              60.67  .................  .................  .................
CY 2006..................................................              51.36              46.79                 33              15.44              11.78
CY 2007..................................................              47.35              43.14                 66              28.47              20.30
CY 2008..................................................              41.66              37.95                100              37.95              25.29
CY 2009..................................................              37.25              33.93                100              33.93              21.13
CY 2010..................................................              32.82              29.89                100              29.89              17.40
CY 2011..................................................              27.11              24.70                100              24.70              13.44
CY 2012..................................................              20.43              18.61                100              18.61               9.46

CY 2013..................................................              15.54              14.16                100              14.16               6.73
CY 2014..................................................              12.14              11.06                100              11.06               4.91
CY 2015..................................................               0.00  .................  .................  .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................  .................  .................  .................             214.21             130.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    U.S. Tank Barges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2000..................................................             100.00             248.38  .................  .................  .................
CY 2001..................................................              98.00             243.41  .................  .................  .................
CY 2002..................................................              98.08             243.61  .................  .................  .................
CY 2003..................................................              97.63             242.49  .................  .................  .................
CY 2004..................................................              96.16             238.84  .................  .................  .................
CY 2005..................................................              78.02             193.79  .................  .................  .................
CY 2006..................................................              72.85             180.94                 33              59.71              45.55
CY 2007..................................................              67.77             168.33                 66             111.10              79.21
CY 2008..................................................              67.77             168.33                100             168.33             112.17
CY 2009..................................................              66.59             165.40                100             165.40             103.00
CY 2010..................................................              63.65             158.09                100             158.09              92.01
CY 2011..................................................              63.65             158.09                100             158.09              85.99
CY 2012..................................................              63.65             158.09                100             158.09              80.36
CY 2013..................................................              63.65             158.09                100             158.09              75.11
CY 2014..................................................              63.65             158.09                100             158.09              70.19
CY 2015..................................................               0.00  .................  .................  .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................  .................  .................  .................           1,294.99             743.59
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Grand Total......................................  .................  .................  .................           1,509.20            874.03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Present values discounted at 7%.

    To determine if the benefits of installing a TLPM device have
increased since publication of the TLPM device regulations, we examined
pollution reports involving single-hull tank vessels for 2001 through
2007 The same one percent threshold in the original 2002 TLPM device
rulemaking was used to determine how much oil would be prevented from
entering the water. For example, if a cargo tank has a capacity of
400,000 gallons (9,524 barrels, 42 gallons = 1 barrel), a one percent
threshold would equal 4,000 gallons. Thus, in this example, a TLPM
device with the sensitivity currently required in regulations would
only detect a spill of 4,000 gallons or more; whereas the data shows
many pollution incidents result in spills less than 4,000 gallons.
    We followed the same methodology used in the original rulemaking to
update our oil pollution information. Of the 599 cases we examined, we
found five new instances, resulting in a total of 715 barrels of oil
spilled, where a TLPM device would have helped prevent oil from a cargo
tank spilling into the water. Two of those cases alone accounted for
626 barrels of oil spilled.
    If we consider the very best case and assume we can claim all 715
barrels of oil as a benefit attributable to a TLPM device, the new
average annual amount of oil that would be prevented from entering the
water by a TLPM device becomes 102 barrels per year versus our earlier
calculation of 339 barrels per year. Furthermore, from Table 1, we
project the amount of oil that project would be prevented from entering
the water between 2008 and 2015 is about 718 barrels (discounted). If
we divide the estimated cost of the rule in 2002 ($166.4 million) by
the 718 barrels, the new cost-effectiveness figure is about $232,000
per barrel of oil prevented from entering the water.
    When we researched the technology that could potentially be applied
as an alternative to TLPM devices, we found that commercial, off-the-
shelf oil/water interface sensors are available to monitor cargo tank
levels. However, although the costs for these types of systems
initially appear to be lower than for the liquid level devices that
were reviewed as part of the original TLPM device regulations, these
costs do not account for the modifications that would be needed for
these systems to function as a TLPM device alternative. Developing and
testing these systems and confirming they meet performance requirements
would likely necessitate substantial research and development and add
to the equipment costs.
    In 2002, we estimated the total cost to the affected industries of
implementing the measures outlined in the final rule would be
approximately $166.4 million dollars, all incurred during the 5-year
phase-in period. Since the Coast Guard published the final rule in
September 2002, no TLPM devices have been submitted to the Coast Guard
for approval and there are currently no TLPM devices on the market that
meet the performance requirements of 33 CFR 150.490 for a TLPM device.
The cost-effectiveness of regulations for TLPM devices continues to
degrade. In our March 2006 study on alternatives to TLPM devices, we
found that there are some other devices that monitor tank level or
pressure; but these devices do not meet the performance requirements of
33 CFR 150.490, and therefore could not be approved as TLPM devices
without a substantial investment by the manufacturers to modify and
test these devices for the performance standards currently in the
regulations. We have seen no indication the maritime industry is
willing to make that investment for the shrinking population of vessels
comprising the marketplace.
    Through this NPRM, we would remove regulations for TLPM devices--a
type of shipboard equipment that does not currently exist in the
marketplace and which has no practical alternative. We estimate this
proposed rule will have no impact on industry.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    We concluded that removing the performance standards for TLPM
devices and the requirements for their use will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since
industry did not adopt or implement any TLPM provisions. Therefore, the
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C 605(b) that this notice of proposed
rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 of the Coast
Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

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

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled,
now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101,
and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance,
operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels),
as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the
States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated
cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89,
120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000)). This rule removes previously published
rules on performance standards and use of TLPM devices fall into the
category of vessel equipment and operation. Because the States may not
regulate within these categories, preemption under Executive Order
13132 is not an issue.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order. As it is not a ``significant energy
action,'' this rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a ``significant energy action.''

L. Technical Standards

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

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination under the Instruction that this
action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human
environment. A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List''
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments''
section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 155

    Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

33 CFR Part 156

    Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR parts 155 and 156 as follows:

PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS

    1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 155 and the note
following citation continue to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); E.O. 11735, 3 CFR, 1971-1975
Comp., p. 793. Sections 155.100 through 155.130, 150.350 through
155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 155.470, 155.1030(j) and (k), and
155.1065(g) are also issued under 33 U.S.C. 1903(b). Sections
155.480, 155.490, 155.750(e), and 155.775 are also issued under 46
U.S.C. 3703. Section 155.490 also issued under section 4110(b) of
Pub. L. 101-380. Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying
oil or hazardous materials are contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through
40, 150, 151, and 153.

Sec.  155.200  [Amended]

    2. In Sec.  155.200, remove the definition for ``Sea state 5.''

Sec.  155.490  [Removed and Reserved]

    3. Remove and reserve Sec.  155.490.

PART 156--OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSFER OPERATIONS

    4. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 156 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3703a, 3715; E.O.
11735, 3 CFR 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793. Section 156.120(bb) and (ee)
are also issued under 46 U.S.C. 3703.

Sec.  156.120  [Amended]

    5. In Sec.  156.120, remove paragraph (ee).

    Dated: June 24, 2008.
Brian M. Salerno,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety,
Security, and Stewardship.
 [FR Doc. E8-14800 Filed 6-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


D 36 Appendix D 3. Mean TOC and DOC in Lake Superior Dilution Water ( data from Greg Lien, U. S. EPA Duluth, MN)

Replicate Ambient ( 8/ 29/ 2000) pH 7.0 ( 8/ 30/ 2000) pH 6.2 ( 8/ 31/ 2000)

Filter Blank*  0.04 0.22 0.38 Pre gill experiment TOC a 1.13 1.34 1.26 b 1.37 1.30 1.36 Mean 1.25 1.32 1.31 Post gill experiment TOC a 1.20 1.24 1.18 b 1.27 1.46 1.10 Mean 1.24 1.35 1.14 Pre gill experiment DOC a 1.96 1.51 1.34 b 1.52 1.28 0.99 Mean 1.74 1.40 1.17 Post gill experiment DOC a 1.49 1.36 1.44 b 1.64 1.58 1.24 Mean 1.57 1.47 1.34 * Filter blank is ultra pure Duluth EPA laboratory water.


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	July 2013
SUBJECT:	Links to Navy and EPA websites for additional information on El Toro MCAS
FROM:	Mary Aycock, Project Manager
		EPA Region IX

TO:		EPA Headquarters

Additional information and various documents related to El Toro MCAS are available at EPA's "El Toro Marine Corps Air Station" website and the "Former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro" website of Naval Facilities Engineering Command Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office:

   oo El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, United States Environmental Protection Agency, http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/ViewByEPAID/CA6170023208 (last visited June 4, 2013).

   oo Former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office, http://www.bracpmo.navy.mil/basepage.aspx?baseid=40&state=California&name=eltoro