     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFTEY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

RE:  	Meeting with Virginia Wrecking, Envirovantage and EPA to discuss risk management for cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD)

List of Documents
 Meeting Summary
 Attendees
Meeting Summary
On May 12, 2021, EPA held a conference call with Virginia Wrecking and Envirovantage to discuss risk management options for the demolition sector for cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD).

Attendees
EPA:
Sarah Cox
Tim Lehman
Sue Slotnick
Alex Smith

Virginia Wrecking:
Kyle Maddox

Envirovantage:
Scott Knightly


[Federal Register: October 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 56406-56407]
[DOCID:fr03oc07-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56532; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-104]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Codify the Hybrid Price Check Parameter

September 26, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On December 7, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend CBOE Rule 6.13, CBOE
Hybrid System's Automatic Execution Feature, to codify an automated
system feature that prevents executions at potentially erroneous prices
(``price check parameter functionality''). On August 1, 2007, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The
proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the
Federal Register on August 20, 2007.\3\ The Commission received no
comments regarding the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56245 (August 14,
2007), 72 FR 46525.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The proposed rule change would amend CBOE Rule 6.13 to adopt the
price check parameter functionality, which the Exchange would activate,
on a series by series basis for a given option class, to prevent an
automatic execution of a market order through CBOE's Hybrid System if
such execution would occur outside a prescribed market width.
Specifically, the functionality would be triggered to block an
execution of a market order if the width between the Exchange's best
bid and best offer is not within an ``acceptable price range.'' The
applicable acceptable price range for each series of an option class
would be determined by the appropriate Exchange Procedure Committee and
could be no less than 1.5 times the corresponding bid/ask differentials
in CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A).\4\ The acceptable price range for each
series of an option class would be announced to the CBOE membership via
Regulatory Circular at least one day in advance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A) sets forth the bid/ask differentials
for open outcry trading, which are as follows: No more than $0.25
between the bid and offer for each option contract for which the bid
is less than $2.00; no more than $0.40 where the bid is at least
$2.00 but does not exceed $5.00; no more than $0.50 where the bid is
more than $5.00 but does not exceed $10; no more than $0.80 where
the bid is more than $10 but does not exceed $20; and no more than
$1.00 where the bid is more than $20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the price check parameter functionality is triggered for a
particular market order, such market order no longer would be eligible
for automatic execution and would be routed on a class by class basis
to PAR (the public automated routing system) or BART (the booth
automated routing terminal) or, at the order entry firm's discretion,
to the order entry firm's booth printer.
    The Exchange also proposed that the senior official in CBOE's
Control Room or two Floor Officials could grant intra-day relief by
widening the acceptable price range for one or more option series. If
such intra-day relief is granted, it would be announced via verbal
message to the trading crowd, printer message to member organizations
on the trading floor, and electronic message to members that request to
receive such messages. The granting of such intra-day relief would be
for no more than the duration of the particular trading day. Any
decision to extend relief beyond an intra-day basis would be announced
to the membership via Regulatory Circular.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\ In particular, the
Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. In the
Commission's view, CBOE's price check parameter functionality
potentially would benefit customers whose market orders otherwise would
receive an automatic execution at a price that is outside of an
acceptable price range that is established by the Exchange and based on
criteria set forth in CBOE Rule 6.13. Because such orders would be
routed to PAR, BART, or the order-entry firm's booth, customers
potentially could receive a more favorable price than the price then
available through CBOE's Hybrid System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2006-104), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-19540 Filed 10-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42462-42465]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89254; File No. SR-LTSE-2020-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed
Rule Change To Add the Consolidated Audit Trail Industry Member
Compliance Rules to the List of Minor Rule Violations

July 8, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 2, 2020, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc. (``LTSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons and
approving the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

    LTSE proposes a rule change to add the Consolidated Audit Trail
(``CAT'') industry member compliance rules to the list of minor rule
violations in Rule 9.218. The Exchange requests accelerated approval
and effectiveness of this filing.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at https://longtermstockexchange.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 on the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to add LTSE's CAT industry member compliance
rules (the ``CAT Compliance Rules'') to the list of minor rule
violations in Rule 9.218.\3\ This proposal is based upon the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') filing to amend FINRA
Rule 9217 in order to add FINRA's corresponding CAT Compliance Rules to
FINRA's list of rules that are eligible for minor rule violation plan
treatment.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ LTSE's minor rule violation plan (``MRVP'') was declared
effective by the Commission on October 29, 2019. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 87415 (October 29, 2019), 84 FR 59427
(November 4, 2019) (File No. 4-753).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88870 (May 14,
2020), 85 FR 30768 (May 20, 2020) (SR-FINRA-2020-013). The proposal
is also based upon the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') filing to
amend NYSE Rule 9217 in order to add NYSE's corresponding CAT
Compliance Rules to NYSE's list of rules that are eligible for MRVP
treatment. See SR-NYSE-2020-51.

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

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange's CAT Compliance Rules in Rule Series 11.600
implements the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated
Audit Trail (the ``CAT NMS Plan'' or ``Plan'').\5\ The CAT NMS Plan was
filed by the Plan Participants to comply with Rule 613 of Regulation
NMS under the Exchange Act,\6\ and each Plan Participant accordingly
has adopted the same compliance rules in the Exchange's Rule Series
11.600. The common CAT Compliance Rules adopted by each Plan
Participant are designed to require industry members to comply with the
provisions of the CAT NMS Plan, which broadly calls for industry
members to record and report timely and accurately customer, order, and
trade information relating to activity in NMS Securities and OTC Equity
Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/21/2017-05505/self-regulatory-organizations-bats-byx-exchange-inc-bats-bzx-exchange-inc-bats-edga-exchange-inc. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 85828 (May 10, 2019), 84 FR 21841 (May 15, 2019)
(approving https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/21/2017-05505/self-regulatory-organizations-bats-byx-exchange-inc-bats-bzx-exchange-inc-bats-edga-exchange-inc, LTSE's Form 1 and Rule
Series 11.600).
    \6\ 17 CFR 242.613.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 9.218 sets forth the list of rules under which a Member \7\ or
associated person may be subject to a fine under Rule 9.216(b). Rule
9.216(b) permits the Exchange to impose a fine of up to $2,500 on any
Member or associated person for a minor violation of an eligible rule.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9.218 to add the CAT Compliance
Rules in the Rule Series 11.600 to the list of rules in Rule 9.218
eligible for disposition pursuant to a minor fine under Rule
9.216(b).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 1.160(w).
    \8\ FINRA's maximum fine for minor rule violations under FINRA
Rule 9216(b) is also $2,500. Like FINRA, the Exchange, or FINRA on
its behalf, would be able to pursue a fine greater than $2,500 for
violations of the Rule Series 11.600 in a regular disciplinary
proceeding or an acceptance, waiver, and consent (``AWC'') under
Chapter 9 of the LTSE Rule Book, as appropriate. Any fine imposed in
excess of $2,500 or not otherwise covered by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) of the
Act would be subject to prompt notice to the Commission pursuant to
Rule 19d-1 under the Act. As noted below, in assessing the
appropriateness of a minor rule fine with respect to CAT Compliance
Rules, the Exchange will be guided by the same factors that FINRA
utilizes. See text accompanying notes 10-11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LTSE is coordinating with FINRA and other Plan Participants to
promote harmonized and consistent enforcement of all the Plan
Participants' CAT Compliance Rules. The Commission recently approved a
Rule 17d-2 Plan under which the regulation of CAT Compliance Rules will
be allocated among Plan Participants to reduce regulatory duplication
for industry members that are members of more than one Participant
(``common members'').\9\ Under the Rule 17d-2 Plan, the regulation of
CAT Compliance Rules with respect to common members that are members of
FINRA is allocated to FINRA. Similarly, under the Rule 17d-2 Plan,
responsibility for common members of multiple other Plan Participants
that are not members of FINRA will be allocated among those other Plan
Participants, including to the Exchange. For those non-common members
who are allocated to LTSE pursuant to the Rule 17d-2 Plan, the Exchange
and FINRA entered into a Regulatory Services Agreement (``RSA'')
pursuant to which FINRA will conduct surveillance, investigation,
examination, and enforcement activity in connection with the CAT
Compliance Rules on the Exchange's behalf. LTSE understands that the
other exchanges entered into similar RSAs with FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88366 (March 12,
2020), 85 FR 15238 (March 17, 2020) (File No. 4-618).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA, in connection with its amendment to FINRA Rule 9217 to make
FINRA's CAT Compliance Rules MRVP eligible, represented that it will
apply MRVP fines for CAT Compliance Rules in the same manner that FINRA
has for its similar existing audit trail-related rules.\10\
Accordingly, in order to promote regulatory consistency, the Exchange,
and FINRA acting on behalf of the Exchange, plan to do the same.
Specifically, application of a MRVP fine with respect to CAT Compliance
Rules will be guided by the same factors that FINRA referenced in its
filing. However, more formal disciplinary proceedings may be warranted
instead of minor rule dispositions in certain circumstances such as
where violations prevent regulatory users of the CAT from performing
their regulatory functions. Where minor rule dispositions are
appropriate, the following factors help guide the determination of fine
amounts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88870 (May 14,
2020), 85 FR 30768, 30768-69 (May 20, 2020) (SR-FINRA-2020-013); see
also FINRA Notice to Members 04-19 (March 2004) (providing specific
factors used to inform dispositions for violations of OATS reporting
rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Total number of reports that are not submitted or
submitted late;
     The timeframe over which the violations occur;
     Whether violations are batched;
     Whether the violations are the result of the actions of
one individual or the result of faulty systems or procedures;
     Whether the firm has taken remedial measures to correct
the violations;
     Prior minor rule violations within the past 24 months;
     Collateral effects that the failure has on customers; and
     Collateral effects that the failure has on the Exchange's
ability to perform its regulatory function.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon effectiveness of this rule change, the Exchange will publish a
regulatory bulletin notifying its Members of the rule change and the
specific factors that will be considered in connection with assessing
minor rule fines described above.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change will result in a coordinated, harmonized approach to CAT
compliance rule enforcement across Plan Participants that will be
consistent with the approach FINRA has taken with the CAT rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minor rule fines provide a meaningful sanction for minor or
technical violations of rules when the conduct at issue does not
warrant stronger, immediately reportable disciplinary sanctions. The
inclusion of a rule in the Exchange's MRVP does not minimize the
importance of compliance with the rule, nor does it preclude the
Exchange from choosing to pursue violations of eligible rules through
an AWC if the nature of the violations or prior disciplinary history
warrants more significant sanctions. Rather, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change will strengthen the Exchange's ability to
carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities in cases where
full disciplinary proceedings are unwarranted in view of the minor

nature of the particular violation. Thus, the option to impose a minor
rule sanction gives the Exchange additional flexibility to administer
its enforcement program in the most effective and efficient manner
while still fully meeting the Exchange's remedial objectives in
addressing violative conduct. Specifically, the proposed rule change is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices
because it will provide the Exchange the ability to issue a minor rule
fine for violations of the CAT Compliance Rules in the Rule Series
11.600 where a more formal disciplinary action may not be warranted or
appropriate consistent with the approach of other Plan Participants for
the same conduct, and thereby promote regulatory consistency across
self-regulatory organizations.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes to Rule
9.218 are consistent with Section 6(b)(6) of the Act,\14\ which
provides that members and persons associated with members shall be
appropriately disciplined for violation of the provisions of the rules
of the exchange, by expulsion, suspension, limitation of activities,
functions, and operations, fine, censure, being suspended or barred
from being associated with a member, or any other fitting sanction. As
noted, the proposed rule change would provide the Exchange ability to
sanction minor or technical violations of the Rule Series 11.600
pursuant to the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange also believes that the proposed changes are
designed to provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of members
and persons associated with members, consistent with Sections 6(b)(7)
and 6(d) of the Act.\15\ Rule 9.216 does not preclude a Member or
associated person from contesting an alleged violation and receiving a
hearing on the matter with the same procedural rights through a
litigated disciplinary proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 believes that
the proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues
but rather is concerned solely with making the CAT Compliance Rules in
the Rule Series 11.600 eligible for disposition pursuant to a MRVP,
thereby strengthening the Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight
and enforcement functions and deter potential violative conduct.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. 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-LTSE-2020-11 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-LTSE-2020-11. 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-LTSE-2020-11 and should be submitted on
or before August 4, 2020.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\16\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ which requires that the
rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments and to perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission
also believes that the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1) and
6(b)(6) of the Act \18\ which require that the rules of an exchange
enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate discipline for,
violations of Commission and Exchange rules. Finally, the Commission
finds that the proposal is consistent with the public interest, the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\19\ which
governs minor rule violation plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the Exchange proposes to add the CAT Compliance
Rules to the list of minor rule violations in Rule 9.218 to be
consistent with the approach FINRA has taken for minor violations of
its corresponding CAT Compliance Rules.\20\ The Commission has already
approved FINRA's treatment of CAT Compliance Rules violations when it
approved the addition of CAT Compliance Rules to FINRA's MRVP.\21\

As noted in that order, and similarly herein, the Commission believes
that Exchange's treatment of CAT Compliance Rules violations as part of
its MRVP provides a reasonable means of addressing violations that do
not rise to the level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings,
while providing greater flexibility in handling certain violations.
However, the Commission expects that, as with FINRA, the Exchange will
continue to conduct surveillance with due diligence and make
determinations based on its findings, on a case-by-case basis,
regarding whether a sanction under the rule is appropriate, or whether
a violation requires formal disciplinary action. Accordingly, the
Commission believes the proposal raises no novel or significant issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As discussed above, the Exchange has entered into a Rule
17d-2 Plan and an RSA with FINRA with respect to the CAT Compliance
Rules. The Commission notes that, unless relieved by the Commission
of its responsibility, as may be the case under the Rule 17d-2 Plan,
the Exchange continues to bear the responsibility for self-
regulatory conduct and liability for self-regulatory failures, not
the self-regulatory organization retained to perform regulatory
functions on the Exchange's behalf pursuant to an RSA. See
Securities Exchange Release No. 61419 (January 26, 2010), 75 FR 5157
(February 1, 2010) (SR-BATS-2009-031), note 93 and accompanying
text.
    \21\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons discussed above, the Commission finds good
cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\22\ for approving the
proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of
publication of the notice of the filing thereof in the Federal
Register. The proposal merely adds the CAT Compliance Rules to the
Exchange's MRVP and harmonizes its application with FINRA's application
of CAT Compliance Rules under its own MRVP. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that a full notice-and-comment period is not necessary before
approving the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\23\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) thereunder,\24\ that the proposed rule change
(SR-LTSE-2020-11) be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15110 Filed 7-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 135)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34516-34518]
[DOCID:fr16jy09-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0613; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-013-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310-221, -222, -322, -
324, and -325 Airplanes, and Model A300B4-620, B4-622, B4-622R, F4-
605R, and F4-622R Airplanes, Equipped With Pratt & Whitney PW4000 or
JT9D-7R4 Series Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    During the year 2000, life extension exercise programs were
launched for Airbus A310 and A300-600 aircraft. Certification of
Extended Service Goal (ESG) is based on analysis, except for fan
cowl and thrust reverser (T/R) latches, which are always certified
by tests.

* * * testing of the T/R door centre latch has shown that this does
not meet the requirements for ESG.
* * * * *

The unsafe condition is possible failure of the T/R latch and
detachment of the T/R from the airplane, which could result in
structural damage and consequent reduced controllability of the
airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to
address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS-EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the

ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0613; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NM-013-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed
AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2008-0226, dated December 19, 2008 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During the year 2000, life extension exercise programs were
launched for Airbus A310 and A300-600 aircraft. Certification of
Extended Service Goal (ESG) is based on analysis, except for fan
cowl and thrust reverser (T/R) latches, which are always certified
by tests.
    Currently, the Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) task 54-50-28
for engine pylon T/R hinges requires inspection every 1,200 Flight
Cycles (FC). An analysis performed by Airbus shows that forward and
aft T/R door latches have been demonstrated successful for ESG, with
inspection task every 1,200 FC. However, testing of the T/R door
centre latch has shown that this does not meet the requirements for
ESG.
    For the reason described above, this EASA AD requires the
replacement of the T/R centre latches with serialized latches on LH
[left hand] and RH [right hand] engines and repetitive inspections
[for cracking] of the serialized latches. In addition, this AD
introduces a life limit of 18,000 FC for the serialized centre
latches.

The unsafe condition is possible failure of the T/R latch and
detachment of the T/R from the airplane, which could result in
structural damage and consequent reduced controllability of the
airplane. The corrective action includes replacing the T/R latch if any
surface crack is found during any inspection. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletins A300-78-6029 and
A310-78-2030, both including Appendix 1, both dated October 3, 2008.
The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 207 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 30 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $6,442 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $1,830,294, or $8,842 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2009-0613; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-
013-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 17, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-221, -222, -322, -324,
and -325 airplanes, and Model A300B4-620, B4-622, B4-622R, F4-605R,
and F4-622R airplanes, all serial numbers; certificated in any
category; equipped with Pratt & Whitney PW4000 or JT9D-7R4 series
engines.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78: Engine
exhaust.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    During the year 2000, life extension exercise programs were
launched for Airbus A310 and A300-600 aircraft. Certification of
Extended Service Goal (ESG) is based on analysis, except for fan
cowl and thrust reverser (T/R) latches, which are always certified
by tests.
    Currently, the Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) task 54-50-28
for engine pylon T/R hinges requires inspection every [1,200] Flight
Cycles (FC). An analysis performed by Airbus shows that forward and
aft T/R door latches have been demonstrated successful for ESG, with
inspection task every 1200 FC. However, testing of the T/R door
centre latch has shown that this does not meet the requirements for
ESG.
    For the reason described above, this EASA AD requires the
replacement of the T/R centre latches with serialized latches on LH
[left hand] and RH [right hand] engines and repetitive inspections
[for cracking] of the serialized latches. In addition, this AD
introduces a life limit of 18000 FC for the serialized centre
latches.

The unsafe condition is possible failure of the T/R latch and
detachment of the T/R from the airplane, which could result in
structural damage and consequent reduced controllability of the
airplane. The corrective action includes replacing the T/R latch if
any surface crack is found during any inspection.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles since
first flight of the airplane, or within 1,200 flight cycles after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Replace the
non-serialized T/R center latch LH (left hand) and RH (right hand)
sides, having part number (P/N) 221D0029-11 and P/N 221D0029-13,
with a serialized T/R center latch having P/N 221D0029-15 in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-78-6029 or A310-78-2030, both including
Appendix 1, both dated October 3, 2008; as applicable.
    (2) Within 1,200 flight cycles after accomplishing the
replacement required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: Perform an
inspection for surface cracking of the T/R center serialized latches
having P/N 221D0029-15, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-78-6029 or
A310-78-2030, both including Appendix 1, both dated October 3, 2008;
as applicable. If any crack is found, before further flight, replace
the serialized T/R center latch with a new serialized T/R center
latch in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-78-6029 or A310-78-2030, both
including Appendix 1, both dated October 3, 2008; as applicable.
Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,200
flight cycles.
    (3) Before the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles since
accomplishing the most recent replacement required by paragraph
(f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD: Replace the serialized T/R center latch
having P/N 221D0029-15 with a new serialized T/R center latch having
P/N 221D0029-15 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-78-6029 or A310-78-2030,
both including Appendix 1, both dated October 3, 2008; as
applicable. Replacement of the center latches does not constitute
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal
avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal
inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2008-0226, dated December 19, 2008; and Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletins A300-78-6029 and A310-78-2030, both including
Appendix 1, both dated October 3, 2008; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 2, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-16942 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Year 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Annual Mean Spatial Mean 1999 9.67 6.11 9.8 14.17 9.94 9.94 2000 7.47 5.45 7.81 14.73 8.87 8.87 2001 11.68 8.76 10.96 9.87 10.32 10.32 2002 10.36 6.69 9.14 10.46 9.16 9.16 2003 8.24 5.94 6.67 8.72 7.39 7.39 1999 2001 Mean 9.71 9.71 2000 2002 Mean 9.45 9.45 2001 2003 Mean 8.96 8.96 Year Rank ( 98th Percentile) Value ( µ g/ m3)

1999 115 32.76 2000 119 32.37 2001 119 41.84 2002 119 25.88 2003 119 19.46 Annual PM2.5 Mean Values ( µ g/ m3)

Reno Site ( AIRS # 32 031 0016)

Ranked 24 hour Average PM2.5 Monitoring Data for 1999  2003


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49707-49708]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket Nos. FDA-2000-P-0102, FDA-2000-P-0133, and FDA-2006-P-0033]

Food Labeling; Health Claim; Phytosterols and Risk of Coronary
Heart Disease; Reopening of the Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reopening the
comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register
of December 8, 2010, proposing to amend regulations on plant sterol/
stanol esters and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). FDA is
reopening the comment period because the Agency received a request for
additional time to comment on the proposed rule.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published December 8,
2010 (75 FR 76526), is reopened. Submit either electronic or written
comments by October 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blakeley Fitzpatrick, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.,
College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 8, 2010 (75 FR 76526), FDA
proposed to amend its regulations in Sec.  101.83 (21 CFR 101.83) on
plant sterol/stanol esters and risk of CHD (the phytosterols proposed
rule). Among other revisions, the Agency proposed to: (1) Adopt the
term ``phytosterols'' as inclusive of both plant sterols and stanols;
(2) permit claims on products with phytosterols, derived from either
vegetable oils or tall oils, containing at least 80 percent of beta-
sitosterol, campesterol, stigmasterol, sitostanol, and/or campestanol
(combined weight); (3) replace the analytical methods FDA uses to
determine the amount and nature of the substance with the Sorenson and
Sullivan method for evaluation of campesterol, stigmasterol, and beta-
sitosterol in those foods for which the method has been validated; (4)
revise the daily dietary intake of phytosterols necessary to justify
the CHD risk reduction claim (2 grams (g) per day) and the minimum
amount of phytosterols (non-esterified weight) required to be in a
serving of the food (0.5 g per reference amount customarily consumed
(RACC)); (5) for conventional food, limit the use of the claim to the
food uses of phytosterols that have been submitted to FDA in a
generally recognized as safe notification to which the Agency had no
further questions and where the conditions of use are consistent with
the eligibility requirements for the health claim; (6) remove the
requirement that the health claim include a recommendation that
phytosterols be consumed in two servings eaten at different times of
the day, but require that the substance be taken with meals or snacks;
(7) eliminate the enumeration of specific conventional foods eligible
to bear the claim; (8) allow for the use of the health claim on
phytosterol ester-containing dietary supplements (esterified with food-
grade fatty acids) but not on nonesterified phytosterol-containing
dietary supplements; (9) clarify that the limited exemption from the
total fat disqualifying level of more than 13 g total fat per 50 g of
food when the RACC is 30 g or less or 2 tablespoons or less applies to
vegetable oil spreads resembling margarine; (10) permit liquid
vegetable oils to be exempt from the total fat disqualifying level on a
per RACC, per labeled serving size, and per 50 g basis; and (11) permit
liquid vegetable oils to be exempt from the minimum nutrient
requirement and vegetable oil spreads resembling margarine to meet the
10 percent minimum nutrient requirement by the addition of Vitamin A
consistent with FDA's fortification policy.
    Interested persons were originally given until February 22, 2011,
to comment on the proposed rule.

II. Request for Comments

    After publication of the phytosterols proposed rule, the Agency
received two petitions for an administrative stay of action and two
letters requesting that FDA extend its enforcement discretion based on
FDA's February 14, 2003, letter of enforcement discretion to Cargill
Health and Food Technologies. Based on concerns that 75 days was not
enough time for industry to come into compliance with Sec.  101.83 or
to make the claim consistent with the proposed requirements in the
phytosterols proposed rule, the Agency issued, in the Federal Register
of February 18, 2011, an extension of its enforcement discretion based
on the February 14, 2003, letter (76 FR 9525).
    On February 10, 2011, the Agency received a comment on the
phytosterols proposed rule by Venable LLP requesting an extension of
the comment period until April 23, 2011, because the period of time
allowed for comment did not provide enough time for them to collect,
assess, and comment on the relevant data regarding the cholesterol-
lowering efficacy of nonesterified phytosterols in dietary supplements.
FDA did not respond to Venable LLP's request within the comment period
and cannot extend a closed comment period. However, the Agency is
reopening the comment period for this rule in response to Venable LLP's
request. The Agency recognizes that additional time to review and
comment on the data related to the relationship between nonesterified
phytosterols and reduced risk of CHD would be helpful and consistent
with sound public policy, therefore FDA is reopening the comment period
for all interested persons on the phytosterols proposed rule to allow
for comments to be submitted to the docket.
    Following receipt of comments on this document, FDA intends to
publish a final rule, which will amend Sec.  101.83. The reopening of
the comment period may result in the submission of additional
information that may cause the Agency to reconsider its proposed
amendments to the phytosterols and risk of coronary heart disease
health

claim. The Agency notes that a final rule may vary from the proposal.
To the extent that manufacturers have labeled their products consistent
with the proposed requirements, and the final requirements differ from
what the Agency proposed, manufacturers will be required to change
their labels to conform to the final rule.

III. How To Submit Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: August 8, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-20406 Filed 8-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 157 (Friday, August 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48790-48791]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20022]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0454; FRL-9932-34-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Movement of the Northern Virginia Area From Virginia's
Nonattainment Area List to Its Maintenance Area List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of moving the localities of
Northern Virginia from Virginia's regulatory list of nonattainment
areas to its list of maintenance areas for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's SIP submittal as a direct
final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period.

Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by September 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0454 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0454, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division, Mail
code 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0454. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

    Dated: August 4, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-20022 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


The public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response.  Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.  Do not send the completed form to this address.

*Please Note:  This is a complete list of the questions found in this survey.  Depending on how the respondent answers the subsequent questions asked will vary.

Data Tracking Form for Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRFs) Co-Digesting Food-based Materials

Project/Facility Information
 Please provide the following information about your Project/Facility.
Project/Facility Name
Street address
City/Town
State
Zip code
Phone Number

 Please provide the following information for the contact person for facility operations
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone number

 Please provide the contact address (if different from Facility Address)
Street address
City/Town
State
Zip code

 If you do not wish to have your facility's general information (facility name, city, state, facility type and operational status) included in future EPA reports, please check the box below
         ☐Please do not include the information above in future publications summarizing the data collected via this survey.

Organic Waste Processing
 In addition to wastewater solids, is organic waste accepted and processed in your anaerobic digesters (practice of co-digestion)?
 Yes
 No

 If organic waste is currently not accepted at your anaerobic digesters, is your facility planning for or interested in receiving organic wastes from offsite?
 Yes
 No

 Facility operating status
 Please identify the status of your facility
         ☐ Planning stage/ Design stage/Permitting process
         ☐ Under construction
         ☐ Operational
         ☐ Temporary shut-down
         ☐ Ceased operation
         ☐ Other

 What is the targeted date for your co-digestion system to be operational?

 What date did your co-digestion system become operational?

 What date did your co-digestion system temporarily shut-down?

 What is the targeted date for your co-digestion system to re-start operations?

 What date did your co-digestion system cease operations?

 Please state the reason your co-digestion system ceased operations.

WRRF Digestion Capacity
 Please identify your facility's available capacity to accept feedstocks from offsite sources for all digesters combined. When calculating this available capacity, please take into account the average volume of wastewater solids processed at your facility and conveyed to your plant via your collection system.
         [Type in number here]     Choose an item.

 Please briefly describe how you calculated the available capacity to accept feedstocks from offsite sources.

WRRF Co-Digestion Capacity
 Please identify the number of months during the year 2015 that your co-digestion system received and processed feedstocks (other than wastewater solids) from offsite sources.

 Please indicate how organic feedstocks from offsite sources are handled upon receipt at your facility.
 Fed into a separate digester
 Combined with wastewater solids
 Other (please specify)

 Does your facility accept and process food-based feedstocks?

 Please describe the total amount of food-based feedstock accepted by your facility in 20XX. Do this by typing in the amount of food waste, and selecting the units, feedstock type, and feedstock source.
         [Type in number here]     Choose an item.  of   Choose an item.   from    Choose an item.

 Does your facility accept and process non-food-based feedstocks?

 Please describe the total amount of non-food-based feedstock accepted by your facility in 20XX. Do this by typing in the amount of non-food waste, and selecting the units, feedstock type, and feedstock source.
         [Type in number here]     Choose an item.  of   Choose an item.   from    Choose an item.

 Do you collect tipping fees?
 Yes
 No

 Are you willing to share information about the tipping fees you collect?
 Yes
 No

 How much revenue did your facility collect in tipping fees in 20XX?

 If you would like to provide any other relevant or important information related to tipping fees, please do so below.

 Are pre-processing or de-packaging activities conducted on your feedstocks before they are added to your digester?
             Offsite
             Onsite (at your facility)
             Both
             None of the above

 Please describe any pre-processing/de-packaging that is required before feedstocks from offsite sources are fed into the co-digestion system at your facility. Pre-processing may be conducted by a third-party. If that is the case, please state that in the space provided below.
         ☐Manual or mechanized de-packaging
         ☐Screening for debris or sorting
         ☐Grinding and/or maceration
         ☐Third party processing
         ☐Shredding
         ☐Heating
         ☐pH adjustment
         ☐Centrifugal separation
         ☐Liquid/solid separation
         ☐Other (please specify)

 Please identify the operating temperature range for your digester.
             Mesophilic
             Thermophilic
             Unheated/Ambient

 Please identify the design that best fits your design type/configuration:
             Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR)
             Plug-flow
             Covered Lagoon
             Fixed film
             Suspended Media
             Percolating Bed
             Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB)
             Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor (ASBR)
             Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
             Hybrid/Multi-stage
             Other (please specify)

Product End-Uses
 Please provide the average biogas production volume at your facility during calendar year 20XX in one of the units identified below.
         [Type in number here] Choose an item.

 Is the biogas produced at this facility?
         ☐Used onsite
         ☐Sold
         ☐Flared
         ☐Other (please specify)

 Please identify how the biogas produced at this facility is used. It could be used onsite by the facility or offsite by a purchaser. Check all that apply.
         ☐Produce mechanical power
         ☐Produce heat and electricity (CHP)
         ☐Produce electricity (including net metering)
         ☐Produce electricity (sold to grid)
         ☐Fuel boilers and furnaces to heat digesters
         ☐Fuel boilers and furnaces to heat other spaces
         ☐Compressed to vehicle fuels: used for company fleet/personal vehicles
         ☐Compressed to vehicle fuels: sold to customers
         ☐Renewable natural gas (processed in order to inject to pipeline)
         ☐Other (please specify)

 Are you able to utilize all of the biogas produced?
 Yes
 No

 Do you flare the excess biogas?
 Yes
 No

 Do you have a gas cleaning system?
 Yes
 No

 What is removed by your gas purification system? Check all that apply.
         ☐Moisture
         ☐Sulfur
         ☐ Siloxanes
         ☐ Carbon Dioxide
         ☐ Compressed Gas
         ☐ Hydrogen sulfide
         ☐ Particulates
         ☐ Oxygen
         ☐ Nitrogen
         ☐ VOCs
         ☐ Other (please specify)

 Are the post digestion biosolids Class A or Class B?
 Class A
 Class B

 Do you use the solid digestate you produce in any of the following ways? (Select all that apply)
         ☐De-watered/dried and land applied
         ☐ Land applied as is with no dewatering or drying
         ☐ Composted into a reusable or salable product
         ☐ Processed into other salable products (e.g., flower pots)
         ☐ Landfilled
         ☐ Incinerated
         ☐ Other (please specify)

 If any digestate was disposed of in landfills or incinerated in 20XX, please specify the amount in tons or gallons (if known).
         [Type in number here]     Choose an item.

 Is the de-watered/dried digestate further treated prior to land application?
 Yes
 No

 Please indicate what the further treatment is and why it is necessary.

 How do you manage the liquid digestate you produce? Check all that apply.
         ☐ Beneficially reused as fertilizer via land application
         ☐ Recirculated through digester
         ☐ Other (please specify)
 Is the liquid digestate further treated prior to land application?
 Yes
 No

 Please indicate what the further treatment is and why it is necessary.

 Do you recover nutrients from your digestate?
 No
 Yes, phosphorous recovery by chemical precipitation (e.g., struvite)
 Yes, ammonia recovery
 Other (please specify)


[Federal Register: June 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 31642-31643]
[DOCID:fr07jn07-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55838; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-51]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Extension of Pilot Program for Initial and Continued Financial Listing
Standards for Common Stock Until November 30, 2007

 May 31, 2007.
    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 May 30, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' 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 substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed
the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend until November 30, 2007, the six-
month pilot program (the ``Pilot Program'') which amended the
Exchange's financial listing standards for the common stock of
operating companies.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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
    NYSE Arca has amended on a six-month pilot program basis the rules
governing the NYSE Arca Marketplace to amend the financial listing
standards for common stock of operating companies.\5\ The Pilot Program
expired on May 29, 2007. The Exchange proposes to extend the Pilot
Program until November 30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54796 (November 20,
2006), 71 FR 69166 (November 29, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-85).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \7\ in
particular. The proposed rule change furthers these objectives by
preventing fraudulent and

manipulative acts and practices, promoting just and equitable
principles of trade, fostering cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and
removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanisms of a free and
open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 Exchange Act.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ thereunder because
the proposal does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of
investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on
competition; and (iii) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from
the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, provided that the Exchange has given the Commission
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change,
or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the
five-day pre-filing notice requirement, and the Commission has
agreed to waive the requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period. The Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay period is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. Specifically,
the Commission believes that the proposal would allow the Pilot Program
to continue without any interruption, until November 30, 2007.\12\ The
Commission further notes that no comments were received on the pilot
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-51 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-51. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-51 and should be submitted on or before
June 28, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-10926 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P