EPA Public Meeting on Enforceable Consent Agreement Development for Perfluorooctanoic Acid ( PFOA) and Fluorinated Telomers June 6, 2003 Opening Statement for the Telomer Research Program On Behalf of the TRP Participating Companies ~ Asahi Glass Co., Clariant GmbH, Daikin Industries and E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company ~

Good afternoon. My name is Katie Smythe. I work for the RAND Corporation1 and serve as the administrator of the Telomer Research Program, also known as the TRP. As the TRP administrator, I have been asked by the member companies to present the TRP's opening statement summarizing their views. The TRP members would like to thank the Agency for the opportunity to comment on the Enforceable Consent Agreement ( ECA) development process for PFOA.

The TRP is a science focused research consortium funded by the primary global fluorotelomer manufacturers: Asahi Glass ( Japan), Clariant ( Germany), Daikin Industries ( Japan), and DuPont ( USA). The TRP companies produce in or import telomer based products into the United States, which are used as surface protection chemicals and specialty fluoro

addditives in many markets.

Individually, the member companies have studied fluorotelomer products for more than 40 years and are firmly committed to the safe manufacture and use of telomer based products. In addition, TRP members continue to affirm that these products are indeed safe for the markets in which they are used. The TRP has initiated an ambitious program to develop additional data on the environmental fate of telomer based products, better characterize routes of environmental release and human exposure, strengthen product stewardship, and take additional measures to reduce or prevent exposure wherever new data suggest that such changes are needed.

1 RAND is not engaged in research, technical analysis or policy considerations for the TRP and takes no position on PFOA issues.

Page 1 of 4 Telomer products are not made from PFOA, nor is PFOA added during the manufacture or use of telomer products. However, questions have been raised about the potential for telomer products to transform to PFOA. The TRP is actively working to address these questions and identify the relevant routes by which telomer products may, in fact, transform to PFOA and, if they do, to what degree these transformations take place and if there may be human or environmental exposure of consequence. The TRP is committed to answer EPA's questions and participate in the ECA process.

Telomer based products and articles treated with these products provide many unique and irreplaceable benefits to people and society. The telomer products provide protection that significantly extends the useful lifetime and lessens the need to clean textile articles, including apparel, upholstery, and carpeting. In specific applications, garments treated with telomer products protect military and healthcare workers from chemical agents and diseases transmitted through blood, such as HIV and hepatitis. Telomer based products are also key ingredients in fire fighting foam formulations and are unparalleled in their ability to knock down, resist burnback, and secure an enflamed area quickly and safely.

In a Letter of Intent ( LOI) 2 to EPA, the TRP members outlined a voluntary commitment to investigate the potential association between PFOA and telomers, and continue to generate data in a timely manner. The TRP has developed a staged scientific study approach focused on articles treated with telomers and telomer products in order to determine their potential to transform or break down into PFOA. The TRP is utilizing the best testing and methodology practices available. The members believe it is important to provide the EPA, their customers and the public with scientific data on the products that they purchase. The TRP work is focused on three major end use applications: carpets, textiles and paper.

For the work underway, analytical method development has been a substantial challenge due to the unique properties of the telomer substances and the lack of methods to determine low 2 TRP Letter of Intent   EPA Docket # OPPT 2003 0012 0013; TRP's response to EPA follow up questions ( Docket # OPPT 2003 0012 0049) provides additional information.

Page 2 of 4 levels of PFOA. Current experience with method development has shown us that standard test guidelines are not always suitable and need significant adaptations to develop sound data and methods. TRP is now sponsoring work at several contract labs to develop and validate analytical methods to conduct these studies on products and articles.

The TRP members fully understand that EPA has questions regarding potential exposure pathways of PFOA. The member companies support EPA's efforts to assure the regulatory process is based on high quality, credible scientific data and they are committed to providing their part of this data collection in a timely, efficient and responsible manner.

Current contributions to environmental loadings of PFOA provide only part of the answer to EPA's questions. A full characterization of potential routes of environmental and human exposure for PFOA should include all past and current sources of PFOA. The TRP members believe that the ECA process should include products that have been discontinued but are still in commercial use and available in the environment for human exposure. Discontinued PFOS

based products and past PFOA production and use must be included to fully and accurately reflect current environmental and human exposure potential. TRP member companies urge EPA to take a comprehensive and holistic approach to understanding environmental and human exposure to develop a risk assessment on PFOA and its salts that includes PFOA manufacture and use, PFOS based products, and telomers.

The world is ever evolving, and so are science and our understanding of it. The research being conducted by the TRP is no exception. The research being undertaken requires the development of new testing standards and new methodologies that will result in further understanding, increased awareness and the continued responsible stewardship of telomer based products.

The member companies stand by their substantial and aggressive commitments to EPA,

described in the TRP LOI and in the comments made today. The TRP members are committed to safe handling and use of their products and to continue their comprehensive research program to identify potential PFOA exposure pathways that may be associated with telomer based Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 products. The TRP members strongly believe the end result of this research program will be new knowledge on telomer based products and chemistry that will reaffirm to the EPA, customers and consumers the value and safety of telomer products.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments today.

# # #


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42066-42067]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16888]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72605; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delay the
Implementation of a Recent Proposal Relating to Joint Back Office
Participants

July 14, 2014.
    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 July 1, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to [sic] proposal [sic] to delay the
implementation of a recent proposal to assess joint back office
(``JBO'') \3\ participants pricing the same as Broker-Dealers \4\ and
require JBO participants to utilize a new origin code to identify JBO
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A JBO participant is a member, member organization or non-
member organization that maintains a JBO arrangement with a clearing
broker-dealer (``JBO Broker'') subject to the requirements of
Regulation T Section 220.7 of the Federal Reserve System. See also
Exchange Rule 703.
    \4\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that the proposal become operative on
September 1, 2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to delay the
implementation of a recent proposal \5\ to introduce a new origin code
in the Exchange's Pricing Schedule which will be used to indicate
orders for a JBO account to be cleared into the Firm \6\ range at The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for purposes of pricing only. In
addition, the proposal assessed fees and paid rebates to JBO Orders the
same as Broker-Dealers, and applied a certain fee cap. The Exchange
initially indicated that the proposal would be implemented on July 1,
2014. At this time, in light of feedback from a market participant, the
Exchange seeks to be able to implement these changes on September 1,
2014. Some participants may be ready to use the new indicator July 1
and may do so (although it will not be used by the Exchange until
September 1), but participants will not be required to use the new
indicator until September 1, which is also when the new fees will
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72094 (May 5, 2014),
79 FR 26787 (May 9, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-28).
    \6\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ 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,
because delaying the implementation of the JBO origin code requirement
and attendant fees should permit participants to use the additional
time

to prepare for compliance with this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that market participants will benefit from
the additional time to implement the proper technical changes to comply
with the requirements associated with marking JBO Orders with a new
origin code, which should, in turn, enable JBO participants to continue
to participate in the Phlx options market.

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. The Exchange is allowing
participants additional time to comply with a new origin code and
attendant fees, which will apply to all JBOs (member and non-member) in
a similar manner on September 1, 2014.

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 proposed rule change does not (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow additional time for market participants to
implement technology changes necessary to comply with the new origin
code and attendant fees. For this reason, the Commission waives the
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative
upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-44 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-2014-44. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-Phlx-2014-44,
and should be submitted on or before August 8, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-16888 Filed 7-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 163)]
[Notices]
[Page 49498-49500]
[DOCID:fr23au06-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54326; File No. SR-CHX-2006-24]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change,
and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Regarding Two-Sided Quote Providers

August 16, 2006.
    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 June 27, 2006, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On July 21,
2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ On August 10, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to
the proposed rule change.\4\ The CHX filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\6\ which renders it
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1 the CHX removed language from its Fee
Schedule to reflect that the proposal was effective upon filing, not
an earlier date.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 2 the CHX made two non-substantive
corrections to the numbering used in the proposed rule text.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 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 amend its rules and Schedule of
Participant Fees and Credits (''Fee Schedule'') to establish a new role
and a new fee credit for participants on the Exchange that qualify as
``Two-Sided Quote Providers.'' The text of the proposed rule change is
set forth below. Proposed new language is italicized.

ARTICLE IX

Trading Rules
* * * * *

Two-Sided Quote Providers

    RULE 19. a. A Participant may seek to register with the Exchange as
a Two-Sided Quote Provider. A ``Two-Sided Quote Provider'' is required
to use its own automated systems to maintain, throughout the Exchange's
primary and post-primary trading sessions, a continuous two-sided quote
(i.e., a bid and an offer) in all securities that are not traded by an
Exchange specialist, but are traded in an automated Exchange system.
    b. The Exchange will provide a credit, as described in the Fee
Schedule, to the first three Participants that demonstrate their
ability and willingness to serve in this role.
    c. If a Two-Sided Quote Provider does not provide a continuous two-
sided quote as required above, the Exchange shall not pay the Two-Sided
Quote Provider for the day in which the quotes were not maintained and
shall end the Participant's role as a Two-Sided Quote Provider as of
the end of the month in

which the failure to provide continuous two-sided quotes occurred.
* * * * *
PARTICIPANT FEES AND CREDITS
* * * * *
M. Credits
    1.-3. No change to text.
    4. Through October 31, 2006, total monthly fees owed by a Two-Sided
Quote Provider will be reduced (and these participants will be paid
each month for any unused credits) by a credit of $3,000 per month.
* * * * *

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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX 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 Changes

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to allow participant
firms to register as ``Two-Sided Quote Providers'' and to provide a
credit of $3,000 per month for firms that fulfill that role.\7\ The
credit would be available through October 31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange originally filed this proposal simply as an
addition to its Fee Schedule. See SR-CHX-2006-15. The Exchange
withdrew that filing concurrently with the submission of the
original version of this proposal, which would establish a new rule
and a change to the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule, a Two-Sided Quote Provider would be an
Exchange participant that uses its own automated systems to maintain,
throughout the Exchange's primary and post-primary trading sessions, a
continuous two-sided quote (i.e., a bid and an offer) in all securities
that are not traded by an Exchange specialist, but are traded in an
automated Exchange system.\8\ If the Two-Sided Quote Provider does not
provide a continuous two-sided quote as required above, the Exchange
would not pay the Two-Sided Quote Provider for the day in which the
quotes were not maintained and would end the participant's role as a
Two-Sided Quote Provider as of the end of the month in which the
failure occurred.\9\ A Two-Sided Quote Provider would continue to be
subject to all the CHX rules that apply to its trading on the Exchange,
including, but not limited to the firm quote rule, the electronic
book's clearly erroneous rule, the rules prohibiting trading ahead of
customer orders and the Intermarket Trading System (``ITS'') rules.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange plans to provide the $3,000 credit, on a first-
come, first-served basis, to the first three participants that
demonstrate their ability and willingness to serve in this role. The
Exchange does not believe that these firms would need to register as
market makers in the Exchange's electronic book (where many
securities that are not traded by a specialist are traded) or on the
Exchange (where some listed securities have not yet been
transitioned to trading in the electronic book), because the
Exchange does not seek to impose any requirement that these firms
maintain fair and orderly markets.
    \9\ The Exchange also would consider a failure to provide these
quotes as a violation of the Exchange's rules. The Exchange could
exercise its discretion in determining whether or not to pursue a
further fine or penalty from a participant for a violation of this
rule based on applicable facts and circumstances.
    \10\ Registration as a Two-Sided Quote Provider does not allow a
participant to avoid the application of any CHX trading rule that
would otherwise apply to its activities as a CHX floor broker,
market maker, specialist or order-sending firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, its proposal is designed to provide an
appropriate incentive to up to three participant firms to ensure that a
two-sided quote is continuously displayed on the Exchange in securities
that are traded on the Exchange.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Under the current Intermarket Trading System Plan (``ITS
Plan ''), a member in any market that is an ITS Plan participant may
use the ITS System to trade a particular security only if the market
maintains continuous two-sided quotations in that security. See ITS
Plan, Section 6(a)(i). This proposed credit would help ensure, among
other things, that a continuous two-sided quote is displayed on the
Exchange in all securities that qualify for trading under the ITS
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\ In particular,
the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ because it would promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest by permitting the Exchange to
allow its participants to register as Two-Sided Quote Providers to help
ensure, among other things, that a continuous two-sided quote is
displayed on the Exchange in all securities that qualify for trading
under the ITS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of 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.

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

    The CHX has neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30-days after 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, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the CHX provided the
Commission with written notice of its intention to file the proposed
rule change at least 5 business days prior to filing the proposal with
the Commission. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\16\ normally does not become operative prior to 30-days after the date
of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The CHX has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
because it may ensure that a continuous two-sided quote is displayed on
the

Exchange in securities that are traded on the Exchange.\17\
Furthermore, the Commission notes that the proposed rule change, as
amended, is similar to Pacific Exchange Rule 7.58, Compliance with Two-
Sided Quote Requirement in ITS Plan, which provides that the
Archipelago Securities, LLC is responsible for entering two-sided
orders in all stocks eligible for trading on the NYSE Arca Marketplace
for purposes of fulfilling the two-sided quote requirement found in
Section 6(a)(i)(B) of the ITS Plan. Accordingly, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change, as amended, as effective and
operative immediately upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 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 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, as
amended, under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission
considers the period to commence on August 10, 2006, the date on
which the CHX submitted Amendment No. 2. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal, as
amended, 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 No. SR-CHX-2006-24 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 No. SR-CHX-2006-24. 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 will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CHX. 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 No. SR-CHX-2006-24 and should be submitted on or before September
13, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13943 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74208-74210]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29380]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70977; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2013-129]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.37A
To Eliminate the Requirement That Market Makers Comply With the Bid-Ask
Differential Requirements Specified in Rule 6.37(b)(1)(A)-(F) When
Electronically Bidding and Offering on the Exchange System During the
Opening Auction Process

December 4, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on November 20, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.37A to eliminate the
requirement that Market Makers comply with the bid-ask differential
requirements specified in Rule 6.37(b)(1)(A)-(F) when electronically
bidding and offering on the Exchange system during the opening auction
process (``Auction''). The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.37A(b)(4) to eliminate the
requirement that Market Makers, when electronically bidding and
offering on the OX system (``System'') \4\ during an Auction, must
comply with the bid-ask differentials specified in Rule 6.37(b)(1)(A)-
(F) and instead make the bid-ask differential specified in Rule
6.37A(b)(4) applicable at all times, including during an Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``OX'' refers to the Exchange's electronic order
delivery, execution and reporting system through which orders and
quotes for listed options are consolidated for execution and/or
display. See NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.1A(a)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 6.37A(b)(4) provides that options traded on the System
during core trading hours may be quoted with a difference not to exceed
$5 between the bid and offer regardless of the price of the bid
(``standard-width quote''), except with respect to an Auction, in which
case Rule 6.37A(b)(6) governs bidding and offering quote differentials.
Rule 6.37(b)(1)(A)-(F) set out Auction bid-ask differentials that vary
depending on the price of the bid. Under Rule 6.37(b)(1)(A)-(F), the
quote widths may not be more than: $0.25 if the bid is less than $2;
$0.40 if the bid is at least $2 but does not exceed $5; $0.50 if the
bid is more than $5 but does not exceed $10; $0.80 if the bid is more
than $10 but does not exceed $20; and $1 if the bid is more than $20.
The Exchange now proposes to replace the varying narrow-width bid-ask
differentials that apply to Market Maker quotations during an Auction
with the $5 quote differential that is in place at all other times.
    The Exchange notes that the narrow-width bid-ask differentials
applicable to Market Maker quotations during an Auction, which the
current proposal would replace, were previously deleted from Rule 6.37A
in 2010,\5\ and reinstituted in 2011.\6\ The Exchange found that at
times the absence of more narrow quotes during an Auction prevented
series from opening promptly, and could unnecessarily delay the
execution of orders. At that time, the Exchange believed that setting

a narrower differential for Auction quotes would expedite the opening
of all option series on the Exchange promptly after the opening of the
underlying security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62019 (Apr. 30,
2010), 75 FR 25889 (May 10, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-16).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63747 (January 20,
2011), 75 FR 4965 (Jan. 27, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now believes, however, that the rationales \7\ under
which it first eliminated the narrow-width quoting obligations for
Auctions in 2010 are once again evident to such an extent that the
narrow-width quoting obligations are no longer necessary for Auctions,
and thus the Exchange proposes to eliminate them again. The Exchange no
longer has the concerns it had in 2011 regarding potential delays, both
in the opening of series and in the execution of orders. In particular,
the Exchange's 2012 amendment to Rule 6.64 allows for series to open on
the wider, standard-width quote when an Auction is not to take
place,\8\ which is currently the case in a majority of series openings
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The obligation for Market Makers to provide opening quotes
at the widths described in Rule 6.37(b)(1)(A)-(F) had been adapted
from the era when the Exchange conducted open outcry rotations, had
only open outcry quotes available to respond to an order, and did
not disseminate Firm Quotes. Further, an open outcry opening
rotation only required a response from a single Market Maker. The
opening market represented the firm quote for all Market Makers in a
trading crowd, and any such Market Maker could be held to fill
orders at the quoted market. The original intent of maintaining the
obligation for Market Makers to submit narrow, traditional bid-ask
quotations was to encourage a narrower aggregated Exchange market
during the opening auction. This was especially necessary as NYSE
Arca was often the first market to open a series, there was not
necessarily an accurate National Best Bid/Offer (``NBBO'')
available, and the Exchange did not have a systemically enforced
narrow-width bid-ask differential applicable to the auction process.
Since the time of the original introduction of the System, however,
NYSE Arca has instituted increased functionality to define price
parameters during the auction process.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68290 (Nov. 26,
2012), 77 FR 71469 (Nov. 30, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-126).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, it is no longer necessary to require Market Makers to
submit narrow, traditional bid-ask quotations to encourage a narrower
Exchange market during the auction process, as was the original intent
of the limitations on bid-ask differentials. Since the time of the
original introduction of the System, the Exchange has instituted
increased functionality to define price parameters during the auction
process. The system will not conduct an Auction in a series until one
of two conditions is met: (i) A Market Maker submits a narrow-width
quote, or (ii) a narrow-width NBBO is received from OPRA. This is a
systemic solution which renders the rules-based narrow bid-ask
differential moot. Further, in light of the lowering of the Lead Market
Maker quoting obligation to 90% in 2008,\9\ there is no requirement for
a Market Maker to submit a quotation for an Auction, and thus the
Auction quote-width requirement imposes limits on a non-existent
obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57186 (Jan. 22,
2008) 73 FR 4931 (January 28, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the opening auction parameters described in Rule 6.64,
under which an Auction will not be conducted unless the composite NYSE
Arca bid-ask is within an acceptable range (identical to the bid-ask
parameters pursuant to Rule 6.37(b)(1)(A)-(F)) would remain in effect
under the Exchange's current proposal.
    The Exchange thus believes that the current proposal is appropriate
and further notes that the proposal would more closely align the
Exchange's rules with the rules of other options exchanges that do not
require narrow-width quotes during an opening auction. Neither BATS
Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') nor NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NOM'') imposes
narrow-width quote requirements during an opening auction.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See BATS Rule 22.5; NOM Rules Chapter VII, Sections 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, because it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system by setting price parameters for the opening Auction rather than
relying on a restriction that does not have obligatory performance. The
wider quote differential requirement for openings when an Auction is
conducted will implement a less burdensome quoting obligation in a way
that benefits market participants and enables them to safely execute
their orders on the Exchange because the proposal maintains the price
protection parameters established under Rule 6.64. This will reduce the
likelihood of disadvantageous pricing for orders executed during an
Auction, which also contributes to the protection of investors and the
public interest generally. The Exchange believes that by maintaining
these price protection parameters within the Auction process, rather
than just as a requirement for submitted quotes, Customers and other
market participants will continue to be afforded price protection on
executions occurring during an Auction. The proposed rule is also
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it
would permit Market Makers to provide opening quotes more consistent
with those provided by market makers on other options exchanges.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See note 10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that the proposal will result in the Exchange operating in a
more efficient way. The adoption of a less burdensome quoting
obligation on NYSE Arca Market Makers during the auction process will
allow them to compete more effectively with their counterparts on other
options exchanges that are similarly not subject to a narrow-width bid-
ask differential applicable during auctions. In addition, the proposed
rule change is pro-competitive on both an inter-market and intra-market
basis in that it is not only designed to help the Exchange compete more
effectively with other options exchanges with similar rules, but could
also lead to increased participation by a greater number of Market
Makers on the Exchange during the auction process because of the more
flexible quoting obligations it would impose.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

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

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 prior to 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, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 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 such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2013-129 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2013-129. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-2013-129 and should be submitted on or before
December 31, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29380 Filed 12-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26022-26023]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10561]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1582-000]

65HK 8me 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,
of 65HK 8me LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate schedule, 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 Sec.  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 May 19, 2015.
    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(s) 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 29, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10561 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                            EPA and Ecology comment                            Emerald-Kalama Delisting                            Proposed Cobalt analysis

 The proposed method seems to have a brief summary procedure of the extraction procedure. The SW-846 Methods 1311 has considerably greater detail, along with a number of very important technical considerations, that EPA and Ecology believe are needed to ensure exraction is appropriately and consistently accomplished. We recommend that the draft procedure remove those elements related to the extraction procedure, and instead state that extraction will be carried out according to SW-846 Method 1311. EPA and Ecology remain supportive of the balance of the procedure for analysis of the extract, subject to the additional comments below.

      Analysis starts with TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) extract preparation from the SOMAT sludge.  Extract preparation (TCLP extraction) must strictly follow the SW-846 Method 1311 (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/1311.pdf). Keep in mind that quantitative transfer of all cobalt from the sludge into solution is not objective of the procedure. Important context:         Volatiles are not of interest, cobalt is the only analyte of interest, follow suitable parts of the Method 1311 accordingly  Pay attention to the selection of the extraction fluid (acetate/acetic acid buffer or acetic acid solution) based on sludge properties  According to robustness study presented in the Method 1311, control of the pH of the extraction fluid is one of the most sensitive parameters of extraction. Make sure pH measurements conform with the method requirements.

 Under "Reagents, solutions, solvents," we recommend that the procedure include a Materials and Equipment list for the SOP (balances, pipettes, spectrophotometer, etc).

Materials and Equipment

pH meter (as per Method 1311 or better, capable of +- 0.05 pH unit accuracy, currently udsed: Beckman Φ-3)

Analytical balance, 0.0001 g resolution, with current certificate of calibration (currently used Mettler Toledo AB204-S)

Spectrophotometer with a monochromator capable of absorbance determination in the visible range, currently used: VWR UV-1600PC spectrophotometer Rotary agitation apparatus as described in Method 1311

Filter paper: any filter paper for chemistry applications with ash content < 0.06% (ash content of 0.01 preferred) currently used: Whatman 42 Ashless

pH meter calibration solutions (pH 4.00 , 7.00, 10.00)

3 mL disposable syringes

0.45 μm PTFE syringe filters

 Step 1 reading " ". Unless there is something unique about Millipore DI water, might want to say "Millipore DI water or equivalent." Further, the method should include a specification something like the DI water must have >18 mega ohm resistance reading so that the quality of water used is consistent.

.. high-quality DI water (resistivity at 25 °C not less than 18 MΩ::cm = 1.8x10[5] Ω::m measured at the source, resistivity will decrease rapidly upon absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide; in practice Millipore DI water or equivalent) stored in dedicated poly bottles..

 Step 1 in the calibration procedure mentions use of Erlenmeyer flasks. Erlenmeyer flasks are not appropriate for making standards, or for any other quantitative purpose. Appropriate volumetric flasks should be specified. This comment also applies to the Procedure Step 1.

Changes will be made from "Erlenmeyer flasks" to: "suitable volume, class A volumetric flasks".

 The calibration procedure Step 7 discusses filter paper. What type of filter paper is to be used?  Please add to the requested equipment list.

Filter paper: any filter paper for chemistry applications with ash content < 0.06% (ash content of 0.01 % or lower preferred) currently used: Whatman 42 Ashless paper.

 The calibration procedure Step 8 discusses specific light wavelengths. Please clarify if is 456 nm the analytical wavelength and 500 nm the background. Describe how these wavelengths are used to generate absorbance results.

Both wavelengths are analytical: 456 nm is the absorption maximum. Both wavelengths are used to create two calibrations. Results from two calibrations are averaged, so far agreement between values obtained from the two calibrations has been excellent. Averaging two values guards against human error (entering incorrect absorbance for one wavelength would generate discrepancy that would be easily noticeable). It serves also as a partial test of the identity of the spectrum of the analyte  -  reproducible discrepancies would signify interference that was not previously present (e.g., other species absorbing in this region). Method can be easily modified to include only measurement at 456 nm, reducing somewhat time and amount of work needed per analysis, but also removing benefits described above.

 The calibration procedure Step 11 discusses calculation of calibration lines. A criterion for correlation coefficient (e.g., >0.99) or some measure of quality of calibration to be met would help maintain consistency for accuracy.  Also, a frequency might be needed to state such as daily before samples. EPA notes that Spectrophotometers are calibrated each day of use as general lab practice. Maybe just testing a fresh mid-level standard to confirm the curve or instrument performance is still good like a calibration check.  Would also need criteria for such a check such as within 90-110% of expected level otherwise re-calibrate. Finally, a second source calibration verification standard is typically required. Should be listed in reagents list and the analysis described.

Measure of calibration quality. For each non-blank color standard  i calculate actual cobalt mass (μg) delivered during standard preparation (from quantity of diluted cobalt standard, and known cobalt concentration, related to the primary standard cobalt solution): miactual. Using calibration relationship parameters (currently intercept and slope for linear least square fit) calculate cobalt mass for each standard based on observed absorbance: mipredicted. Calculate relative residual εi for each standard εi=miactual- mipredictedmiactual, and its RMS value: RMS(ε)=i=1Nεi2N . Recent observed RMSε was 2.5%.

Proposed calibration quality measure: RMS(ε) for each calibration used will not exceed 4.0 %.

Calibration check: standard that delivers 2.5 to 3.0 μg of cobalt (relatable to the primary cobalt standard) prepared and measured daily nearly simultaneously with the sample. Re-calibration will be required, if calculated value deviates more than +-7.0 % from the actual value.

Primary cobalt standards:  Cobalt Reference Standard Solution 1000 +- 10 mg/L, Hatch, Cat. Number 2150342 (currently used).  Cobalt Standard for AAS, TraceCERT(R), Supelco, Aldrich catalogue number 05202-250ML (to be acquired).

 As a general comment on the Procedure itself, what standards are being used for QC?  With what frequency are they being run?  What are the acceptance criteria? In general, EPA and Ecology look to the method description to include appropriate laboratory QA/QC procedures and criteria. These are essential to validate the resultant data.

Quality control measures as described in (7) will be incorporated into the method. In addition, full calibration will be performed every six weeks.

 Procedure Step 5. How exact are these times? Does color development continue or plateau? Is the color maintained over time or does it peak and decline? Since this process is being done manually, and presumably standards and samples are being created as a batch then measured as a batch, some description of timing controls may need to be included.

The reaction times for color development are based on the literature describing properties of the reagent used and its reaction with cobalt ions, and analytical methods developed around it (Kyoji Tôei  and  Shoji Motomizu, Properties and Uses of the Colorimetric Reagents 2-Nitroso-5-dimethylaminophenol and 2-Nitroso-5-diethylaminophenol for Cobalt, The Analyst, 1976, 101,497-511, DOI https://doi.org/10.1039/AN9760100497, and references therein). Formation of the complex requires proper pH range and sufficient time. This time was investigated by the authors of the original publications, additional time is added as a precaution in the current method.  Once formed and extracted, the complex is stable in the chlorinated solvents (references cited above). This was confirmed by our practice: an extract of the complex that measured 0.620 absorbance at 456 nm and 0.499 absorbance at 500 nm at preparation, measured 0.624 absorbance at 456 nm, and 0.501 absorbance at 500 nm after five days (increase could have been due to solvent evaporation loss).

 Procedure Step 9. Specific concentrations should be listed which would trigger reanalysis (points below lowest non-zero standard?) Detection limits should be determined and compared to level of interest to document that the corresponding data are suitable for their intended use.

Limit of quantitation, LOQ, is perhaps of greater interest. Proposed definition:

LOQ=10Sba

Where Sb is standard error of the intercept of the calibration line at 456 nm, and a is the slope of the calibration line at the same wavelength. Values for the current calibration (a, Sb obtained using LINEST function of Excel) give LOQ of 0.51 μg. Calculated cobalt content of 0.50 μg will require re-analysis and increased sample load. Sample load is variable, for the maximum load of 30 mL, LOQ of 0.51 μg corresponds to concentration of 0.017  μg/mL.

 Procedure Step 11. Please provide equations used for calculation.  Does the instrument perform any calculations or are all calculations done offline?

Calculate mass of cobalt contained in each analyzed sample from calibration for each wavelength:                             m456=A456-b456a456, μg                             m500=A500-b500a500, μg where: A456	observed absorbance for the extract prepared from the sample (at 456 nm) b456	intercept of the calibration line at 456 nm a456	slope of the calibration line at 456 nm (unit of 1/μg)

A500	observed absorbance for the extract prepared from the sample (at 500 nm) b500	intercept of the calibration line at 500 nm a500	slope of the calibration line at 500 nm (unit of 1/μg)

Next, calculate the average:

                              mav=m456+m5002, μg

Cobalt concentration in the sample is:

                               cCo=mavMs, μg/g                               c'Co=mavVs, μg/mL

where: Ms	extract sample mass, g Vs	extract sample volume, mL

Measurement of extract density will be added to the procedure to facilitate conversion between units.

All calculations are done offline.


Standard bcc's: official file copy w/ attachment( s) originator's file copy w/ attachment( s) originating organization reading file w/ attachment( s)

Other bcc's: ORA reading file Kay Hudson Naimah Karim Felicia Williams Shari Holloway William Dew ( electronic copy) Jennifer Manville ( electronic copy) Rita Cestaric R. Damberg, OAQPS ( electronic copy) L. Wallace, OAQPS ( electronic copy)

Path/ Filename: C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi 10693 1090345198 9936270 00. wpd Creation Date: July 20, 2004 ( 4: 14PM) Addresses: Enclosure Review of Designations in Michigan For the Particulate Matter Air Quality Standard The following table identifies the individual areas and counties comprising those areas in Michigan, including any Indian Country within them, that EPA intends to designate as nonattainment for the fine particulate matter (" PM2.5") air quality standard. The EPA intends to designate as attainment/ unclassifiable all areas not identified in the table below.

Area Michigan Counties in Metropolitan Area EPA's Intended Nonattainment Counties Detroit Ann Arbor Flint Monroe Wayne Livingston Macomb Oakland St Clair Washtenaw Genesee Lapeer Lenawee Monroe Wayne Livingston Macomb Oakland St Clair Washtenaw


[Federal Register: August 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 43312-43314]
[DOCID:fr03au07-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56166; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Transaction Charges Applicable to Linkage ``P''
and ``P/A'' Orders

July 30, 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 July 19, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``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 substantially prepared by the Exchange.
This order provides notice of the proposed rule change and approves the
proposed rule change 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

    The Phlx proposes to extend, for a one-year period, a pilot
relating to transaction fees applicable to the execution of Principal
Acting as Agent

Orders (``P/A Orders'') \3\ and Principal Orders (``P Orders'') \4\
sent to the Exchange via the Intermarket Option Linkage (``Linkage'')
under the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket
Option Linkage (the ``Plan'').\5\ The Exchange proposes to extend the
pilot through July 31, 2008. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.phlx.com.

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

    \3\ A P/A Order is an order for the principal account of a
specialist reflecting the terms of a related unexecuted Public
Customer order for which the specialist is acting as agent. See
Exchange Rule 1083(k)(i).
    \4\ A P Order is an order for the principal account of an
Eligible Market Maker and is not a P/A Order. See Exchange Rule
1083(k)(ii).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 44482 (June 27,
2001), 66 FR 35470 (July 5, 2001) (amendment to Plan to conform the
Plan to the requirements of Securities Exchange Act Rule 11Ac1-7);
43573 (November 16, 2000), 65 FR 70851 (November 28, 2000) (order
approving an amendment to the Plan to add Phlx as a Participant);
and 43086 (July 28, 2000), 65 FR 48023 (August 4, 2000) (order
approving the Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 III below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the current
pilot program for one year, through July 31, 2008.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange filed a separate proposed rule change to
extend, for a one-year period through July 31, 2008, the Exchange's
current pilot program relating to an option transaction charge
credit of $0.21 per contract for Exchange options specialist units
that incur Phlx option transaction charges when a customer order is
delivered to the limit order book via the Exchange's Options Floor
Broker Management System and is then sent to an away market and
executed via Linkage under the Plan. This separate proposal will be
in effect for the same time period as fees for Linkage P Orders and
P/A Orders. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56101 (July 19,
2007), 72 FR 40920 (July 25, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently charges $0.25 per option contract for P
Orders sent to the Exchange via Linkage under the Plan. The Exchange
currently charges $0.15 per option contract for P/A Orders.
    By extending the current pilot program, the Exchange should remain
competitive with other exchanges that charge fees for P Orders and P/A
Orders.\7\ Consistent with current practice, the Exchange will charge
the clearing member organization of the sender of P Orders and P/A
Orders. Also, consistent with current practice, the Exchange will not
charge for the execution of Satisfaction Orders sent through Linkage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54204 (July 25,
2006), 71 FR 43548 (August 1, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-38); 54225 (July
27, 2006), 71 FR 44056 (August 3, 2006) (SR-BSE-2006-26); 54272
(August 3, 2006), 71 FR 45865 (August 10, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-59);
54230 (July 27, 2006), 71 FR 44757 (August 7, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-
2006-41).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among Exchange members.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ The Exchange clarified that Section 6(b)(4) of the Act
requires equitable allocation of reasonable fees among Exchange
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. See
Telephone conversation between Richard Rudolph, Vice President and
Counsel, Phlx to Ronesha A. Butler, Special Counsel, Division of
Market Regulation, Commission, dated July 27, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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. 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-Phlx-2007-52 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-Phlx-2007-52. 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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-Phlx-2007-52 and should be
submitted on or before August 24, 2007.

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

    After careful consideration, 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,\11\ and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of
the Act \12\ and the rules and regulations thereunder. The

Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ which requires that the rules of the
Exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities. The Commission believes that the extension of the Linkage
fee pilot until July 31, 2008 will give the Exchange and the Commission
further opportunity to evaluate whether such fees are appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds good cause for approving the proposed
rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the
notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission
believes that granting accelerated approval of the proposed rule change
will preserve the Exchange's existing pilot program for Linkage fees
without interruption as the Exchange and the Commission continue
considering the appropriateness of Linkage fees. Therefore, the
Commission finds good cause, consistent with section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\14\ to approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2007-52), be and it
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary. 6
 [FR Doc. E7-15094 Filed 8-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9210-9211]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2014-0022]

Technical Mapping Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee management; notice of federal advisory committee
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical
Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet via conference call on March
10 and 11, 2016. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The TMAC will meet via conference call on Thursday, March 10,
2016, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), and on
Friday, March 11, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST. Please note that
the meeting will

close early if the TMAC has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: For information on how to access to the conference call,
information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to
request special assistance for the meeting, contact the person listed
in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below as soon as possible. Members
of the public who wish to dial in for the meeting must register in
advance by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(attention
Kathleen Boyer) by 11 a.m. EST on Tuesday, March 8, 2016.
    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are
invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by
the TMAC, as listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. The
Agenda and other associated material will be available for review at
www.fema.gov/TMAC by Friday, March 4, 2016. Written comments to be
considered by the committee at the time of the meeting must be received
by Tuesday, March 6, 2016, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022, and
submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: Address the email TO<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
CC<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the docket number in the subject
line of the message. Include name and contact detail in the body of the
email.
     Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief
Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Docket: For docket access to read background documents or comments
received by the TMAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for
the Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.
    A public comment period will be held on March 10, 2016, from 11-
11:20 a.m. and March 11, 2016, from 11-11:20 a.m. EST. Speakers are
requested to limit their comments to no more than two minutes. Each
public comment period will not exceed 20 minutes. Please note that the
public comment periods may end before the time indicated, following the
last call for comments. Contact the individual listed below to register
as a speaker by close of business on Tuesday, March 8, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Boyer, Designated Federal
Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
22202, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The TMAC Web site is: http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
    As required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of
2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1)
How to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general
quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood
insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and
milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas
in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a)
flood insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data
currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing
basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4)
procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping
partners; and (5)(a) methods for improving interagency and
intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk
determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate
budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC
is required to submit an Annual Report to the FEMA Administrator that
contains: (1) A description of the activities of the Council; (2) an
evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps
and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps;
and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA
Administrator.
    Further, in accordance with the Homeowner Flood Insurance
Affordability Act of 2014, the TMAC must develop a review report
related to flood mapping in support of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP).
    Agenda: On March 10, 2016, the TMAC will continue to review and
discuss the FEMA Flood Mapping Program description as they develop
content for the 2016 Technical Review Report that will evaluate the
program description. On March 11, 2016, the TMAC will receive updates,
presentations, and discuss potential topics and recommendations to be
included in the required 2016 TMAC annual report. A brief public
comment period will take place at the beginning of the meeting each
day. A more detailed agenda will be posted by March 4, 2016, at http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    Dated: February 17, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-03882 Filed 2-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4735-4736]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0009]

Standard on Fire Brigades; Extension of the Office of Management
and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
specified in its Standard on Fire Brigades (29 CFR 1910.156).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
March 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2011-0009,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information Collection request (ICR) (OSHA-2011-
0009). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.''
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4) contain the
paperwork requirements of the Standard.
    Under paragraph (b)(1) of the Standard, employers must develop and
maintain an organizational statement that establishes: the existence of
a fire brigade; the basic organizational structure of the brigade; the
type, amount, and frequency of training provided to brigade members;
the expected number of members in the brigade; and the functions that
the brigade is to perform. This paragraph also specifies that the
organizational statement must be available for review by workers, their
designated representatives, and OSHA compliance officers. The
organizational statement delineates the functions performed by the
brigade members and, therefore, determines the level of training and
type of personal protective equipment (PPE) necessary for these members
to perform their assigned functions safely. Making the statement
available to workers, their designated representatives, and OSHA
compliance officers ensures that the elements of the statement are
consistent with the functions performed by the brigade members and the
occupational hazards they experience, and that employers are providing
training and PPE appropriate to these functions and hazards.
    To permit a worker with known heart disease, epilepsy, or emphysema
to participate in fire brigade emergency activities, paragraph (b)(2)
of the Standard requires employers to obtain a physician's certificate
of the worker's fitness to do so. This provision provides employers
with a direct and efficient means of ascertaining whether or not they
can safely expose workers with these medical conditions to the hazards
of firefighting operations.
    Paragraph (c)(1) of the Standard requires employers to provide
training and education for fire brigade members commensurate with the
duties and functions they perform, with brigade leaders and training
instructors receiving more comprehensive training and education than
employers provide to the general membership. Under paragraph (c)(2) of
the Standard, employers must conduct training and education frequently
enough, but at least annually, to assure that brigade members are able
to perform their assigned duties and functions satisfactorily and
safely; employers must provide brigade members who perform interior
structural firefighting with educational and training sessions at least
quarterly. In addition, paragraph (c)(4) specifies that employers must:
Inform brigade members about special hazards such as storage and use of
flammable liquids and gases, toxic chemicals, radioactive sources, and
water-reactive substances that may be present during fires and other

emergencies; advise brigade members of changes in the special hazards;
and develop written procedures that describe the actions brigade
members must take when special hazards are present, and make these
procedures available in the education and training program and for
review by the brigade members.
    Providing appropriate training to brigade members at the specified
frequencies, informing them about special hazards, developing written
procedures on how to respond to special hazards, and making these
procedures available for training purposes and review by the members
enables them to use operational procedures and equipment in a safe
manner to avoid or control dangerous exposures to fire-related hazards.
Therefore, the training and information requirements specified by
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4) of the Standard prevent serious
injuries and death among members of fire brigades.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Standard on Fire Brigades (29
CFR 1910.156). The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 1,244
burden hours from 5,048 hours to 6,292 hours. The increase is a result
of updated data estimating that the total number of establishments
requiring new or revised organizational statements has increased from
2,337 to 2,797, and that the number of fire brigade members has
increased from 467,330 to 582,500.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Standard on Fire Brigades (29 CFR 1910.156).
    OMB Number: 1218-0075.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 8,738.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time Per Response: Varies from 5 minutes (.05 hour) to
obtain a physician's certificate to 2 hours to develop or revise an
organizational plan.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 6,292.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0009). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled
``ADDRESSES''). The additional materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the
Agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 4-2010 (75 FR
55355).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 21, 2011.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-1665 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P